The loss of the genitive in Greek

Transcript

1 The loss of the genitive in Greek A diachronic and dialectological analysis Dionysios Mertyris This dissertation is submitted in total fulfillment for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Linguistics Program La Trobe University, Melbourne July 2014

2

3 i

4 ABSTRACT This thesis examines the morphological retreat of the genitive case in Greek from a diachronic and dialectological perspective. In order to understand this change, I will lay out the greater picture of the Greek case system and the morphological features of the genitive (cf. stress patterns), while special attention will be paid to the functional restriction of the genitive, despite its merger with the dative in Southern Greek during the medieval period. The main analysis of the thesis will deal with various phenomena in the Modern Greekspeaking world, as it used to be at the beginning of the 20 th c.. As can be seen in the table below, there are a few phenomena of genitive loss in dialectal and Common Modern Greek: i) accusative-genitive plural syncretism (in the personal pronouns of almost all dialects and the nominal inflection of a few); ii) paradigmatic defectivity: loss of the genitive plural (and occasionally the genitive singular) in specific paradigms of most dialects and Common Modern Greek; iii) advanced loss of the genitive in Northern Greek: the possessive use of από from has resulted in the complete loss of the genitive plural in most Northern Greek varieties; and iv) various phenomena of genitive loss, cf. the use of undeclined genitive forms, in dialects spoken in the periphery of the Greek-speaking world, possibly due to language contact. (almost) all dialects CMG Cypriot Northern varieties Italiot nomιnative plural accusative plural genitive plural εμείς (first person) εμάς εμάς εσείς (second person) εσάς εσάς οι άνθρωποι the people τους ανθρώπους των ανθρώπων οι κοπέλες the girls τις κοπέλες - οι ανθρώποι τους ανθρώπους τους ανθρώπους οι κοπέλλες τες κοπέλλες των κοπέλλων οι αθρώπ τ ς αθρώπ ς - οι κουπέλις τ ς κουπέλις - i anˈtropi tus anˈtropu ton anˈtropon/ ton anˈtropi i koˈppelle te(s) koˈppelle ton koˈppellon/ ton koˈppelle ii

5 As the genitive has not been entirely lost in any variety of Greek, this study aims to contribute to our knowledge of the crosslinguistically widespread phenomenon of case decline. More specifically, the role of markedness and the notion of case hierarchy will be employed to determine the nature and the origins of these changes. iii

6 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma. No other person's work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. Melbourne, July 2014 iv

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract. ii Statement of Authorship... iv Table of Contents.. v Acknowledgements.. x List of figures, maps and tables xi Conventions and abbreviations... xv 1. Introduction Theoretical basis Methodology The case system of Greek Origins of the ancient case system Reformation of the case system in post-classical Greek Changes towards a more grammatical case system The loss of the dative in Early Medieval Greek Structural coding of the Greek cases Neutralization of nominative and accusative forms The morphology of the genitive The morphemes of the genitive The stress patterns of the genitive Stress patterns of o-masculines and ο-neuters Stress placement in the genitive plural of α-/η-feminines The position of stress in the genitive plural of α-/η-masculines Indistinguishable genitives The functional diachrony of the genitive Introduction Possession.. 46 v

8 3.1.1 Anchoring relations Non-anchoring relations Ablative functions Partitive functions True partitives Pseudo-partitive constructions Neutralization of partial and total objects Adverbial use of the partitive genitive Complement of prepositions and adverbials Domination of the prepositional accusative The development of compound prepositions Functional expansion in Medieval Greek Dative alternation : competition of genitive indirect objects with σε Genitive direct objects of dative origin in MedG and dialectal MG Adverbial functions in medieval and modern varieties Exceptional maintenance of ancient functions Conclusions The genitive in the case hierarchy of Greek Conceptual complexity Structural complexity Iconicity and genitive case marking The genitives of non-personal pronouns Extension of the suffixes -ιου/ -ιων in Μodern Greek varieties Distributional potential and frequency Implications for the inflectional potential of the genitive Syncretism with the accusative Introduction Syncretism in the personal pronouns The syncretism in the plural of the first and the second person The loss of the strong genitive singular of the first and the second person The loss of the weak genitive plural of the third person vi

9 5.2 Accusative-genitive syncretism in the nominal inflection: dialectal range Cyprus Voúrbiani Samos, Sporades and Northern Euboea Epirot and Thessalian Sarakatsans Kýzikos Corsican Maniot Summary Previous analyses on the development in Cypriot Agglutinative construction Avoidance of homophony Language contact with Old French Overlap with the dative in Early Medieval Greek Proposed analysis of the syncretism in the nominal inflection The role of the syncretic third person accusative plural clitic τους The extension of the pronominal syncretism to masculine nouns The extension of the syncretic pattern to feminine nouns Discussion Accusative-like genitives Conclusions Paradigmatic defectivity of the genitive in Dialectal and Common Modern Greek Introduction Defective ι-neuters: genitive singular and plural gaps Diachronic data Dialectal data Previous analyses The origins of the gaps The starting point of the defectivity: the role of synizesis Defective feminines: genitive plural gaps Productive and defective feminine nouns in Common Modern Greek Dialectal variation. 183 vii

10 6.2.3 Problematic stress position Conflicting stress patterns in the diachrony of parisyllabic feminines Proposed analysis Other instances of defectivity Parisyllabic α-/η-masculines Defective third declension neuters in dialectal Modern Greek Other Conclusions Implications Complete loss of the genitive plural in Northern Greek Introduction Dialectal range of the phenomenon Central Greece Epirus Thessaly Macedonia Northern Aegean Thrace, Eastern Rumelia and Bithynia South-western Asia Minor Summary The continuum of genitive loss Maintenance and loss of the genitive singular Maintenance and loss of the genitive plural Competing strategies The grammaticalization of από as a possessive marker Other possessive strategies The origin of the loss Northern vocalism Indirect object marking Language Contact Possessive use of de in Aromanian. 257 viii

11 Possessive use of ot in western Makedonski Conclusions The periphery of the Greek-speaking world: contact-induced deflexion Introduction Southern Italy Eastern Asia Minor Cappadocian varieties Phárasa Silli Pontic varieties with genitive loss Discussion Mariupol Conclusions Conclusions The markedness of the genitive and its evolution in the diachrony and diatopy of Greek Implications for theory and typology of case loss Primary Sources References ix

12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would have not been the same without the contribution and the kind support of a few people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. My supervisor David Bradley has always been approachable, friendly and has shown a great deal of understanding for the various obstacles I had to encounter along my way. Apart from his valuable comments, I would like to sincerely thank him for supporting me not just as a PhD candidate, but also as a person. At this point, I need to dedicate a paragraph to the titanian Nick Nicholas, a good friend, an excellent unofficial supervisor of this thesis and hopefully in the future a co-author. Nick has helped me wholeheartedly, giving crucial pieces of advice and most importantly providing me with the amazing dialectal material he has in his (in)famous Dead Tree Storehouse. I would also like to thank his future wife, Tamar, for always being pleasant when Nick and I ramble on about the diatopy of Greek. I also need to thank Angela Ralli for inviting me to present an overview of my thesis at the University of Patras and especially Cynthia Allen and Avery Andrews for kindly letting me into their home during my stay in Canberra, where I presented one of the chapters of this thesis at the Australian National University. Also, I would like to thank Maxim Kisilier from the University of Saint Petersburg who has been very helpful with material from the dialect of Mariupol, the members of the Greek Community of Melbourne for inviting me to give a talk and the staff of the Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects (Centre for the Compilation of the Historical Dictionary of Modern Greek [Ιστορικό Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής]) of the Academy of Athens. Furthermore, my secondary supervisor Marija Tabain, for being a positive presence in the Linguistics Program. On a more personal level, I would like to thank my mother Marianna, my father Martyris and my brother Yannis for being there for me throughout this academic journey. Finally, I would like to mention my good friends, Srdjan Djokanović, Yorgos Tsombanópoulos, Yoryis Kritsotakis, Emanuela Mileva, Jasmina Terzioska, Tassy Kontogiannis, Andreas Bouras and Yolanda Mason. x

13 LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES Figure 7.1: The semantic extensions of AG ἀπό Figure 7.2: The cognitive transition from body-part relations to ablative marking. 242 Figure 9.1: The effect of markedness criteria on the loss of the Greek genitive Map 1.1: The Greek-speaking world at the beginning of the 20 th c Map 2.1: The limits of accusative and genitive indirect objects in the MG-speaking world.. 22 Map 5.1: The range of nominal case syncretism in the Greek-speaking world Map 5.2: Cyprus and the Greek-speaking area of Corsica (before the 20 th c.) 128 Map 7.1: The borders of northern vocalism and indirect object marking 213 Map 7.2: The regions of the Northern Greek dialect group before Map 7.3: The areas of Central Greece Map 7.4: The areas of Epirus 218 Map 7.5: The areas of Thessaly Map 7.6: The areas of the Greek part of Macedonia Map 7.7: The Northern Greek dialects in the Aegean Map 7.8: The areas of Thrace and Eastern Rumelia. 226 Map 7.9: Kýzikos and Bithynia 228 Map 7.10: The varieties of the southern Aegean coast of Asia Minor. 230 Map 7.11: Romance and Slavic in Northern Greece (after 1920) Map 7.12: Areas of Greek and Latin influence in the Balkans Map 8.1: Italiot communities in Calabria and Salento (Apulia) Map 8.2: The main varieties of Pontus and Central Asia Minor until the early 20 th c. 266 Map 8.3: Crimeo-Azov Greek Map 9.1: The loss of the genitive in the Modern Greek-speaking world (early 20 th c.) xi

14 Table 2.1: The metaphorical mapping of the ancient genitive (Nikiforidou 1991: 198). 19 Table 2.2: The semanto-syntactic network of the ancient dative (based on Luraghi 2003). 19 Table 2.3: The functional network of the ancient accusative (based on Luraghi 2003).. 20 Table 2.4: The declensions of Classical Greek. 25 Table 2.5: The inflectional classes of Common Modern Greek Table 2.6: Accentual patterns in the genitive of Classical Greek. 31 Table 2.7: Stress patterns of the genitive in Common Modern Greek. 33 Table 2.8: The development of the paradigm of ι-neuters 34 Table 2.9: The maintenance of stress in o-masculine/ o-neuter genitives Table 3.1: The contrast between the functions of the ancient and the modern genitive.. 45 Table 3.2: The origin of juxtapositional pseudo-partitive constructions.. 60 Table 3.3: The syntax of the Ancient Greek prepositions 67 Table 3.4: The syntax of the Ancient Greek improper prepositions Table 3.5: The interplay between the cases and the prepositions of Ancient Greek 68 Table 3.6: The evolution of compound prepositions in MG Table 3.7: Dative alternation in South-Western and South-Eastern Greek. 80 Table 3.8: Competing strategies of the genitive Table 3.9: The survival of ancient (and medieval) functions in the diatopy of MG 90 Table 3.10: The functional range of the Greek genitive in its diachrony. 91 Table 4.1: The genitives of non-personal pronouns in Modern Greek. 96 Table 4.2: The overextension of -ί(ου) and -ίων in the majority of the paradigms in Pontic.. 98 Table 4.3: The distributional potential of the Greek genitive Table 4.4: The frequency of the Greek cases diachronically and dialectally Table 5.1: The personal pronominal inflection of Modern Greek and its syncretic forms Table 5.2: The personal pronominal inflection and its distinct genitives in AG Table 5.3: The phonology of the personal pronouns in Ancient Greek Table 5.4: The stages of the syncretism in the first and second plural. 115 Table 5.5: Alternative developments in peripheral varieties of Early Medieval Greek Table 5.6: The elimination of the functions of the strong genitive singulars in MedG 120 Table 5.7: The strong genitive singulars εμού/ εσού in Icaria and the Dodecanese.122 Table 5.8: The loss of the genitive plural in the third person weak forms xii

15 Table 5.9: Syncretism of the neuter accusative plural in varieties of Macedonia 126 Table 5.10: The syncretism in the plural of the nominal inflection of Cypriot 129 Table 5.11: The plural of the nominal inflection in the dialect of Voúrbiani Table 5.12: The nominal inflection in Samos Table 5.13: The plural in the nominal inflection of the variety of Péramos in Kýzikos Table 5.14: Masculine genitive plurals and syncretic accusatives in Medieval Cypriot texts. 144 Table 5.15: The extension of the syncretism to feminine nouns Table 5.16: The restriction of the syncretism to the masculine gender in Cypriot Table 5.17: Three-case vs. two-case distinction in the Cypriot nominal inflection. 152 Table 5.18: The plural in the nominal inflection of Corfiot varieties Table 5.19: The types of nominal case syncretism in modern dialects 159 Table 5.20: The presence of accusative-genitive syncretism in the Greek-speaking world Table 6.1: Defective derivatives in -ι Table 6.2: The origin of defective derivational suffixes in -ι Table 6.3: Productive and defective ι-derivatives 165 Table 6.4: Diminutive genitives of all genders in Modern Greek 172 Table 6.5: The proposed process of the development Table 6.6: Archaic stress patterns of α-feminines in Common Modern Greek 180 Table 6.7: The course of the defectivity Table 6.8: Archaic stress patterns of α-/η-masculines in Common Modern Greek. 199 Table 6.9: The maintenance of the genitive in (usually) defective paradigms diatopically. 207 Table 6.10: Factors that are related to genitive gaps in dialectal and CMG. 208 Table 7.1: The genitive plural in Eurytania. 216 Table 7.2: The status of the genitive in Central Greece and Epirus. 231 Table 7.3: The status of the genitive in the Northern dialects of the Aegean Table 7.4: The status of the genitive in Macedonia and Thessaly 232 Table 7.5: The status of the genitive in Thrace and Eastern Rumelia Table 7.6: The status of the genitive in Western Asia Minor (Vourlá, Livisi and Bithynia) Table 7.7: The continuum of the loss of the genitive singular in the northern dialects Table 7.8: The stages of the loss of the genitive plural 239 Table 7.9: The process of the possessive grammaticalization of από xiii

16 Table 7.10: The alternation between possessive de and the possessive dative in Romanian Table 8.1: Singular nominal morphology in Italiot Table 8.2: The nominal inflection of Cappadocian according to extant studies Table 9.1: The diachronic order of inflectional loss of the genitive in Greek Table 9.2: The markedness of the genitive in the diatopy of Modern Greek xiv

17 CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS In this study, I use the Greek alphabet in most instances in order to focus on the morphological rather than the phonological changes in the language, which are covered by the consistency of the Greek orthography. Nevertheless, I provide phonetic or phonemic transcriptions for the majority of the examples to assist readers with limited knowledge of Greek and also depict the broader changes in the system of a variety, where it is needed. Ancient and medieval data will be given in the traditional polytonic orthography, while I will employ the monotonic orthography for the modern dialects, even when the polytonic diacritics were used in studies and descriptions before the establishment of the monotonic orthography in 1982 for Standard CMG. The phonological representation of the Greek alphabet (based on Horrocks 2010) Letters 1 Α, α ClG /a/, /a:/ 2 nd c. BC /a/ Β, β ClG /b/ EHellG /β/ LHellG /v/ Γ, γ ClG /g/ HellG /ɣ/ = [ɣ, ʝ 2 ] Δ, δ ClG /d/ HellG /ð/ Ε, ε /e/ Ζ, ζ ClG /zd/ EHellG /zz/ EHellG /z/ Η, η ClG /ε:/ EHellG 3 /e:/ 2 nd c. BC /ḙ/ LHellG /i/ Θ, θ ClG /t h / EHellG /tθ/ LHellG /θ/ Ι, ι ClG /i/, /i:/ 2 nd c. BC /i/ = [i, ʝ 4 ] Κ, κ ClG /k/ [k, c] Λ, λ /l/ 1 Lowercase letters were introduced after the 8 th c. AD. It should be noted that before 403 BC, the Attic alphabet only used O (ὄμικρον) for /o/, /o:/ (later /u:/ [ου]) and /ɔ:/ and E for /e/, /e:/ and /ε:/. Ω and OY were introduced to disambiguate the former sounds and H (formerly a letter for /h/) and EI were used for the latter. 2 The palatal allophones of velars occur before the front vowels /e/ and /i/. They were most likely developed after LHellG. 3 After ει had shifted to /i:/. 4 Before vowels. xv

18 Μ, μ /m/ Ν, ν /n/ Ξ, ξ /ks/ Ο, ο /o/ Π, π /p/ Ρ, ρ ClG [r] HellG [ɾ] Σ, σ, ς /s/ Τ, τ /t/ Υ, υ ArchG /u/, /u:/ ClG /y/, /y:/ 2 nd c. BC /y/ 10 th c. /i/ Φ, φ ClG /p h / EHellG /pf/ LHellG /f/ Χ, χ ClG /k h / EHellG /kx/ LHellG /x/ = [x, ç] Ψ, ψ /ps/ Ω, ω ClG /ɔ:/ EHellG /o:/ 2 nd c. BC /o/ Digraphs ᾳ ClG /a:i/ EHellG /a:/ 2 nd c. BC /a/ αι ClG /ai/ EHellG /æ:/ EHellG /ε:/ 5 EHellG /e:/ 2 nd c. BC /e/ αυ ClG /au/ EHellG /aw/ /aɸ w, aβ w / /af, av/ 6 (LHellG) γγ ClG [ŋg] MedG /g/ = [ (ŋ) g/ (ŋ) ɉ] γκ ClG [ŋk] LHellG 7 [ŋg] MedG /g/ = [ (ŋ) g/ (ŋ) ɉ] ει ArchG /ei/ 6 th c. BC /e:/ 4 th c. BC /i:/ /i/ ευ ClG /eu/ EHellG /ew/ /eɸ w, eβ w / LHellG /ef, ev/ ῃ ClG /ε:i/ EHellG /ε:/ EHellG /e:/ EHellG /ḙ/ LHellG /i/ ηυ ClG /ε:u/ /i:u/ /iw/ /iɸ w /, /iβ w / LHellG /if, iv/ μπ ClG /mp/ LHellG /mb/ MedG /b/ = [ m b/ b] ντ ClG /nt/ LHellG /nd/ MedG /d/ = [ n d/ d] οι ClG /oi/ EHellG /œ/ EHellG /ø/ LHellG /y/ 10 th c. /i/ ου ArchG /ou/ 6 th c. BC /o:/ late 5 th -4 th c. BC /u:/ 2 nd c. BC /u/ υι ArchG /ui/ ClG /yi/ EHellG /y:/ /y/ 10 th c. /i/ ῳ ClG /ɔ:i/ EHellG /ɔ:/ EHellG /o:/ /o/ 5 After η had shifted to /e:/. 6 The voicing occurs when a voiced consonant or vowel follows. 7 After the fricativization of the ClG voiced stops. xvi

19 ` Diacritics 8 ClG /h/ deletion (LHellG) /null/ ClG rise of pitch (fall on the following syllable) 2 nd -1 st c. BC stress ClG fall of pitch 2 nd -1 st c. BC stress ClG rise-fall of pitch 2 nd -1 st c. BC stress For modern varieties that have developed sounds that are not found in the majority of the Greekspeaking world and cannot be represented by the letters of the Greek alphabet, I will use IPA symbols, e.g. σκαμνάτʃι [skamˈnatʃi]. As regards the Romanization of MG proper names and toponyms I will use the acute accent (ˊ) when a noun is stressed on the antepenult and the ultimate syllable, which means that a name without an acute accent is expected to be stressed on the penultimate syllable, e.g. Καρδίτσα/ Karditsa [karˈðitsa] vs. Λάρισα/ Lárisa [ˈlarisa] and Καστοριά/ Kastoriá [kastorˈʝa]. For some Greek toponyms, I will employ a Latinized or an AG version, when it is more commonly used than the Modern Greek one, cf. Lesbos (AG [lézbos]) vs. Lesvos (MG [ˈlezvos]). For the official and majority language of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (and the varieties spoken outside its borders), I will use the autonymic term Makedonski in order to avoid terminological confusion with the Macedonian varieties of Northern Greek. This country will also be referred to with its constitutional name, Republika Makedonija. 1/ 2/ 3 first/ second/ third person ACC accusative AG Ancient Greek (8 th c. BC until the end of the HellG period) ArchG Archaic Greek (8 th -6 th c. BC) ClG Classical Greek (5 th -4 th c. BC) COM complementizer Cyp Cypriot DAT dative 8 The diacritics were introduced during the 3 rd c. BC, but they were established in the later periods of Greek, so that the original pronunciation of ClG could be shown in the written texts. xvii

20 DEF definite article GEN genitive FUT future HellG Hellenistic Greek (E=early 3 rd -1 st BC/ L=late 1 st -4 th c. AD) IMP imperative ind indefinite IO indirect object m/ f/ n masculine/ feminine/ neuter MG Modern Greek (C=common 9 19 th -20 th / E=early 16 th -18 th c.) MedG Medieval Greek (E=early 5 th -10 th c./ L=late 11 th -15 th c.) MID middle voice MOD modal N/A nominative/accusative NEG negation NOM nominative PASS passive PCP participle pl plural PFV perfective PN proper name PRF perfect prt particle PST past REL relativizer SBJ subjunctive sg singular str strong wk/ cl weak/ clitic (for pronominal forms) 9 I will use the term Common Modern Greek instead of Standard Modern Greek due to the fact that the development of a vernacular Koiné during the 19 th c. (and the beginning of the 20 th c.) had begun long before the first attempts of its standardization and its official use by the Greek Republic in xviii

21 1. INTRODUCTION This dissertation focuses on the diachrony of the genitive case of the Greek language and, more precisely, will examine a series of developments that are related to its loss. As is well known, Greek has undergone a large number of changes throughout its 3400 years of recorded history. The most definitive of these changes took place during the transition from the ancient to the modern language which includes a few historical periods such as the late Hellenistic Koiné (LHellG) and the first centuries of the Eastern Roman empire (early Medieval Greek). This transitional period had a great degree of impact on the case system of the language, as the four cases 10 of Ancient Greek (nominative, accusative, genitive and dative) were reduced to three due to the loss of the dative during the early Medieval Greek period (EMedG, 5 th -10 th c. AD). Apart from the fact that the functions of the lost dative were inherited by the genitive in southern dialects and the accusative in (most) dialects of Asia Minor and Northern Greece 11, the reformation of the ancient case system involved the gradual loss of the semantic uses of the oblique cases due to the rise of prepositions and other analytic strategies, as the genitive and the accusative became limited to only marking grammatical relations (Luraghi 2004: 376). Thus, even though the Ancient Greek (AG) genitive could encode ablative and partitive relations 12, its MG successor is almost exclusively confined to adnominal possession, apart from marking the indirect object in the southern dialects. These crucial changes significantly altered the status of the genitive in the case system of late Medieval (LMedG) and Modern Greek (MG). More specifically, various phenomena of inflectional loss can be found in every variety of Modern Greek: 10 Masculine nouns (and ω- and ις-feminine nouns in AG) have distinct vocative singular forms, e.g. nom.sg φίλ-ος friend / voc.sg φίλ-ε, but the Greek vocative will not be taken into consideration here, as the vocative do not constitute a true case crosslinguistically (cf. Blake 1994: 9). 11 Cf. AG λέγω σοι [DAT] I say to you Northern MG σε [ACC] λέω/ Southern MG σου [GEN] λέω. 12 The ablative and the partitive meaning of the AG genitive were inherited from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ablative and the PIE genitive respectively, e.g.: ἀπέχει τῆς πόλεως [GEN] it lies far from the city (ablative meaning) and πολλοὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν [GEN] many of the generals (partitive meaning).

22 INTRODUCTION (1.1a) i. Syncretism with the accusative: the genitive plural of personal pronouns has been replaced by the accusative in almost every MG dialect: AG τὰ παιδία ἡμῶν [GEN] MG τα παιδιά μας [ACC] our children ii. In some dialects, the accusative replaces the genitive plural in the nominal inflection as well, cf. Cypriot: τα σπίτια των ανθρώπων [GEN] τα σπίτια τους ανθρώπους [ACC] the houses of the people (1.1b) Paradigmatic gaps: in almost every MG variety there is a number of nouns that cannot form the genitive, either in the plural or at all: παιδάκι little child gen.sg *παιδακιού/ gen.pl *παιδακιών κοπέλα young woman gen.pl *κοπελών (1.1c) Complete loss of the genitive plural in Northern MG: the use of the preposition από from, which governs the accusative, as a possessive marker has resulted in the loss of the genitive plural with all nouns in the majority of the varieties of the northern dialectal group: *τα σπίτια τουν ανθρώπουν τα σπίτια απ [from] τ ς ανθρώπ ς [ACC] the houses of the people (1.1d) Undeclined possessors: in dialects that are exposed to extreme degree of contact with other languages, nominal possessors can be left without genitive marking: Salento, Southern Italy: τως [GEN] αττρεφίω [GEN] τως [GEN] αττρέφια [NOM] of the siblings Phárasa, Central Asia Minor: του [GEN] χωρίου [GEN] του [GEN] χωρίον [NOM] of the village The Greek genitive has been examined by a few researchers from various perspectives. Early studies frequently refer to the retreat of the case in postclassical times as in Jannaris (1897), Thumb (1912: 31-33) and Hatzidakis (1928), whose account is probably the broadest, as his article is a brief outline of the functional and morphological diachrony of the case and mainly 2

23 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK concentrates on the defectivity of neuter diminutives ending in -άκι. in. In recent works, more attention is paid to the synchronic status of the case in Common Modern Greek (CMG) from syntactic (Tsamadoú 1984) and sociolinguistic (cf. the effect of Katharévousa; Kavoukópoulos 1990) points of view, while Nikiforidou (1991) has provided a cognitive analysis of the semantics of the genitive in Greek and other languages. Compared to other studies of case loss, this thesis bears a significant difference that lies in the degree of the decline of the genitive in Greek. To be more precise, most relevant studies focus on cases that have been entirely lost or whose morphosyntactic character has been crucially altered, cf. the monumental work of Humbert (1930) on the Greek dative which was rendered obsolete in all varieties after the first centuries of the MedG period or the shift of the Germanic genitive from a suffix to a phrase-final clitic, cf. English (Allen 2008) or Scandinavian Germanic (Norde 1997). The fact that the genitive as an inflectional category is always maintained in Greek to a certain degree offers a great opportunity to comprehend the nature of case decline through investigating its crucial intermediate stages. More precisely, as the genitive is only partially lost, the crucial advantage of this study is that multiple paths of change can be traced from a common source. These paths may exhibit independently evolved similarities or unexpected divergences within dialect groups, while variety-specific developments that appear as exceptions against the general patterns in the system of a particular dialect group can indicate where the conflicting tendencies towards maintenance or loss occur. Consequently, this study aims to provide a unified account for the aforementioned phenomena of the retreat of the genitive, given the fact that previous researchers have mostly focused on isolated aspects of the matter. The central goal of this thesis is to determine the common source that lies behind these developments of deflexion, since they have occurred consistently over one thousand years after the EMedG period and in the majority of the Greek-speaking world. The different degrees of the loss of the genitive in the varieties of Medieval and Modern Greek are also of great importance, as the multiple trajectories of case loss are highly interesting for the understanding of the nature of language change. Apart from paying detailed attention to the language-internal implications of this historical study, I will approach the matter of case loss from a wider perspective due to the fact that Greek, as a human language, is subject to the same universal constraints (cf. Allen 2008: 4) and exhibits similar phenomena of loss of inflectional contrast to those found in the vast majority of European languages. Nevertheless, limitations of 3

24 INTRODUCTION space do not allow a thorough crosslinguistic analysis of the loss of the genitive in languages of Europe and beyond. In addition, due to the data-driven and language-specific character of this thesis, I will not attempt to cover the broader issue of case loss from a theoretical and typological point of view to an exhaustive degree, but I will propose some implications for general study. This thesis is structured in two parts; Chapters 2-4 will set the background to the diachrony of the genitive and Chapters 5-9 will constitute the main analysis of the study. Thus, Chapter 2 will present the broader setting of the case system of Greek, such as the most important changes in the Greek case system (cf. the loss of the dative and the elimination of the morphological distinction of the nominative and the accusative), while special attention will be paid to stress patterns and the morphology of the genitive. Chapter 3 focuses on the most crucial aspects of the functional diachrony of the genitive, which mainly covers, as can be easily understood, the reduction of the various uses of the ancient genitive in Med and MG which had a great impact on the frequency of the case. In Chapter 4 I will examine the dynamic relations between the genitive and the other members of the case system; this examination will be based on the data presented in the previous segments and is a prerequisite step prior to the analysis of the phenomena of genitive loss that will follow in the next chapters. Chapters 5-9 will deal with the specific phenomena of inflectional loss that were discussed earlier. Chapter 5 mainly focuses on the syncretism between the genitive and the accusative in the nominal inflection of a few MG dialects, after setting the background of the phenomenon which begins in the personal pronouns of most MedG varieties 13. Chapter 6 will deal with the loss of the genitive in certain paradigms of the nominal inflection of dialectal MG and CMG and the development of genitive defectivity. Chapter 7 primarily examines the deflexion of the genitive plural, but also handles the restriction of the genitive singular and the corresponding use of από in Northern Greek as a possessive marker. Chapter 8 covers dialects under extreme language contact that are found in the periphery of the Greek-speaking world and phenomena of replacement of the genitive by competing strategies. The examination of these phenomena is summarized and synthesized in Chapter 9; the aim of this chapter is to provide a unified account on the origins of the retreat of the genitive in Greek that will also entail a comparison of the 13 As I have dealt with the syncretic accusative-genitive forms of the personal pronouns in full detail in my MA thesis (Mertyris 2008; cf. also Mertyris 2011), I will summarize my previous analyses on the matter and also expand them where new findings and approaches will be needed. 4

25 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK various phenomena and an evaluation of the mechanisms of language change that relate to case decline. 1.1 Theoretical basis In order to understand the phenomenon of the decline of the genitive in Greek, it is a prerequisite to lay out the theoretical background on which this study is based. First and foremost, the notion of case constitutes a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads (Blake 1994: 1), as is demonstrated in the following example from MG in which the dependent possessor (ανθρώπου) is inflectionally marked with the genitive suffix -ου which marks the relationship to its nominal head (φίλος), while the nominative suffix -ος marks the relationship between the subject (σκύλος) and its head, the copular verb είναι, and also shows the agreement between the subject and its predicate (φίλος): (1.2) Ο σκύλος είναι καλός φίλος του ανθρώπου /o ˈskil-os ˈine kaˈl-os ˈfil-os the:nom.sg.m dog-nom.sg.m be:3sg good-nom.sg.m friend-nom.sg.m tu anˈθrop-u/ the:gen.sg.m human.being-gen.sg.m The dog is man s good friend Case is certainly one of the most studied topics in the science of linguistics and for this reason the term has been used in two different ways depending on which of its aspects is highlighted. Quite clearly, as case conveys a particular meaning or function through a particular form, the two views differ in that the traditional approach mainly associates case with inflectional marking, while in more recent approaches case is viewed in a more abstract sense; even when a noun is not morphologically marked for case, it still bears a relationship to its head, although it might be indicated through other means, cf. adpositions, word order or head-marking. For instance, remnants of the Old English case system can only be found in the first and the masculine and feminine forms of the third person of the modern language (I/ me, he/ him, she/ her, we/ us, they/ 5

26 INTRODUCTION them), while all other nominals take covert case indicated by word order (Subject-Verb-Object) or adpositions (Blake 1994: 59), e.g. John [subject] saw Jane [object]. This latter approach is followed by Allen (2008) in her study on the loss of the genitive in the diachrony of English, where genitive is used as a cover term for possessive phrases regardless of inflectional marking, cf. her use of the terms of-genitive and periphrastic genitive for the roof of the house. In this thesis, I will employ the former approach according to which only genitive forms that bear genitive morphology will be referred to as such. The diachronic character of this study demands such explicit and consistent terminology that will allow greater concentration on the evolution of the genitive as an inflectional category: (1.3a) (1.3b) (1.3c) (1.3d) το σπίτι των [GEN.PL] γειτόνων [GEN.PL] regular use of the genitive in Common Modern Greek του σπιτ απ [from] τ ς [ACC.PL] γειτόν ς [ACC.PL] possessive use of the preposition από which governs the accusative in Northern Greek το σπίτιν τους [ACC.PL] γειτόνους [ACC.PL] accusative-genitive plural syncretism with masculine nouns in Cypriot Greek το σπίτι τως [GEN.PL] γειτόνοι [NOM.PL] undeclined possessors in Italiot Greek the house of the neighbors In examples like (1.3c) and (1.3d), given the fact that the genitive plural is not entirely lost as an inflectional category in these dialects, it is quite clear that τους γειτόνους and γειτόνοι are syntactically genitives, but the emphasis on their morphology highlights their distinction from possessors that maintain their original genitive suffixes as in (1.3a). Another element that is essential to understanding the notion of case is that cases do not only differ in form and meaning, but also in their assignment. For instance, Maling (2009: 73-4) isolates four different types of cases according to the way they are assigned: (1.4a) Grammatical/ syntactic case: core relations like those of subjects and objects are expressed by grammatical cases like the nominative and the accusative respectively. 6

27 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (1.4b) (1.4c) (1.4d) Lexical case: this type of case is assigned according to the lexical quality of its head; for example, verbs of memory like μιμνήσκω remind/ recall take genitive objects in AG, while this does not happen in most modern dialects and CMG in which this type of lexical case has been lost. Semantic/ adverbial case: as opposed to grammatical relations like subjects and objects or roles like agent and patient, some cases can have concrete meaning, like the locative case in Turkish or the instrumental case in Russian. Configurational/ structural case: cases like the adnominal genitive are assigned to a particular syntactic position. This distinction is quite useful in order to comprehend the semanto-syntactic evolution of the Greek genitive. However, as it is beyond the scope of this thesis to examine whether the dichotomy between structural and lexical case is valid (cf. Barðdal 2011), I will treat this fourtype distinction as a rough indication of the qualitative differences of cases from a syntactic point of view. As noted earlier, the changes that the Greek genitive has undergone diachronically and diatopically offer a great chance for the broader understanding of the nature of case loss. The life cycle of individual cases and whole case systems has been one of the most studied topics in historical linguistics, especially when it comes to the end of the cycle where the case systems collapse. According to Barðdal & Kulikov (2009), the most common mechanisms that trigger the decay of case systems are the following (with examples taken from Greek): (1.5a) (1.5b) (1.5c) Phonetic erosion: during MedG: the loss of final /n/ erased the difference between the nominative and the accusative singular of feminine nouns, cf. nom.sg η χώρα/ acc.sg την χώραν nom.sg η χώρα/ acc.sg τη χώρα (α-feminine, land/ country ). Functional mergers: the semantic affinity between possessors and beneficiaries or recipients resulted in the replacement of the dative by the genitive as an indirect object in the dialects of Southern Greek during EMedG. Analogical developments and paradigmatic leveling: the pattern of overlapping nominative and accusative plural forms of ηj-/ηw-masculines and feminines in the ancient third declension, cf. nom.pl αἱ πόλεις/ acc.sg τὰς πόλεις (<ηj-feminine, πόλις 7

28 INTRODUCTION (1.5d) city ) or nom.pl οἱ βασιλεῖς/ acc.pl τοὺς βασιλεῖς (HellG, <ηw-masculine, βασιλεύς king ), was extended to the respective nominative and accusative plurals of EMedG α- /η-stems, e.g. nom.pl οι γείτονες/ acc.pl τους γείτονας τους γείτονες (<α-masculine, γείτονας neighbor ). Synonymous argument structure constructions: some sensory verbs could either take total or partial objects, in the accusative and the genitive respectively, while verbs of sight exclusively governed the accusative in AG. As a result, even though most sensory verbs took partial objects and, thus, governed the partitive genitive in AG, NOM-GEN constructions were eventually replaced by the more frequent NOM-ACC, as the distinction between partial and total objects was eliminated and the partitive genitive was eventually lost during MedG, e.g. κλύει τις [NOM]... στεναγμόν [ACC] ; does anyone listen to the sighing? (Euripides, Alcestis, l. 86, 5 th c. BC) vs. οὐδεὶς [NOM] θεῶν ἐνοπᾶς [GEN] κλύει nobody hears the gods shouting (Euripides, Electra, l. 198, 5 th c. BC) Such mechanisms trigger various phenomena of loss of inflectional marking. Quite characteristically, the term deflexion may either refer to the loss of a whole grammatical category 14 or to the mere loss of inflectional material (Norde 2001: 242). In this study, this term will be used for both meanings, since case loss constitutes a progressive development that occurs in the form of a continuum. A great example of this is reflected in the degree of defectivity of the genitive plural in Northern Greek; as will be shown, even though only a few paradigms (of mostly feminine nouns) had defective genitive plurals initially, at the most advanced stage of the phenomenon the inflectional category of the genitive plural became entirely obsolete. Such phenomena of defectivity or complete loss are reinforced by or extend the use of competing strategies, as mentioned earlier with the use of prepositions and marking of subjects and objects through word order. In other instances, cases are not replaced by other strategies, but by other members of the case system, which essentially entails the phenomenon of case syncretism. Luraghi (1987: 355) and Baerman (2009: ) indicate that mergers of cases may have different starting points and outcome. More clearly, in (1.5a) cases can overlap due to accidental phonological developments and in (1.5c) analogical developments resulted in the 14 Cf. the loss of the dative in MedG or the loss of the genitive in Middle English due to its shift into a phrasal clitic. 8

29 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK replacement of an accusative by a nominative morpheme in a certain number of paradigms, while in (1.5b) the starting point of the syncretism is not phonological or morphological, but the functions of the cases overlap in the first place. After presenting common mechanisms and phenomena of case loss, it is natural to turn to the motivations that lie behind them. Undoubtedly, when the synthetic morphology of case systems is replaced by analytic structures, this results in economy, as speakers parse or employ fewer case forms for nouns and pronouns. Nevertheless, the principle of economy cannot explain by itself such phenomena, otherwise we would expect that all human languages would have extremely poor inflectional morphology. In contrast, it seems that there is a balance between economy and explicit marking in inflectional systems, which is related to iconicity, namely the correspondence between form and meaning, cf. the increase in the number of phonemes in comparative and superlative adjectives, e.g. high - higher - highest (Bybee 2011: 143). Quite obviously, this balance is flexible and open to changes that depend on various factors. Notwithstanding sociocultural causes of language change, such as borrowing of grammatical structures from other languages, morphological impoverishment due to language shift (cf. Thomason 2006), archaicization due to diglossia 15 or standardization and dialectal variation, such factors can be sought in the relations between the puzzle pieces that shape a given grammatical category. These dynamic relations lie at the heart of the notion of markedness, according to which the properties of a category can be divided into unmarked, namely prototypical, default or expected, and marked members, which are more peripheral, unpredictable and complex; for instance, this type of asymmetry can be found in grammatical number, since the plural is considered to be more marked than the singular both conceptually and in form, as can be demonstrated by the zero marking of the singular in English as opposed to plural forms, e.g. dog vs. dog-s (cf. Croft 2003: 88). Due to its centrality in the way grammatical categories are shaped, the notion of markedness has been approached from various perspectives 16, such as the Prague School (Trubetzkoy and Jakobson, cf. Battistella 1996), typological studies (Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990, Givón 1990) and the framework of Natural Morphology (Dressler et al. 1987) among others. 15 Cf. the influence of Katharévousa on CMG or the revival of Hebrew in Israel. 16 Based on Elšik & Matras (2006) 9

30 INTRODUCTION The criteria that determine which properties of a grammatical category are marked or unmarked depend not only on their form and content, but also on their position in the linguistic system and their production in spoken language. Thus, five criteria of markedness can be distinguished (cf. Elšik & Matras 2006): i. Conceptual complexity: also known as cognitive complexity (Givón 1990); this criterion essentially covers the semantic aspect of the members of an opposition. For instance, possessive forms of inanimate nouns can be considered to be more marked than the respective forms of animate (particularly human) referents due to the correlation between animacy and possession. ii. Structural complexity: this morphological criterion is related to the notion of iconicity according to which the increased markedness of a peripheral category should be reflected in its coding, as mentioned earlier in the case of the distinction between singular and plural nouns in English where the singular is marked with a zero morpheme and plural forms of regular nouns are marked with the suffix -s. The structural complexity of marked categories is not always predictable, however, as can be seen in the case of the genitive plural in Russian which takes a zero morpheme in a few paradigms, cf. nom.sg ruk-á/ nom.pl rúk-i, gen.pl ruk-ø hand. iii. Inflectional potential: this criterion entails that the morphological distribution of an unmarked value will be greater than that of a marked one. For example, the dual, being the most marked number in AG, can only distinguish two case forms, a common nominative/ accusative and a genitive/ dative, as opposed to the three and four-case distinctions in the singular and the plural. iv. Distributional potential: as Croft (2003: 95) points out, this syntactic criterion pertains to the number of syntactic contexts in which a grammatical element can occur. As will be shown later, this criterion is crucial for case systems, given the fact that marked categories are employed in less construction types than unmarked ones; for example, the LHellG/ EMedG dative was isolated in a restricted number of syntactic environments, e.g. as an indirect object or with the preposition ἐν in to denote stative location, as opposed to the other members of the case system (cf. Humbert 1930, Horrocks 2010). 10

31 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK v. Frequency: the previous two criteria have a definite impact on the text (discourse) or token frequency of a value, since unmarked grammatical elements have greater inflectional and/ or distributional potential and, consequently, are used more times than marked elements. The role of markedness on the development of language change is extremely interesting, as one would suspect that marked members of an opposition would be more prone to change or loss, while unmarked properties would be proven to be long-lasting and easier to maintain. However, if language change was as predictable as that, we would expect that marked elements would no longer appear in languages due to their steady replacement by unmarked structures. Following Stein (1989: 83-4), it is more accurate to treat the role of markedness on the language change as an effort to oust dysfunctive or dispreferred structures rather than achieve ideal and teleological structures: Markedness defines not what it wants but what it does not want. By providing relief on one level it creates problems at another The incorporation of markedness in historical or diachronic analyses has been attempted by a few researchers; perhaps the most relevant study is that of Elšik & Matras (2006), who examine the correlation between language change and markedness in almost the entire diatopy of Romani in Europe across the majority of grammatical categories. As regards language change and the category of case, the idea that case systems are defined by hierarchical relations between their members has long been established by Jakobson (1958) and Kuryłowicz (1964). These relations are often even more dynamic than originally thought, taking into consideration that markedness hierarchies involve grammatical and semantic subsystems of markedness, such as the use of cases in Polish with and without prepositions (Laskowski 1989). In this thesis, I adopt the view that in the case systems of human languages there is a hierarchy among their members. As the hierarchical relations in a given case system depend on the five criteria of markedness presented above, this study will attempt to determine the case hierarchy of Greek as it has evolved throughout its various diachronic stages since the Classical times and, furthermore, examine the role of markedness on the loss of the genitive in the 11

32 INTRODUCTION diachrony and the diatopy in Greek, as shown in examples (1a-1d). Thus, the questions that need to be answered are the following: i) How does markedness hierarchy account for both the loss and the maintenance of the genitive in the case system of Greek and ii) what do the findings of this study tell us about the correlation of markedness and the evolution of case systems and individual cases? 1.2 Methodology Due to the fundamentally data-driven and mostly language-internal nature of this study, its primary sources come from the diachrony and modern diatopy of the language. Starting with diachronic sources, the electronic databases I have used include the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae 17 (TLG, University of California), which covers most complete and fragmentary works from antiquity, the medieval and the early modern period, the searchable Greek inscriptions in the database of the Packard Humanities Institute 18 (PHI) and the database of Greek documentary papyri 19 that is produced by the Duke Collaboratory for Classics Computing and the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (DDbDP, HGV, APIS and TM). As regards the various stages of the language, I will adopt the following classification: papyri.info. 1. Pre-alphabetic Greek: th c. BC i. Proto-Greek ( BC) ii. Mycenean ( th c. BC) iii. Dark Ages (12 th - 8 th c. BC) 2. Ancient Greek: 8 th c. BC AD i. Archaic (8 th - 6 th c. BC) ii. Classical Attic (5 th c BC) iii. Early Hellenistic Greek ( BC) iv. Late Hellenistic Greek (31 BC AD) 3. Medieval Greek:

33 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK i. Early Medieval Greek ( th c.) ii. Late Medieval Greek (11 th c ) 4. Modern Greek: i. Early Modern Greek ( ) ii. dialectal Modern Greek (19 th -) iii. Common Modern Greek (1830-) It is a prerequisite to keep in mind that sources from past historical stages might contain elements of scribal errors, archaistic influences 20 and literary expressions that do not reflect the spoken language of the time or as H. C. Wyld (1927) puts it (quoted in Milroy 1993: 215): The drama of linguistic change is enacted not in manuscripts nor inscriptions, but in the mouths and minds of men. As is common with any study in historical linguistics, any attempt to reconstruct an unattested stage of a certain structure does not guarantee that this has actually happened during that particular historical period (cf. Fox 1995: 7). This holds especially true for Greek due to the fact that the crucial transitional period of EMedG is not well attested due to the constant usage of archaistic Greek during that time. Data from the modern period of the Greek language were collected from grammatical descriptions or minor studies of modern dialects, collections of narratives and poems 21 published in journals, volumes and monographs. /A large part of my material was gathered from the archive of the Research Centre for Modern Greek Dialects of the Academy of Athens (Κέντρον Ερεύνης των Νεοελληνικών Διαλέκτων και Ιδιωμάτων της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών), also known as ILNE (Ιστορικόν Λεξικόν της Νέας Ελληνικής - Historical Dictionary of Modern Greek), while a small amount of data comes from the Hellenic Folklore Research Centre of the Academy of Athens (Κέντρον Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας) and the Centre for Asia Minor Studies in Athens (Κέντρο Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών). Even though not every single MG dialect and variety has been described in full depth 22, this study covers available sources from the entire 23 diatopy of 20 Especially for texts from the medieval and early modern period. 21 It needs to be mentioned that I have not paid a great deal of attention to poems either from the modern dialects or the diachrony of the language, due to the fact that metrical reasons could have resulted in the use of forms that would not represent the actual spoken language of a given variety or historical period. 22 Cf. Nicholas (1998: 8) on the sizeable gaps in our knowledge of Greek dialects. 23 The only MG variety excluded from this study is Tsakonian (central-eastern Peloponnese, shown in dark grey on Map 1.1) because it is the only surviving descendant of Ancient Doric, i.e. it is the only variety that does not 13

34 INTRODUCTION the MG-speaking world as it used to be at the beginning of the 20 th c. before the transfer of populations between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria. The rationale behind this lies in this thesis aim to provide the whole picture of dialectal variation of the modern language, which was heavily disrupted by the wide diffusion of CMG within the borders of the contemporary Republic of Greece after the 1920s and especially after the 1950s due to the expansion of literacy and the extreme urbanization of the modern Greek society 24. The following map offers an approximation of the borders of the Greek-speaking world at the beginning of the 20 th c., where the major dialectal groups can be found 25 : descend from the Attic-Ionic branch of AG, which instantly renders it a significantly different linguistic system with largely independent evolution. 24 Almost half of the contemporary population of Greece resides in the two most prominent urban centres, Athens (Attica) and Thessaloniki (Macedonia). 25 This map does not attempt to depict in full detail the demographics of the Balkans in the early 20 th c., which is why other languages that were or are still spoken within the borders of the Greek-speaking world are not included. Other languages that coexisted with Greek in various areas within these borders include: i) pockets of Aromanian in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia, ii) Arvanítika (Arbërisht) in Argolís, Korinthia (north-eastern Peloponnese), Attica, Boeotia and Southern Euboea (eastern Central Greece) and Albanian varieties in Western Epirus, iii) the varieties of the Bulgaro-Makedonski continuum in Macedonia and Thrace, iv) Turkish in Macedonia and Thrace, v) Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) in Thessaloniki and vi) communities of Romani scattered in various regions. In present day Greece, Turkish is only found in Thrace (due to the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey), Bulgarian (Pomak) in Thrace and communities of Romani remain scattered. Speakers of Makedonski (in the northern Prefectures of [Greek] Macedonia), Aromanian (in Thessaly and Epirus) and Arvanítika can still be found, but their number has been reduced due to the shift to CMG. 14

35 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Map 1.1: The Greek-speaking world at the beginning of the 20 th c. 26 As can be seen and will be often encountered in this study, the terms northern and southern are not purely geographical, but are largely conventional and mostly refer to the fact that Northern Greek exhibits deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and raising of unstressed /e, o/ to /i, u/. 26 Northern dialects (burgundy), semi-northern dialects (purple), southern dialects (white), dialects of Eastern Asia Minor (orange/ red [Mariupol]). 15

36 INTRODUCTION Southern Greek can be split into South-Western (Peloponnese, Heptanese islands and Western Epirus), Old Athenian (with Kymi in Central Euboea, Mégara in western Attica, Mani in the central leg of the Peloponnese and the island of Aegina south of Athens), Cretan-Cycladic, South-Eastern (Dodecanese, Chios, Icaria), Cypriot and Italiot. Attention will also be paid to CMG and its standardized version 27 in the sense that they both reflect the majority of changes found in the core of the MG-speaking world, especially the dialectal groups of Ionian islands and the Peloponnese; notwithstanding, elements found in CMG that stem from the puristic or archaistic influence of Katharévousa will of course be treated as externally induced changes rather than internal changes, which constitute the primary focus of the thesis. As the criterion of frequency is quite crucial for determining the role of markedness in the phenomena under examination, statistical analyses have been incorporated in the following chapters 28. Regarding the text frequency of cases in various stages of Greek, I only count heads of nominal phrases, ignoring their preceding or following determiners and modifiers, and also excluding personal pronouns, which are of only limited concern in this study, in order to provide a clearer view of how often a construction is used that assigns a certain case. For example, in the following utterance, two accusatives, one nominative and one genitive can be found: (1.6) Ο Κώστας πήγε με την Ελένη στο παλιό σπίτι του δικού της. [DET ο [HEAD Κώστας (NOM)]] [VERB πήγε] [PREP με [DET την [HEAD Ελένη (ACC)]]] [PREP+DET σ+το [MOD παλιό [HEAD σπίτι (ACC)]] [DET του [HEAD δικού (GEN) [CL της]]] /o ˈKostas ˈpiɣe me tin the:nom.sg.m Kostas:NOM.sg.m went:3sg with the:acc.sg.f Eˈleni s.to paliˈo ˈspiti Eleni:Ν/Α.sg.f in.the:n/a.sg.n old:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n tu ðiˈku tis/ the:gen.sg.m own:gen.sg.m 3sg:GEN.f Kostas went with Eleni to her boyfriend s house. 27 The Grammar of Triantafyllidis (1941) was the first complete attempt of standardizing CMG, however, the demotic language only replaced Katharévousa as the official language of the modern Greek state in Note that access to complete texts is not always possible, particularly with dialectal texts. In some cases, statistical analyses are taken from representative segments of diachronic sources. 16

37 2. THE CASE SYSTEM OF GREEK This chapter will present the most important features of the Greek case system as it has evolved since the ancient period through MG, so that the loss of the genitive can be placed in a broader context that will allow a more accurate approach to its diachronic developments. More specifically, the matters that will be dealt in the following sections include the semantics of the Greek case system, namely the polysemy of the ancient case system and the increase of grammatical load of the oblique cases. As regards case morphology in Greek, apart from its fundamental features special focus will be given to archaic stress patterns of the genitive that are no longer phonologically justified and often compete with analogical innovations, and to the main types of loss of the inflectional potential of the genitive. 2.1 Origins of the ancient case system The four-case distinction of the AG case system is the result of a series of mergers that were completed during the Pre-alphabetic 29 period of the language. More specifically, the reduction of the inherited seven cases of PIE was caused by the functional mergers between the genitive and the ablative on the one hand and the dative, the locative and the instrumental on the other. Apart from the semantic affinity between these cases (cf. Luraghi 1987), frequent morphological overlap also facilitated these developments, as the genitive and the ablative were identical in the singular of some reconstructed PIE nominal paradigms (cf. Sihler 1995: 248), while there was also strong phonological similarity between the dative and locative singular suffixes, cf. Proto- Greek *-ōi and -oi for o-stems respectively, and between the locative and the instrumental plural, cf. Proto-Greek *-oisu/ -oisi and *-ois for o-stems respectively. The merger between the genitive and the ablative must have been completed very early, as relics of distinct ablative forms are almost non-existent in alphabetic scripts (cf. Schwyzer 1939: ). The merger between the 29 Namely the Proto-Greek ( th c. BC), the Mycenean (15 th -12 th c. BC) and the period of the so-called Dark Ages (12 th -8 th c. BC).

38 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM dative and the locative most likely took place first, even though relics of locative are occasionally found in AG, cf. οἴκ-οι at home (<οἶκος, o-masculine), and the merger of the dative-locative with the instrumental was completed during the post-mycenean period, as distinct instrumental forms are attested in the Mycenean scripts (Luraghi 2004). These changes shaped a compact and highly polysemous system of three oblique cases that were able to express a pair of grammatical and spatial relations: possessors/ source (genitive), indirect object/ location (dative) and direct object/ direction (accusative). Following the notion of structured polysemy proposed by Nikiforidou (1991), it can be observed that the semantic network of these cases became even more complex due to the metaphorical extension of their meanings to the expression of other semantic roles and keeping in mind that their combination with various prepositions created new semantic paths, as can be seen below: 18

39 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 2.1: The metaphorical mapping of the ancient genitive (Nikiforidou 1991: 198) 30 [Possessor: Possessions] [Experiencer: Experiences] [Person: Kin] [Whole: Parts] [Holder of Attribute: Attribute] /[Agent: Products] [Whole (abstract): Parts] [Origin: Originating Element] [Origin (abstract): Originating Element] [Standard of comparison: Thing compared] [Causes: Effects] [Constituent Material: Thing Constituted] [Constituent Material (abstract): Thing Constituted] [(Distinctive) property: Holder of an Attribute] Table 2.2: The semanto-syntactic network of the ancient dative (based on Luraghi 2003) DATIVE PROPER INSTRUMENTAL LOCATIVE direct object +animacy, +contact -animacy -animacy indirect object recipient, addressee, - - benefactive, experiencer possessive predicative/ adnominal - - (+proximity) prepositional ἐπί on : purpose σύν with : comitative ἐν in etc. adverbial agent, purpose manner, instrument, cause location (rare) 30 The pairs reflect genitive/ head structures. 19

40 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Table 2.3: The functional network of the ancient accusative (based on Luraghi 2003) GRAMMATICAL RELATION SEMANTIC MEANING direct object direction (<PIE accusative) [+/-animacy, +total affectedness] [spatial referents and social locations] spatial extension (path) distance (fictive motion) temporal extension area (with respect to an attribute) e.g. πόδας [ACC] ὠκύς quick on (his) feet 2.2 Reformation of the case system in post-classical Greek Changes towards a more grammatical case system As shown above, the conceptual complexity of the ancient case system triggered a significant increase in the use of prepositions which were used for disambiguation of polysemy (cf. Luraghi 2003 and Bortone 2010). The effect of the use of prepositions can be best demonstrated by the considerable restriction of prepositionless uses of cases as local relators in ClG compared to their occurrence in Homer (8 th c. BC). In the longer term, the evolution of the Greek case system involved the emergence of periphrastic and other analytic constructions that affected the semantic functions of all cases and greatly reformed the case system of the language: i) prepositional syntagms with the genitive and the accusative competed with the local, instrumental and other adverbial (e.g. cause, purpose) functions of the dative, ii) the spatial relations expressed with the accusative were replaced by its prepositional use with εἰς to and πρός towards, even though the accusative maintained its temporal function and to a lesser degree the expression of area and iii) the restriction of non-possessive functions of the genitive, which will be discussed later in greater detail (Chapter 3). 20

41 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Another important development that is related to the increase of the grammatical load of the oblique cases involves the distributional reinforcement of the accusative which was clearly the most unmarked grammatical case; thus, as the accusative was the most frequent case used in prepositional phrases 31 and as a direct object in AG, it gradually became the exclusively used case for both of these constructions (cf. Jannaris 1897) The loss of the dative in Early Medieval Greek As was hinted in the preceding chapter, the loss of the AG dative has been discussed in great detail by previous researchers. The first signs of this long process date back to HellG which marked the rise of prepositions and the preference for structures with the accusative and the genitive over the dative. The instrumental and locative functions were the first to be lost due to their peripheral status; the instrumental dative was mainly replaced by μετά with (+genitive/ later +accusative) and the locative dative, which mostly survived in its use with ἐν in, was lost due to the grammaticalization 32 of the directional εἰς as a locative marker, cf. MG είμαι/ πάω στο σπίτι I am at/ I go to the house. In contrast, the core functions of the dative as an indirect object survived for a longer time, even though the first signs of its replacement by the genitive and the accusative can already be found during HellG. It seems that both alternative constructions could be used during the first stages of this change, as can be seen in the following papyrus in which all three cases are used to mark indirect objects: (2.1) δὸς ἐμοί [DAT] give me (l. 20) εἴρηκά σου [GEN] I have told you (l. 20) σε [ACC] δίδω I give you (l. 24) P.Oxy. XIV 1683 (4 th c. AD, Oxyrhynchos) According to Humbert (1930: 161-2), the middle centuries of MedG (9 th -10 th c.) mark the final split between dialects that employ the genitive and those that employ the accusative, as evidenced by the use of the former in documents from Southern Italy, and the use of the latter in 31 Cf. the statistics of Westphal (1888: 3; taken from Bortone [2010: 154]) on the usage of prepositions with the oblique cases: the accusative is used 6733 times (43%), the genitive 4697 (30%) and the dative 4075 (26%). 32 Note that the term grammaticalization will be used very loosely in this study to refer to the extension of the use of a certain element (e.g. a preposition or a case) to other semantic or grammatical domains. 21

42 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM the works of the Constantinopolitan writer Theophanes and the Protobulgarian inscriptions 33. It appears that the dative had already been lost in the spoken language of that time and it is possible that its loss was complete during the first centuries of MedG (6 th -8 th c.). The following map shows the limits of genitive/ accusative split in the MG-speaking world as it was at the beginning of the 20 th c.: Map 2.1: The limits of accusative (yellow) and genitive (white) indirect objects in the MG-speaking world (before the beginning the 20 th c.) As can be seen on the map, most areas of southern and insular Greece (and also Southern Italy) employed the genitive, while most areas of northern Greece (apart from Epirus, the Ionian Sea and Lesbos), Asia Minor (apart from the southern Aegean coast) and Southern Ukraine employed the accusative. Even though it is not the task of this study to examine in full detail the succession of ancient dative by the other two oblique cases, it is worth mentioning the origins of their grammaticalization as indirect objects. First, the selection of the accusative was mainly based on phonological criteria due to the ongoing overlap between accusative and dative forms, as the instability of final /n/ could involve either its extension or loss during LHellG/ EMedG: 33 Inscriptions written in Greek c. the 9 th c. for the purposes of the Bulgarian state. 22

43 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (2.2) i. definite overlap: αὐτῷ=αυτό [aˈfto] (dat/acc.sg of neuter non-personal pronouns) ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς=τὲς ἀδελφές [tes aðelˈfes] (dat./acc.pl of α-/η-feminines) ii. phonetic similarity: τῷ μοναχῷ τὸν μοναχόν [to(n) monaˈxo(n)] (dat/acc.sg of o-masculines and o-neuters) τῇ μοναχῇ τὴν μοναχήν [ti(n) monaˈçi(n)] (dat/acc.sg of α-/η-feminines) τοῖς μοναχοῖς τοὺς μοναχούς [tys/ tus monaˈxys/ -us] (dat/acc.pl of o-masculines) Also, the fact that verbs like διδάσκειν teach governed two accusatives shows a syntactic path for the development of accusative indirect objects 34, e.g. διδάσκω τινά (ACC) τι (ACC) I teach something to someone λέγω τινά τι I say something to someone. Second, the genitive-dative merger was based on functional criteria, such as the possessive use of the ancient dative and more importantly the extension of the genitive to the domains of the dative through reanalysis of possessive genitives as benefactives, recipients or experiencers, e.g.: (2.3) οὐδ ἐτεθορύβητό μου [GEN] ἡ ψυχὴ (EXPERIENCER) my soul was not upset Plato, Symposium, Steph. p. 215e, l. 6 (4 th c. BC) (2.4) ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ [GEN] τὸ ὠτίον (MALEFACTIVE) He smote off his ear New Testament, Matthew, 26:51 (1 st c. AD) It should not be neglected that the ancient dative could also be used in predicative possession which was probably another source of the semanto-syntactic overlap between the dative and the genitive; the possessive dative was used in existential-presentative clauses, while the genitive 34 Cf. Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.9 τί (what:acc) πρῶτον διδάσκειν ἤρχου αὐτήν (this:acc.sg.f) what did you start to teach her first? (4 th c. BC). 23

44 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM was used in copular ones (cf. Benvenuto & Pompeo 2012), e.g.: ἦσαν τῷ Κροίσῳ [DAT] δύο παῖδες Croesus had two sons (lit. two sons existed to Croesus) (Herodotus 1, 34.2) vs. τοῦτο τὸ πεδίον ἦν... Χορασμίων [GEN] this field belonged to Chorasmians (lit. was of the Chorasmians) (Herodotus 3, 117.1). In contrast, phonetic similarity between the genitive and the dative could mainly 35 occur in the forms of the first and second person singular 36 : 1sg:dat ἐμοί/ cl. μοι 1sg:gen ἐμοῦ/ cl. μου [(e)my/ (e)mu], 2sg:dat (ἐ)σοί/ cl. σοι 2sg:gen (ἐ)σοῦ/ cl. σου, [(e)sy/ (e)su]. 2.3 Structural coding of the Greek cases Apart from the loss of the dual number in EHellG and the dative case in EMedG, the nominal morphology of Greek has always maintained a great number of features from PIE such as three grammatical genders, various declensional classes and concordial case, gender and number. Due to the fusional morphology of the language, suffixes not only denote case, but also gender, number and declension, cf. CMG -ους: i) neuter gender, ii) genitive case, iii) singular number, iv) ος-paradigm, e.g. δάσος forest / gen.sg δάσους. Furthermore, cases are not only marked through suffixes, but may also involve movement of stress (or pitch accent before the 2 nd c. BC), e.g. ClG nom.sg φλόξ [p h lóks] (<*φλόγ-ς) flame / dat.sg φλογ-ί [p h logí] or CMG nom.pl άνθρωποι [ˈanθropi]/ acc.pl ανθρώπους [anˈθropus] (<άνθρωπος person ). The following tables summarize the major inflectional classes in AG and MG: 35 Note, however, that the ClG ω/ (/ɔ:/) and ῳ, (/ɔ:i/; already /ɔ:/ in EHellG) occasionally survive in MedG/ MG as - ου- (/u/), e.g. κωνώπιον κουνούπι mosquito, τραγῷδιον τραγούδι song, which does not entirely exclude overlaps between genitive-dative singulars of o-masculines and o-neuters in LHellG/ EMedG varieties where the ClG ο (/o/) and ω (/ɔ:/) remained distinct; cf. Soliman (1965: 78) on the confusion between -ου(-) and -ω(-) in LHellG/ EMedG Egyptian papyri. 36 Before the 10 th c. AD, when the shift of /y/ (written υ or οι in LHellG and EMedG) to /i/ (or to /(j)u/ in Mani, Aegina, Kymi, Mégara and Old Athenian) took place. 24

45 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 2.4: The declensions of Classical Greek 37 1 st declension: α-/η 38 -masculines 1 st declension: α-/η-feminines 2 nd declension: ο-masculines/ fem. 3 rd declension: C 39 -masc./ feminines SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL nom νάυτ-ης δρόμ-ος δρῦ-ς 40 ναύτ-αι νίκ-η νίκ-αι δρόμ-οι voc ναῦτ-ᾰ δρόμ-ε δρῦ δρῦ-ες acc ναύτ-ην ναύτ-ᾱς νίκ-ην νίκ-ᾱς δρόμ-ον δρόμ-ους δρῦ-ν 41 δρῦ-ς gen ναύτ-ου /náutu:/ ναυτ-ῶν /nautɔ :n/ νίκ-ης /níkε:s/ νικ-ῶν /nikɔ :n/ δρόμ-ου /drómu:/ δρόμ-ων /drómɔ:n/ δρυ-ός /dryós/ δρυ-ῶν /dryɔ :n/ dat ναύτ-ῃ ναύ-ταις νίκ-ῃ νίκ-αις δρόμ-ῳ δρόμ-οις δρυ-ΐ δρυ-σί sailor victory road oak tree (F) 2 nd declension: o-neuters 3 rd declension: μα-/ας-/α-neuters 3 rd declension: oς-neuters SG PL SG PL SG PL n/a/v δῶρ-ον δώρ-α βήμα βήματ-α δάσ-ος δάσ-η gen δώρ-ου /dɔ :ru:/ δώρ-ων /dɔ :rɔ:n/ βήματ-ος /bɛ :matos/ βημάτ-ων /bɛ :matɔ:n/ δάσ-ους /dásu:s/ δασ-ῶν /dasɔ :n/ dat δώρ-ῳ δώρ-οις βήματ-ι βήμα-σι δάσε-ι δάσε-σι gift step forest 37 The forms of the definite article in ClG were as follows: nom.sg.m ὁ /ho/, nom.sg.f ἡ /hε:/, n/a.sg.n τό /to/, gen.sg.m/n τοῦ /tu:/, gen.sg.f τῆς /tε:s/, dat.sg.m/n τῷ /tɔ:i/, dat.sg.f τῇ /tε:i/, acc.sg.m τόν /ton/, acc.sg.f τήν /tε:n/, nom.pl.m οἱ /hoi/, nom.pl.f αἱ /hai/, n/a.pl.n τά /ta/, gen.pl.m/f/n τῶν, dat.pl.m/n τοῖς /tois/, dat.pl.f ταῖς /tais/, acc.pl.m τούς /tu:s/, acc.pl.f τάς /ta:s/. 38 The -η(-) of masculines and feminines of the ancient 1 st declension reflects the shift of /a:/ to /ε:/ in Attic-Ionic Greek, cf. νίκ-ᾱ /ní:ka:/ νίκ-η /ní:kε:/. Note that in Attic Greek this shift did not occur when /a:/ was preceded by /e/, /i/ or /r/, e.g. */historía:/ Ionic ἱστορίη /(h)istoríε:/, but Attic ἱστορία /historía:/. Also, when /a:/ was developed per Osthoff s law (lengthening of the short vowel preceding the cluster /-ns/ and deletion of /n/) or from vowel contractions that occurred after the shift of Attic-Ionic /a:/ to /ε:/, it remained as such. 39 Consonantal stems, namely roots ending in -k/ -k h / -g/ -t/ -t h / -d/ -p/ -p h / -b/ -s/ -n/ -r/ and the semivowels.-j/ -w, like δρῦς in Table 2.4 (<PIE *drew-). 40 The nominative suffix for third declension nouns can also be -Ø, e.g. ἠχώ echo (ω-feminine, oj-stem <*ek h oj- Ø), or extended grade ablaut, e.g. nom.sg πατήρ /patέ:r / father (r-stem)/ nom.pl πατέρ-ες /patér-es/. 41 The PIE acc.sg -ṇ appears as -ᾰ when the root does not end in -j or -w, e.g. μήν/ acc.sg μῆν-α month (M). The acc.pl suffix comes from PIE *-ṇs. Similarly, when the root does not end in a semivowel, it appears as -ᾰς, e.g. μῆν-ας /mɛ :nas/. 25

46 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Table 2.5: The inflectional classes of Common Modern Greek (Ralli 2003: 86-7) 42 Class I: o-masculines (& feminines [+learned]) Class II: α-/η-masculines Class III: α-/η-feminines Class IV: η-feminines [+learned] 43 SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL nom δρόμ-ος νάυτη-ς voc δρόμ-ε δρόμ-οι ναύτ-ες νίκη νίκ-ες πόλη πόλ-εις acc δρόμ-ο δρόμ-ους ναύτη gen δρόμ-ου /ˈðromu/ δρόμ-ων /ˈðromon/ /ˈnafti/ ναυτ-ών /naˈfton] νίκη-ς /ˈníkis/ νικ-ών /niˈkon/ πόλη-ς /ˈpolis/ πόλε-ων /ˈpoleon/ road sailor victory city Class V: o-neuters Class VI: ι-neuters Class VII: μα-/ιμο-/ας-neuters Class VIII: oς-neuters SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL n/a/v δώρ-ο δώρ-α σπίτι σπίτι-α βήμα βήματ-α δάσ-ος δάσ-η gen δώρ-ου /ˈðoru/ δώρ-ων /ˈðoron/ σπιτι-ού /spitiˈu/ [spiˈtçu] σπιτι-ών /spitiˈon/ [spiˈtçon] βήματ-ος /ˈvimatos/ βημάτ-ων /viˈmaton/ δάσ-ους /ˈðasus/ δασ-ών /ðaˈson/ gift house step forest Neutralization of nominative and accusative forms As can be observed in the previous tables, the accusative is the least morphologically distinct case in the diachrony of the system. This has been an inherent feature of nominal morphology since the PIE stage, due to the lack of distinction between neuter nominatives and accusatives 44. In examples (1.5a) and (1.5c), it was shown that analogical developments in the plural of α-/η- 42 The forms of the definite article in CMG (and most dialects) are as follows: nom.sg.m ο /o/, nom.sg.f η /i/, n/a.sg.n το /to/, gen.sg.m/n του /tu/, gen.sg.f της /tis/, acc.sg.m τo(ν) [to(n)], acc.sg.f τη(ν) [ti(n)], nom.pl.m/f οι /i/, n/a.pl.n τα /ta/, gen.pl.m/f/n των /ton/, acc.pl.m τους /tus/, acc.pl.f τις /tis/. 43 The term [+learned] is used by Ralli (2003) to denote lexemes introduced to the language by Katharévousa or in general written style and whose morphology follows archaistic patterns. 44 Cf. Beekes (2011: 215) on the correlation between the inanimacy of most neuter nouns and the lack of distinction between nominatives and accusatives due to the possibility of an ergative system in PIE. 26

47 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK masculines and feminines 45 and the loss of final /n/ in MedG (c. 10 th c. AD) extended this overlap to the whole feminine gender and a significant number of masculine nouns. Thus, apart for those MG varieties that maintained final /n/ (e.g. Pontus, Cyprus, Chios, Icaria), the nominative-accusative distinction was restricted to the paradigm of o-masculines, the masculine and feminine forms of the definite article and occasionally the feminine forms of nonpersonal pronouns due to their maintenance of final /n/, something possibly motivated by their greater functional load, e.g. nom.sg αυτή this / acc.sg αυτή(ν) 46. What is more, in a few dialects from various regions 47, the nominal nominative-accusative plural distinction has been entirely eliminated due to the replacement of the o-masculine accusative plural suffix -ους by the nominative -οι, e.g. Syros, Cyclades (Pio 1879: 214) n/a.pl αθρώποι vs. most MG dialects/ CMG nom.pl ά(ν)θρωποι/ α(ν)θρώποι # acc.pl α(ν)θρώπους (<άνθρωπος person ). Nevertheless, the nominative and the accusative singular of feminines remained distinct in some dialects that maintained final /n/ (Pontic, Cypriot, Chios, Icaria and the Dodecanese), while the rare maintenance of the accusative plural -ας of α-/η-masculines and feminines is attested in a very small number of dialects from the Eastern Aegean (Icaria, Chios and Chalki), cf. Hatzidakis (1907: 438-9): Icaria, nom.pl οι γυναίκες/ acc.pl τας γυναίκας/ τας γυναίκες (<γυναίκα woman ) vs. all other MG dialects: οι [NOM]/ τις [ACC] γυναίκες [N/A]. As will be shown later, the advanced nominative-accusative overlap in dialectal and CMG has played an important role for the status of the genitive in the morphological markedness hierarchy of the system and other developments The morphology of the genitive As opposed to the nominative and the accusative, the genitive case has a few peculiar features. First, it has always been morphologically distinct in both numbers, barring a few instances that will be discussed in Particularly in the paradigms of CMG in Table 2.4, there is often an 45 The nominative and the accusative plural -εις of ις-feminines (ηj-stem) - and later of ευς-masculines (ηw-stem) - do not have a common origin, but are the result of an accidental phonological overlap: nom.sg πόλι-ς city (<zero grade of (*pólε:j-s)/ nom.pl πόλ-εις /pólẹ:s/ (<*πόλε-ες <*pólε:j-es)/ acc.pl πόλ-εις /pólẹ:s/ (<*póle-ns <*pólε:j-ns?), cf. Sihler (1995: 313). 46 Especially when they function as heads of a nominal phrase and the distinction between the subject/ object roles needs to be more explicit, e.g. ποιαν [ACC.sg.f] είδες χθες; who did you see yesterday? vs. ποια [NOM.sg.f] είναι αυτή; who is that?. 47 In many Northern Greek dialects (cf. Lesbos, Lemnos, Macedonia etc.), in Bithynia and Kýzikos, in the Cyclades, in parts of Crete, in Silli and Phárasa in Central Asia Minor. 27

48 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM opposition between the genitive and the rest of the cases, something which has led some researchers to consider that the nominal inflection of MG is largely defined by a [-GEN/ +GEN] distinction (cf. Kavoukópoulos 1990: 268). Second, the genitive plural is the only morpheme in the system that remains the same in all paradigms and for all genders (-ων) 48. Third, the genitive features patterns of stress movement more than any other case The morphemes of the genitive A quick comparison between Tables 2.4 and 2.5 shows that, leaving aside the various phonological changes, the genitive suffixes have largely remained the same. Thus, the major difference between the genitive singular forms of ClG and MG lies in the merger of the ancient first with the third declension during MedG, besides the development of new inflectional classes and subclasses such as the ι- and ιμο-neuters. This declensional merger reduced the number of genitive suffixes in many MG dialects, but the influence of Katharévousa reintroduced the suffixes -ος and -ους from the ancient third declension neuters to CMG. The major changes in the evolution of the genitive singular suffixes can be summarized as follows: (2.5a) The suffix -ου 49 of α-/η-masculines was replaced by -Ø already in MedG, e.g. ναύτης/ ναύτη-ø sailor (#gen.sg ναύτου, <1 st declension). After the merger of the ancient 1 st with the 3 rd declension, -Ø was also employed for α-masculines that derive from the latter inflectional class, e.g. γείτονας/ gen.sg γείτονα-ø neighbor (#AG γείτων/ γείτον-ος <3 rd declension). (2.5b) The suffix -ς was applied to nearly all feminine nouns in dialectal LMed/MG: χώρα/ χώρα-ς land (<1 st declension), θάλασσα/ θάλασσα-ς sea (#AG θαλάσσης /t h alássε:s, <1 st declension), νίκη/ νίκη-ς victory (<1 st declension), εικόνα/ εικόνα-ς image (#AG εἰκών / εἰκόν-ος, <3 rd declension), άμμο/ άμμο-ς sand (#AG ἄμμος/ ἄμμ-ου, <2 nd declension). (2.5c) The suffix -ου of ο-neuters was extended to 3 rd declension neuters replacing -ος and - ους in most MG dialects, e.g. γράμμα/ γραμμάτ-ου letter (#AG γράμματ-ος), δάσος/ δάσ-ου forest (#AG δάσ-ους). Similarly, the suffix -ου of o-masculines was extended 48 Since the contraction of -άων το -ῶν of α-masculines and feminines (1 st declension) in Archaic Greek (ArchG). 49 This suffix was extended to the first declension masculines from their second declension counterparts. 28

49 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK to α-masculines that derive from the ancient 3 rd declension in many MG dialects: γείτονας/ γειτόν-ου neighbor. As mentioned earlier, the genitive plural is the only case marked by a single suffix in all genders and inflectional classes. What is even more peculiar about this case is the fact that it has a common form for all genders in the inflection of the determiners, modifiers and non-personal pronouns, unlike all other cases in the diachrony of the language, cf. των (definite article; M/F/N), αυτών (demonstrative; M/F/N), άσπρων ( white ; M/F/N). With regards to the phonological variation of the morpheme -ων, it maintained the final /n/ in CMG and most modern dialects in order to avoid homophony with nominative and accusative singulars in the case of o-masculines and o-neuters; in a few other dialects, the instability of final /n/ was either treated by deletion of the consonant or by the development of an open syllable through the addition of /e/, cf. CMG/ dialectal MG I σκύλ-ων/ dialectal MG II σκύλ-ω/ dialectal MG III σκύλ-ωνε (<σκύλος dog, o-masculine). In a small number of dialects, the influence of the genitive singular suffix -ου resulted in the form -ουν(ε) 50, e.g. παπάδ-ουνε (<παπάς priest, α- masculine; areas of the Peloponnese; Pantelidis 2001: 555) The stress patterns of the genitive As can be seen in Tables 2.4 and 2.5, the genitive forms of many paradigms exhibit different stress patterns from the rest of the cases. This feature of the ancient genitive was transmitted to its modern descendant, even though stress accent replaced pitch accent 51 already in the HellG period (c. 2 nd c. BC). This stress change is always to the right and was determined by three main factors in AG. First, according to the trisyllabic law, if the final syllable of a proparoxytone (antepenult-accented) lexeme had a long vowel or a diphthong 52, the pitch accent would have to move to the penultimate, since a long final syllable was considered to consist of two moras 50 Note that this change is not due to raising of unstressed /o/ to /u/ that is characteristic of the Northern Greek dialects. 51 The AG pitch accent system distinguished high, low and falling tones, indicated by the acute accent, the grave accent and the circumflex respectively in the polytonic diacritics. 52 The diphthongs -oι and -αι in final position were considered to constitute a single mora and thus the nominative plural suffixes were excluded from this constraint: nom.sg ἄνθρωπος nom.pl ἄνθρωποι # dat.pl ἀνθρώποις. 29

50 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM instead of one. This element affected the genitive forms more than any other case 53 due to the fact that the suffixes -ης, -ου and -ων contained long vowels: (2.6a) (2.6b) (2.6c) nom.sg θάλασσα/ Attic θαλάσσης [t h alássε:s] (<θαλάσσᾱς) sea nom.sg πρόσωπον/ gen.sg προσώπου [prosɔ :pu:] face nom.pl πράγματα/ gen.pl πραγμάτων [pragmátɔ:n] Second, the contraction of vowel sequences during ArchG resulted in the development of penultaccented genitive plurals for nouns of the first declension and neuters ending in -ος: (2.7a) (2.7b) nom.sg θάλασσα/ nom.pl θάλασσαι/ gen.pl θαλασσάων θαλασσῶν sea nom.sg δάσος/ nom.pl δάσεα/ gen.pl δασέων δάση/ δασῶν forest Third, monosyllabic stems of the third declension followed a PIE pattern of accent placement that involved movement of the accent from the stem to the suffix for the genitive and the dative (cf. Sihler 1995: 179): nom.sg φλόξ flame (F)/ gen.sg φλογός/ nom.pl φλόγες gen.pl φλογῶν. This PIE pattern also survived with non-monosyllabic nouns of high frequency: (2.8a) nom.sg πατήρ/ gen.sg πατρός/ nom.pl πατέρες/ gen.pl πατέρων father (2.8b) nom.sg μήτηρ/ gen.sg μητρός/ nom.pl μητέρες/ gen.pl μητέρων mother (2.8c) nom.sg θυγάτηρ/ gen.sg θυγατρός/ nom.pl θυγατέρες/ gen.pl θυγατέρων daughter (2.8d) nom.sg ἀνήρ/ gen.sg ἀνδρός/ nom.pl ἄνδρες/ gen.pl ἀνδρῶν man (2.8e) nom.sg γυνή/ gen.sg γυναικός/ nom.pl γυναῖκες/ gen.pl γυναικῶν woman In summary, the following patterns of accentual change can be found in the declensional system of ClG: 53 Note that the accent movement occasionally took place with dative and accusative suffixes, e.g. dat.pl θαλάσσαις/ acc.pl θαλάσσᾱς <nom.pl θάλασσαι. This also explains the modern acc.pl. of o-masculines: ανθρώπους <nom.pl άνθρωποι. 30

51 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 2.6: Accentual patterns in the genitive of Classical Greek GENITIVE SINGULAR GENITIVE PLURAL 1 st declension (α-stems, M/F) ANT/PEN PEN (feminines): θάλασσα/ θαλάσσης (F) ANT/PEN ULT: -άων -ῶν θάλασσαι/ θαλασσῶν (F) sea νίκαι/ νικῶν (F) victory ναύται/ ναυτῶν (M) sailor 2 nd declension (o-stems, M/F/N) ANT/PEN PEN 54 : πρόσωπο/ προσώπου (N) ANT/PEN PEN: πρόσωπα/ προσώπων (N) face 3 rd declension I (C-stems, M/F/N, monosyllabic) ultima-stressed genitives (1 st syllable 2 nd syllable) 55 : SG: πούς/ ποδός (M) foot PL: πόδες/ ποδῶν (M) 3 rd declension II (C-stems, M/F/N, polysyllabic) NO CHANGE: δαίμων/ δαίμονος (M/F) demon πράγμα/ πράγματος (N) thing ANT/PEN PEN: εἰκόνες/ εἰκόνων (F) image πράγματα/ πραγμάτων (N) thing PEN ULT (neuters in -ος): δάση/ δασῶν (<δασέων) forest Despite the fact that these accentual patterns are clearly distinct during AG, there are a few exceptions that constitute the first signs of conflict between the pattern of accentual change and the pattern of columnar accent, i.e. the maintenance of accent in its original position. Thus, even though the trisyllabic constraint resulted in the absence of antepenult-stressed genitive plurals in AG, the genitives of feminines ending in -ις do not follow this rule, e.g. nom.sg πόλις city / gen.sg πόλεως/ gen.pl πόλεων. This exception was established during ArchG and has its origin in the original genitive singular form which is often attested in Homer, e.g. πόληος (<*πόληj-ος from the stem allomorph πόλεj-). Such genitives became πόλεως with antimetachoresis (/ε:ο/ /eɔ:/) 56 and later affected their plural counterparts: (2.9a) gen.sg πόληος /pólε:os/ πόλεως /póleɔ:s/ 54 It also applies for the accusative plural of masculine and feminine nouns, cf. AG ἄνθρωπος/ acc.pl ἀνθρώπους. 55 It also applies for the dative singular and plural of these nouns. 56 This change is also found with nouns in -εύς and adjectives in -υς: nom.sg βασιλεύς/ gen.sg βασιλῆος βασιλέως king, nom.sg βαθύς/ gen.sg βαθῆος βαθέως deep. 31

52 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM (2.9b) gen.pl πολέων πόλεων The exact same development occurred within a small group of o-masculines and neuters ending in -ηος (<-ᾱος): ἴλᾱος gracious ἴληος ἴλεως/ gen.sg ἴλεω/ gen.pl ἴλεων. What is more, the monosyllabic nouns παίς child (M/F), φώς light (N), οὖς ear (N), δᾴς torch (F), Τρώς Trojan (M) and θώς jackal (Μ) of the third declension maintained the accent in the first syllable of their genitive plurals, e.g.: (2.10a) nom.sg παίς/ gen.sg παιδός/ nom.pl παῖδες/ gen.pl παίδων (2.10b) nom.sg φώς/ gen.sg φωτός/ nom.pl φῶτα/ gen.pl φώτων The fact that the majority of genitive forms required accent movement resulted in the maintenance of this pattern in MG. However, there are a few differentiations which were caused by the loss of distinctive vowel length during HellG, since the lack of long final syllables no longer conditioned the inability of a lexeme to be stressed on the antepenult (cf. Triantafyllidis 1963: 172). The following table presents the situation in CMG: 32

53 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 2.7: Stress patterns of the genitive in Common Modern Greek 57 ο-masculines/ neuters ANT PEN 58 : GS, GP άνθρωπος/ ανθρώπου, άνθρωποι/ ανθρώπων (Μ) person πρόσωπο/ προσώπου, πρόσωπα/ προσώπων (Ν) face NO CHANGE: κόπανος/ κόπανου, κόπανοι/ κόπανων (M) mallet λάχανο/ λάχανου, λάχανα/ λάχανων (N) cabbage α-/η-masculines ANT/PEN PEN: GP (parisyllabics) γείτονας/ γείτονα, γείτονες/ γειτόνων (<3 rd decl. polysyll. neighbor ) PEN ULT: GP κλέφτης/ κλέφτη, κλέφτες/ κλεφτών thief (<1 st declension) μήνας/ μήνα, μήνες/ μηνών month (<3 rd declension monosyllabics) α-/η-feminines ANT/PEN ULT: GP (parisyllabics) ώρα/ ώρας, ώρες/ ωρών hour (<1 st declension) νύχτα/ νύχτας, νύχτες/ νυχτών night (<3 rd decl. monosyllabics) ANT/PEN PEN: GP πέρδικα/ πέρδικας, πέρδικες/ περδίκων partridge εικόνα/ εικόνας, εικόνες/ εικόνων image (<3 rd decl. polysyllabics) imparisyllabics 59 (M/F) NO CHANGE: παππούς/ παππού, παππούδες/ παππούδων grandfather (M) γιαγιά/ γιαγιάς, γιαγιάδες/ γιαγιάδων grandmother (F) ι-neuters PEN ULT: GS, GP σπίτι/ σπιτιού, σπίτια/ σπιτιών house μα-neuters ANT PEN: GP πράγμα/ πράγματος, πράγματα/ πραγμάτων thing ος-neuters PEN ULT: GP δάσος/ δάσους, δάση/ δασών forest 57 Paradigms introduced to Standard CMG from Katharévousa have been excluded from this table, e.g. nom.sg ταυτότητα/ nom.pl ταυτότητες/ gen.pl ταυτοτήτων identity (feminine, <3 rd declension, ANT PEN) or nom.sg έξοδος/ gen.sg εξόδου/ nom.pl έξοδοι/ gen.pl εξόδων exit (feminine, <2 nd declension, ANT PEN). 58 It also applies for the accusative plural of these masculine nouns, e.g. MG άνθρωπος/ acc.pl ανθρώπους. 59 The term refers to nouns that do not have the same number of syllables in the singular and the plural. 33

54 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM A few interesting phenomena can be observed from the comparison of the pitch/ stress accent patterns of ClG and MG. First, the merger between the ancient first and the third declension, which had different stress patterns, has resulted in the presence of two distinct stress patterns for the genitive plural of α-/η-masculine and feminine nouns. Differences in stress patterns can also be observed for the genitives of both numbers of o-masculines and neuters. In this case, the archaic pattern is maintained, but is now in complementary distribution (or free variation for some nouns) with an innovative pattern of keeping the stress in its original position. Second, unlike the aforementioned cases, the rest of the paradigms follow a fixed stress pattern. Although imparisyllabic masculines and feminines 60 and μα- and ος-neuters follow the patterns of their ancient equivalents (all of them derived from the ancient 3 rd declension), the paradigm of ι-neuters was developed from ancient diminutives formed with the 2 nd declension suffix -ίον which became extremely productive during LHellG and EMedG because they replaced a great number of nouns of the ancient third declension, e.g. πούς (stem ποδ-) foot HellG πόδιον. The inflection of these nouns was differentiated from the traditional o-neuters, as the unstressed -o- of the common nominative/ accusative singular forms was dropped quite early and at a later point the vowel sequences of the rest of the cases underwent synizesis, namely shift of stressed /i/ or /e/ to [ʝ] (or [ç] after voiceless fricatives), when they are the first member of a vowel sequence: Table 2.8: The development of the paradigm of ι-neuters ClG/ ΕHellG LHellG/ EMedG 61 LMedG/ MG n/a.sg πόδι-ον little foot πόδι-(o)ν foot πόδι [ ˈpοði] foot gen.sg ποδί-ου ποδί-ου ποδι-ού [pοˈðʝu] n/a.pl πόδι-α [pódia] πόδι-α πόδι-α [ˈpοðʝa] gen.pl ποδί-ων ποδί-ων ποδι-ών [pοˈðʝon] 60 The imparisyllabic paradigms of MG constitute a HellG/ MedG innovation and its stress pattern is based on the ancient third declension polysyllabic stems (PEN PEN) and first occurred with ultima-stressed nouns, e.g. HellG nom.sg φορ(β)άς mare (F)/ nom.pl φορ(β)άδες/ gen.pl φορ(β)άδων MedG nom.sg παπάς priest (M)/ nom.pl παπάδες/ gen.pl παπάδων. 61 It also applies for MG dialects that do not exhibit synizesis and loss of final /n/, cf. Pontic Greek. 34

55 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK This is an extremely important development, as it reinforced the pattern of stress movement to a very high degree, since ι-neuters constituted a model for a great number of LMedG and MG loanwords, e.g. French gaz gas MG γκάζι/ gen.sg γκαζιού. Quite clearly, shift of stress towards the following syllable is strongly associated with the morphology of the genitive, since it can be found in most paradigms. This element explains the survival of the pattern in MG, even though it does not serve any phonological purpose after the loss of distinctive vowel length during HellG, e.g. πρόσωπον/ προσώπου [proˈsopu]. Thus, the only paradigm that shows a major deviation from an ancient stress pattern is that of o-masculines and ο-neuters, as nouns of MedG and MG origin followed the innovative pattern of maintenance of stress in its original position, as opposed to many nouns of ancient origin (cf. Table 2.7). Nevertheless, the situation in CMG does not reflect the competition of the stress patterns of masculine and feminine nouns that stem from the ancient 1 st and 3 rd declension that took place in a few MG dialects Stress patterns of o-masculines and ο-neuters As can be observed from the comparison of Tables 2.4 and 2.5, the retreat of the ancient pattern of penult-accented genitives from antepenult-accented nominatives can be attributed to analogical leveling which maintains the stress on the same syllable, as in the case of penultstressed and ultima-stressed nouns, e.g. πλάτανος πλάτανου (<πλατάνου) plane tree like φάρος φάρου lighthouse and βοσκός βοσκού shepherd. The development of the innovative antepenult-stressed genitives can be dated back to MedG, but probably during the later centuries of this period, keeping in mind that early medieval loanwords adopted the archaic stress pattern, e.g. γάιδαρος (<Arabic gaidar) γαϊδάρου/ γαϊδάρων. Thus, it may be proposed that the starting point for the elimination of the stress change ANT PEN must have been the inflection of adjectives. More specifically, once distinctive vowel length was lost, there was no phonological motivation to maintain the shift of stress in feminine adjectives and all gender forms began to be stressed on the same syllable and at a later point the pattern was applied to the genitives: 35

56 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Table 2.9: The maintenance of stress in its original position of o-masculine/ o-neuter genitives M F N M F N red I: nom.sg κόκκινος κοκκίνη κόκκινον II: κόκκινος κόκκινη κόκκινον nom.pl κόκκινοι κόκκιναι κόκκινα κόκκινοι κόκκινες κόκκινα II: gen.sg κοκκίνου κόκκινης κοκκίνου III: κόκκινου κόκκινης κόκκινου gen.pl κοκκίνων κοκκίνων κοκκίνων κόκκινων κόκκινων κόκκινων Thus, CMG adjectives almost never have ANT PEN stress change; adjectival lexemes formed or introduced to the language after the establishment of the no stress movement pattern began to follow the analogical innovative maintenance of the stress in the same syllable for all cases. As the newer pattern became more and more frequent, lexemes of ancient origin were also affected, e.g. AG λάχανον/ λαχάνου MG λάχανου. Consequently, the archaic stress pattern was maintained only with nouns of frequent use: άνθρωπος/ ανθρώπου human, άγγελος/ αγγέλου angel, πρόσωπο/ προσώπου face. In colloquial CMG, the archaic and the modern stress pattern can be in free variation with some of these nouns, e.g. έμπορου/ εμπόρου, nom.sg έμπορος merchant. In fact, some dialects have antepenult-stressed genitives even for the extremely frequent ANT PEN o-masculine άνθρωπος: τ άdρωπου (Elassona, Thessaly; ILNE 925: 334). Nevertheless, a few dialects exhibit the maintenance of the archaic pattern: (2.11a) gen.sg Παπαδοπούλ (#CMG Παπαδόπουλου, <nom.sg Παπαδόπουλος, surname) Kýzikos, north-western Asia Minor (ILNE 116: 111) (2.11b) gen.sg σελίνου (#CMG σέλινου, <nom.sg σέλινο celery ) of the celery Crete (Detorakis 1976: 44) (2.11c) gen.sg νερομύλου (#CMG νερόμυλου, <nom.sg νερόμυλος watermill ) Kárpathos, Dodecanese (Minás 1970: 86) (2.11d) gen.pl αλέτρω(ν) (#CMG άλετρων, <nom.sg άλετρο plow ) Rhodes, Dodecanese (Papachristodoulou 1958: 31) 36

57 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Turning back to the stress pattern of adjectives, when they function as heads of the nominal phrase they can follow the archaic pattern, e.g. το κρεβάτι του αρρώστου the bed of the patient (CMG), καλομοίρου of the lucky one (Italiot; Rohlfs 1971: 24), των επιλοίπων the rest (Nísyros; Sakellaridis 1982: 183). As for the maintenance of the archaic stress pattern with an adjective modifying a noun, the only example that I have encountered in dialectal texts is the following: τω ντιαφόρω γλεουντιώνε of the various feasts (Ios; Tzavaras 2005: 94). Surprisingly, in some MG dialects, the PEN ULT pattern of other paradigms is applied to disyllabic penult-stressed o-masculines and o-neuters: (2.12a) gen.sg μηλού (#CMG μήλου, <μήλο apple ) gen.pl πκιατών (#CMG πιάτων, <πιάτο plate ) Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 441) (2.12b) gen.pl σκυλλών (#CMG σκύλων, <σκύλος dog ) Karpathos, Dodecanese (Michailidis-Nouaros 1928: 38) (2.12c) gen.pl πευκών (#CMG πεύκων, <πεύκο pine tree ) Rhodes, Dodecanese (Gneftós 1926: 2) (2.12d) gen.pl δεντρώ (#CMG δέντρων, <δέντρο tree ) Crete (Lioudaki 1936: 32) (2.12e) gen.pl Τουρκών (#CMG Τούρκων, <Τούρκος Turk ) Chios, Eastern Aegean (Vios 1920: 35) These phenomena indicate analogy from the paradigms of ος- and ι-neuters or other paradigms with ultima-stressed genitives. It should not be overlooked that χρονώ(ν) years old follows this pattern even in CMG despite its o-masculine origin with (nom.sg χρόνος/ nom.pl χρόνοι), possibly due to influence from the synonymous ετών (nom.sg έτος year, oς-neuter) and the hyponyms μηνώ(ν) months old and ημερώ(ν) days old. In addition, the form δεντρώ of the trees is possibly modeled after δασών (<δάσος forest, ος-neuter) or ελιών (<ελιά olive tree, α-feminine). The same can be said about the noun άνθρωπος human which can occasionally be found with ultima-stressed genitives dialectally, possibly due to influence from the ultimastressed genitives of the nouns άντρας man and γυναίκα woman : ανθρωπών/ ανθρώπων (Chios; Vios 1920: 35), αθρουπών (Souflí, Western Thrace; ILNE 743: 3), αθρωπούνε (Skyros; 37

58 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Perdika 1940: 150). Such developments affected antepenult-stressed nouns as well, e.g. αλογού (Skyros; Perdika 1940: 128) # CMG αλόγου/ άλογου <άλογο horse, possibly due to semantically related ultima-stressed forms (gen.sg γαϊδουριού <γαϊδούρι donkey, ι-neuter) Stress placement in the genitive plural of α-/η-feminines As noted earlier, despite the merger between the first and the third declension during MedG, the ancient origin of feminine nouns often determines their stress patterns in CMG and some dialects: AG CMG (2.13a) μέλισσαι/ μελισσῶν μέλισσες/ μελισσών bee <1 st declension ANT ULT (2.13b) νίκαι/ νικῶν νίκες/ νικών victory <1 st declension PEN ULT (2.13c) νύκτες/ νυκτῶν νύχτες/ νυχτών night <3 rd decl. monosyllabic PEN ULT (2.13d) πέρδικες/ περδίκων πέρδικες/ περδίκων partridge <3 rd decl. polys. ANT PEN (2.13e) εἰκόνες/ εἰκόνων εικόνες/ εικόνων image <3 rd decl. polys. PEN PEN However, the distribution of stress patterns is not always as clear-cut. There is a large number of feminine nouns that have no genitive plural, e.g. κοπέλα/ *κοπελών young woman, as will be shown in Chapter 6. Furthermore, these patterns appear to be in competition in many MG dialects. The conflicting patterns that can be identified are the following: (2.14a) ANT ULT (<ANT PEN) πιρδικών <πίρδικα partridge #CMG περδίκων Eurytania, Central Greece (Karapiperis 1984: 46) (2.14b) ANT ANT (<ANT ULT) γειτόνισσω <γειτόνισσα neighbor #CMG γειτονισσών Crete (Pángalos 1955: 269) (2.14c) ANT ANT (<ANT PEN) όρνιθων <όρνιθα hen #ΑG ορνίθων Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 440) 38

59 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (2.14d) PEN PEN (<PEN ULT) κόρων <κόρη daughter/ girl #CMG κορών Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 440) (2.14e) PEN ULT (<PEN PEN) κορασιδώ <κορασίδα young girl #CMG κορασίδων Ithaca, Heptanese (Mousouris 1950: 100) The position of stress in the genitive plural of α-/η-masculines The diachrony of parisyllabic α-/η-masculines is quite similar to the situation described above due to the merger of the first and the third declension. Again, the ancient patterns have been maintained without changes in CMG: AG CMG (2.15a) ναύται/ ναυτῶν ναύτες/ ναυτών <1 st declension PEN ULT (2.15b) μῆνες/ μηνῶν μήνες/ μηνών <3 rd declension monosyllabic PEN ULT (2.15c) γείτονες/ γειτόνων γείτονες/ γειτόνων <3 rd decl. polysyllabic ANT PEN (2.15d) χειμῶνες/ χειμώνων χειμώνες/ χειμώνων <3 rd decl. polysyllabic PEN PEN Even though these patterns are also found in dialectal MG, masculines of the ancient first declension are very often influenced by the penult-stressed genitives of nouns that stem from the second and the third declension 62 : (2.16a) κλέφτω/ κλεφτώ <κλέφτης thief #CMG κλεφτών Chios, Eastern Aegean (Pernot 1946: 57) (2.16b) Κεφαλλονίτωνε <Κεφαλλονίτης Cephallenian #CMG Κεφαλλονιτών Cephallenia, Heptanese (Skiadaresis 1959: 2) (2.16c) Γεράρχω <Γεράρχης Hierarch #CMG Ιεραρχών Ayia Varvara, Crete (Anagnostópoulos 1926: 166) 62 It should be noted that monosyllabic masculines of the ancient third declension are generally absent in MG with μήνας month (<AG μήν) and άντρας man (AG stem allomorph ανδρ- <*aner-) being some of the very few that have survived. 39

60 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Indistinguishable genitives As noted earlier, in spite of the fact the genitive case is almost always morphologically distinct in the diachrony of Greek, genitive forms occasionally overlap with other cases. As can be seen in Table 2.5, the loss of final /n/ in most MedG and MG varieties results in an overlap of accusatives with the genitive singulars of α-/η-masculine nouns, e.g. nom.sg ναύτη-ς sailor / gen.sg/ ναύτη-ø/ acc.sg ναύτη-ν gen/acc.sg ναύτη-ø; quite clearly, it is the accusative that lost its morphological distinction from the genitive 63 and not vice versa 64. True instances of overlap of the genitive singular with other forms can be seen in accidental phonological changes and analogical developments. Accidental overlap is found in Italiot, in which the final /s/ is deleted in almost all environments, e.g. n/a.pl ˈege (<*αίγες) goats, and resulted in the overlap of feminine genitive singulars with the common nominative/ accusative forms, e.g. της αλαπούδα (<*αλαπούδας) = nom/acc. αλαπούδα fox (Rossi-Taibi & Caracausi 1959: 29) 65 ; a similar situation can be found in Corsican Maniot, e.g. της θάλασσα (<*θάλασσας; Blanken 1951: 279). In analogical developments, examined in full detail by Henrich s dissertation (1976), masculines with stem /o/ that do not come from the ancient 2 nd, but the 3 rd declension, have genitive singular forms that are not distinct from nominatives and/or accusatives. For instance, the fact that nouns such as δράκων dragon and γέρων old man had two stem allomorphs in AG, e.g. δράκoν- (nom.sg δράκων/ voc.sg δράκον) and δράκοντ- (gen.sg δράκοντ-ος/ acc.sg δράκοντ-α), resulted in the development of accusative analogical forms based on the former allomorph in MedG: nom.sg o δράκων [o ˈðrakon]/ acc.sg τον δράκον [ton ˈðrakon] (like acc.sg λύκον <λύκος, o-masculine). The identical nominative/ accusative forms 66 resulted in the use of indeclinable genitives, e.g. gen.sg του Λέων <nom.sg Λέων Leon. In CMG and the majority of MG dialects these nouns were leveled either following o-masculines, e.g. nom/gen/acc. ο/ του/ τον δράκων nom. o δράκος/ gen. του δράκου/ acc. τον δράκο, or 63 The overlap of the genitive with the vocative of α-/η-masculines is irrelevant, given the fact that the vocative is not a true case (Blake 1994: 4). 64 Genitive singulars of α-/η-masculines formed with the suffix -Ø are already common in HellG (mostly with ultima-stressed α-masculines, which are a post-classical innovation, e.g. Ἀλεξᾶς [diminutive for Ἀλέξανδρος]/ gen.sg Ἀλεξᾶ), whereas accusative singulars without final /n/ become established in LMedG: Arrian, Alexandri Anabasis 5, 19, 4, 5 gen.sg Βουκεφάλα-Ø (instead of expected Βουκεφάλ-ου) <nom.sg Βουκεφάλα-ς Bucephalus (1 st -2 nd c. AD), P.Lond. III 851, 47 φροτιστῆ-ø (instead of expected φροντιστ-oῦ) <φροντιστή-ς researcher ( AD) (Gignac 1981: 14). 65 Interestingly, the assimilation of the final -ς of the definite article to the initial consonant of the following noun, creates a distinction between the genitive and the accusative in the preceding article, e.g. τηγ γυναίκα [tiʝʝiˈneka] (<*της γυναίκας) # τη γυναίκα [tiʝiˈneka]. 66 Note that the nominative and the accusative singular of masculine nouns are always distinct. 40

61 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK less commonly on the basis of α-masculines, e.g. nom. o δράκοντας/ gen. του δράκοντα/ acc. τον δράκοντα. This leveling took place with the nominative suffix -ος, but not with the genitive in other Med and MG varieties: (2.17a) gen/acc.sg γέρο (#CMG γέρου, <nom. γέρος old man <AG γέρων/ gen. γέροντος) Mantinea, Peloponnese (Chianis 1965: 47) (2.17b) gen/acc.sg Χάρο (#CMG Χάρου, <nom. Χάρος Charon <AG Xάρων/ gen. Χάροντος) Crete (Jeannaraki 1967: 145) Surprisingly, this pattern is extended to o-masculines that come from the 2 nd declension in the variety of Kardámyla of Chios (Henrich 1976: 264): του λύκον/ λύκου wolf (following genitives like του δράκον dragon / του γέρον old man ) # CMG του λύκου (<nom. λύκος <ΑG nom. λύκος). In other dialects, it is not certain whether the extension of the masculine genitive/ accusative singular suffix -Ø to o-masculines is an extension from these 3 rd declension nouns or simply an extension of the suffix -Ø of α-/η-masculines: (2.18) gen/acc.sg άθρωπο (instead of αθρώπ-ου, <άθρωπος human <AG 2 nd declension) Demirdesi, Bithynia (Danguitsis 1943: 75) By contrast to the somewhat accidental character of these two instances, in some varieties there are phenomena of undeclined genitives that do not differ from nominative (or common nominative/ accusative) forms due to various changes that cannot be attributed directly to accidental phonological developments or paradigmatic analogies. First, the deletion of the suffix -ς only in the environment of the genitive singular eliminates the distinction of the case from the nominative/ accusative form of feminine nouns; this change is not very common dialectally, but it can be found with proper nouns in Lárisa (Thessaly; Tzártzanos 1909: 232), e.g. τσι Ασπασιώ (#CMG της Ασπασιώς <Ασπασιώ), while common nouns maintain the suffix -ς 67. Second, genitive singulars of neuter nouns are prone to indeclinability, quite clearly due to the factor of animacy; Thracian and Bithynian varieties exhibit indeclinable genitive singulars of o-neuters, 67 Note, however, the form τς [GEN] γριά-ø [N/A] of the old woman (#CMG της γριά-ς, <γριά; Hoeg 1925: 288). 41

62 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM which seem to have been influenced by the use of the suffix -Ø with genitives of o-masculines, cf. gen/acc.sg κάτο-ø <nom. κάτο-ς male cat (Demirdesi). For instance: (2.19a) τη [GEN] γόνατο [Ν/Α/G] (#CMG γόνατ-ου/ γονάτ-ου, <n/a γόνατο knee ) Tsendo, Eastern Thrace (Apostolidis 1942: 26) (2.19b) του [GEN] βασιλόπαιδο [N/A/G] (#CMG βασιλόπαιδ-ου, <n/a βασιλόπαιδο royal child ), Málgara, Eastern Thrace (ILNE 725b: 256) (2.19c) τη [GEN] άλογο [N/A/G] (#CMG αλόγ-ου, <n/a άλογο horse ) Demirdesi, Bithynia (Danguitsis 1943: 80) Indeclinable genitives can also be found with μα-neuters, which can be explained by the fact that this paradigm has two stem allomorphs, e.g. ψέμα- (nom/acc.sg) and ψέματ- (gen.sg, nom/gen/acc.pl) <ψέμα lie. Therefore, the use of the bare stem for the genitive singular leads to a more balanced distribution of the allomorphs, as -μα- is used for all singular forms and -ματfor the plural ones. For example: (2.20a) του [GEN] χώμα [N/A/G] (#CMG χώματ-ος/ dial. MG χωμάτ-ου, <n/a χώμα soil ) Salento, Southern Italy (Rohlfs 1971: 83) (2.20b) τη [GEN] πράμα [N/A/G] (#CMG πρά(γ)ματ-ος/ dial. MG πραμάτ-ου, <n/a πρά(γ)μα thing ), Demirdesi, Bithynia (Danguitsis 1943: 80) Moreover, as will be shown in Chapter 6, the problematic productivity of the genitives of neuter diminutives have led to the indeclinable use of their singular forms in some dialects: (2.21) του ρούχου τ π δελ [tu ˈruxu tpˈðeʎ] /to ˈruxo tu piˈðeli/ the:n/a.sg.n clothing:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.n little.child:n/a.sg.n (<π δέλ <*πιδέλι <*παιδέλι diminutive of παιδί, instead of *π δελι-ού [GEN.SG]) the clothing of the little child Lesbos (Triantafyllidis 1963: 185) 42

63 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Third, this pattern can also occur in the genitive plural: (2.22) /tos 68 ˈtʃur-i/ the:gen.pl master-nom.pl.m (instead of *tos [GEN.PL] ˈtʃur-o [GEN.PL]) of the masters Italiot, Melissaropoulou (2013: 316) Instances of genitive indeclinability like in (2.20b) and (2.22) are far from being widespread in dialectal MG. Nevertheless, they seem to be more common in the case of neuter diminutives (cf. 2.21) and dialects that are spoken in the periphery of the Greek-speaking world (cf. 2.22b); both of these developments will be examined in Chapters 6 and 8 respectively. Juxtapositional structures can only rarely be located in the modern dialects: (2.23) στα μισά το πέλαγο halfway in the offing (lit. in the half of the offing) /s.ta miˈsa to ˈpelaɣo/ in.the:n/a.pl.n half:n/a.pl.n the:n/a.sg.n offing:n/a.sg.n (instead of *του [GEN.SG] πελάγου [GEN.SG]) Evrostini, Korinthia, Peloponnese (Dorbarakis & Panoutsopoulou 1992: 429) Similarly to the agreement of the definite article and the noun in a case other than the genitive, in a few MG dialects accusative forms are syncretic with the genitive in masculine (and feminine) paradigms, a phenomenon that will be discussed in Chapter 5, cf. example (1.3c). Finally, a different development involves the identical realization of the genitive plural with its singular counterpart. In some of the dialects that exhibit the genitive plural suffix -ούν(ε) by analogy to the genitive singular suffix -ου (cf ), the elimination of final -ν in the definite article can often lead to the use of a single form for both numbers for masculine and neuter genders, e.g. του πατεράδωνε of the fathers (Delvino, Epirus; Spyrou 2008: 148). An extension of this phenomenon is the use of the genitive singular suffix -ου with plural nouns, especially with semantically singular nouns, such as toponyms: τ Αλατσάτου (expected Αλατσάτων) of 68 The peculiarity of this genitive plural form will be discussed in Chapter 5. 43

64 THE GREEK CASE SYSTEM Alátsata (Alátsata, Ionia; Kleanthis 1995: 189), του Γρεβενού (expected Γρεβενών) of Grevená (Epirus; Yagas 1959: 160), του Γιαννίνου (expected Γιαννίνων) of Ioánnina (Triantafyllidis 1963: 184). Apart from these examples which involve toponyms in the plural, the following genitive singular from Artaki in Kýzikos (north-western Asia Minor) possibly involves a case of suppletion of the genitive plural by its singular counterpart as an avoidance strategy of the expected genitive χρημάτων (ILNE 767: 81): εξοικονόμησ χρημάτου saving of money. As will be shown in Chapter 8, the genitive singular and the genitive plural are identically realized in many varieties of Central Asia Minor. A summary of the above phenomena of is as follows: (2.24a) DETERMINERGEN + NOUNGEN: expected use (as in CMG and most dialects) e.g. των ανθρώπων οf the people (2.24b) DETERMINERGEN.SG + NOUNGEN.SG(=ACC[=NOM]): phonological overlap e.g. της αλαπούδα of the fox (loss of final /s/ elsewhere too in Italiot) (2.24c) DETERMINERGEN.PL(=GEN.SG) + NOUNGEN.PL(=GEN.SG): genitive plural <genitive singular e.g. του Γρεβενού of Grevená (2.24d) *DETERMINERGEN.PL + NOUNACC.PL: not attested (2.24e) DETERMINERGEN + NOUNNOM(=ACC): undeclined use of the nominal possessor e.g. τ π δέλ of the little child (Lesbos) (2.24f) DETERMINERACC + NOUNGEN: early stage of the accusative-genitive syncretism e.g. τους ανθρώπων of the guests (e.g. Cypriot, see Chapter 5) (2.24g) DETERMINERACC + NOUNACC: accusative-genitive syncretism e.g. τους ανθρώπους of the people (e.g. Cypriot, see Chapter 5) (2.24h) [DETERMINERNOM(=ACC) +] NOUNNOM(=ACC): juxtaposition e.g. το πέλαγο of the offing (quite rare, example 2.23) 44

65 3. THE FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY OF THE GENITIVE 3.0 Introduction As shown earlier (Table 2.1), the AG genitive had a quite wide range of functions that were extended from its central possessive meaning through metaphors. However, the diachrony of the functions of the genitive was defined by two major developments that involved the loss of most non-possessive functions of the case and the functional merger with the dative in the southern dialects during MedG that can be summarized in the following table: Table 3.1: The contrast between the functions of the ancient and the modern genitive Proto-Indo-European genitive possessive partitive Ancient Greek genitive ablative possessive partitive Medieval Greek genitive I Medieval Greek genitive II (ablative) (partitive) possessive dative (ablative) (partitive) possessive Modern Greek genitive I Modern Greek genitive II possessive dative possessive This type of polyfunctionality is well attested with genitives crosslinguistically (Lander 2009: 590). According to some researchers (cf. Carlier & Verstraete 2013: 5), genitives are primarily

66 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY syntactic and not semantic, due to the fact that they mark dependency between two nominal phrases with the one that functions as a head being restricted by the other. Nevertheless, as will be shown, the semantics of the genitive functions in Greek has played a crucial role in the changes of its syntactic status. Furthermore, genitives are not always exclusively adnominal, as they can be found in almost every syntactic domain crosslinguistically, e.g. as objects of verbs of low transitivity (Lander 2009: 590) or prepositional, spatial adverbial and adjectival complements. Given the fact that a distinction can be drawn between the central and peripheral meanings of the genitive, it can be pointed out that possession is the unmarked function of the genitive, while partitive, ablative and indirect object functions are marked. This is illustrated in Table 2.1, ablative functions are expressed by the genitive through two metaphorical extensions (PARTS ARE POSSESIONS and PARTS ARE ORIGINS, cf. Nikiforidou 1991), which renders them more marked compared to partitive relations. Therefore, there seems to be a gradation in the markedness of genitive functions that plays an important role in the semantic dissociation of the genitive from its peripheral meanings, since the spatial uses of the prepositionless genitive denoting source and origin were already rare in Homer. Another level of markedness that needs to be taken into consideration is the use of the genitive in certain construction types. To be more precise, in AG the unmarked structure of expressing adnominal possession was the genitive, while genitive arguments of verbs were more marked than accusative ones, as hinted in In the following sections of this chapter, these matters will be dealt with: i) the maintenance (and loss) of possessive functions, ii) the loss of the peripheral functions of the genitive and iii) the semantic expansion of the genitive, namely the merger with the dative in Southern Greek and the marking of spatial relations in a few southern dialects. 3.1 Possession Even though possession is the commonest function of genitives crosslinguistically, genitives and possessive markers in general do not solely involve an entity that is possessed by another one, but they cover a wider range of relations. For instance, the phrase John s car might not only refer to a car that belongs to John, but also to a car designed by John or simply driven by John at 46

67 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK a particular moment, which means that context determines the meaning of possessive markers in many cases (cf. Lander 2009: 581). Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002) treats this blurry network of possessive functions by making a distinction between anchoring and non-anchoring relations. The possessors of the first category constitute reference point entities, i.e. the use of the adnominal complement serves for the identification of the head noun, e.g. Peter s bag. In contrast, the dependent nominal phrase of non-anchoring relations is non-referential and it describes or classifies the head noun (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002: 154), e.g. shoes of fashion. In other words, anchoring relations can be described as external, as they involve a separate entity to which the head noun is related, while non-anchoring relations refer to internal characteristics such as properties and attributes of an entity that help in its classification. Appositions seem to form another type of possessive relations, e.g. the day of Christmas, in which the adnominal complement and the head noun are coreferential 69. In 2.1, it was shown that the notion of structured polysemy (Nikiforidou 1991) represents quite accurately the polysemy of the ancient genitive. However, the view that the non-anchoring relations of the AG genitive stem from its merger with the ablative (Metaphorical extension: CONSTITUENT MATERIAL DISTINCTIVE PROPERTY) faces two problems: i) the genitive marks non-anchoring relations (called attributes by Nikiforidou) in IE languages where the ablative had not merged with the genitive, cf. Latin, and ii) από does not mark non-anchoring relations in MG, apart from those denoting material, as they are either marked by the genitive (age and quality) or by juxtapositions (quantity, value and duration). Furthermore, Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2005: 156) argues that the identical marking of anchoring and non-anchoring relations is explained by the fact that they both refer to relations of entities with other entities Anchoring relations As noted earlier, anchoring possessive relations involve a head noun that can be identified by a reference point entity that is expressed by the adnominal complement. Such relations include inalienable possession (e.g. kinship and body-parts) and alienable possession (e.g. ownership and 69 Given the fact that such structures are not very frequent and the influence from Katharévousa might have reinforced their presence in CMG, they will not be discussed here. 47

68 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY disposal, or possession of abstract entities such as properties and attributes). The major types of these relations have always been marked by the genitive in Greek: (3.1a) το γραφείο του Γιάννη John s office Disposal (3.1b) το αυτοκίνητο του Γιάννη John s car Ownership (3.1c) η ευφυΐα του Γιάννη John s intelligence Carrier of properties (3.1d) ο γείτονας του Γιάννη John s neighbor Social relations (3.1e) η μητέρα του Γιάννη John s mother Kinship (3.1f) το πόδι του Γιάννη John s leg Body-part Apart from these functions which reflect more prototypically the relation between two entities that generally involve a possessum and its possessor, the Greek genitive is employed in action nominal constructions where it complements a deverbal noun and marks the subject of intransitive and the object of transitive constructions, whereas the agent of transitive constructions is marked by the preposition από from : (3.2a) το πάθημα του Γιάννη John s suffering Experiencer (3.2b) το γράψιμο του Γιάννη John s writing Subject (3.2c) το γράψιμο της επιστολής από τον Γιάννη Patient/ Theme John s writing of the letter The adjectival use of the genitive is related to this objective meaning, but has been lost in MG and is replaced by predicates or prepositions, even though relics of this use can be found in some modern dialects: (3.3a) AG ἀμάθητος γραμμάτων [GEN] illiterate (lit. ignorant of letters) (3.3b) αμάθητος της δουλειάς [GEN] he does not know the job (lit. ignorant of working) Rhodes, Dodecanese (Papachristodoulou 1958: 20) # CMG δεν ξέρει γράμματα he does not know letters αμάθητος στα γράμματα/ άσχετος από γράμματα ignorant in letters 48

69 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.3b) άφοος του θεού fearless of god Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 447) # CMG δεν φοβάται τον θεό he does not fear god Even though all of the aforementioned relations mostly apply to human nouns and (to a lesser extent) animates, inanimate nouns are also used in anchoring possessive constructions, as can be seen in the following examples: (3.4a) η στέγη του σπιτιού the roof of the house Part of a whole (3.4b) οι δρόμοι της Αθήνας the streets of Athens Location (3.4c) το μάθημα της Πέμπτης Thursday s class Time As can be inferred, part-whole relations resemble the body part relations seen earlier, while locative relations of adnominal possession are treated by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002: 150) as a variety of part-whole relations, since in the above example the streets of Athens the streets or even the inhabitants can be viewed as parts of the whole entity that the city of Athens constitutes. In AG, the role of animacy did not affect the use of the genitive, however, as is also the case crosslinguistically (cf. Lander 2009: 585-6), anchoring relations of inanimate possessors can be marked with other means other than the genitive in CMG and many dialects. More specifically, a prepositional phrase with από (+ACC) from can be used (3.5a), while locative and temporal relations can be marked alternatively by adverbial adjuncts such as the preposition σε 70 (+ACC; 3.5b) in/ to and the accusative of time (3.5c): (3.5a) οι στέγες από τα σπίτια the roofs of the houses Part-whole (3.5b) οι δρόμοι στην Αθήνα έχουν κίνηση the streets in Athens have traffic Location (3.5c) το μάθημα την Πέμπτη αναβλήθηκε Thursday s class was postponed Time 70 <LMedG εἰσέ /iˈse/ in/ to <EHellG εἰς /i(:)s to / <ClG εἰς /e:s/ <*ens, dialectal AG ἐς /es/). The avoidance of consonant clusters in LMedG led to the development of an epenthetic /e/ and the subsequent deletion of unstressed vowels in initial position (apart from /a/) during that period have resulted in the modern form σε, unless the preposition is used with the definite article, where it simply involves deletion of initial /i/, e.g. εἰς τὸ δάσος MG στο δάσος in/ to the forest. 49

70 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Regarding the variation between από and genitive forms in part-whole relations, it should be noted that it mostly occurs with nouns in the plural, but is much less commonly used than the genitive in dialects with maintenance of the case in both numbers. As will be shown in Chapter 6, από is also employed in other anchoring relations with animate nouns with problematic or ungrammatical genitive plural forms, e.g. τα φτερά από τις πάπιες the wings of the ducks vs. *τα φτερά των παπιών. Also, in the majority of the Northern Greek dialects από has been grammaticalized as a possessive marker and can be used with all anchoring possessive relations, resulting in the complete loss of the genitive plural (see Chapter 7) Non-anchoring relations As shown by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002: 154), non-anchoring relations modify rather than constitute anchors that help the identification of the entity denoted by the head noun of a nominal phrase. Unlike anchoring relations, marking of these constructions has significantly changed along the diachrony of Greek. Although the genitive still marks age and quality, juxtapositions and prepositional phrases are employed for non-anchoring relations in MG: (3.6a) μωρό πέντε μηνών [GEN] five month old baby Age (3.6b) μέρες χαράς [GEN] days of joy Quality (3.6c) κουτάλι του τσαγιού [GEN] spoon of tea Purpose /κουτάλι για [for] τσάι / spoon for tea (3.6d) κόσμημα από [from] χρυσό jewellery of gold Material (3.6e) καράβι δέκα τόνοι [JUXT] ship of ten tons Quantity (3.6f) πέντε ώρες [JUXT] δρόμος five-hour distance Duration (3.6g) 500 δραχμές [JUXT] τσιγάρα cigarettes worth 500 drachmas Value Given the fact that the AG genitive could mark all these non-anchoring functions, it is interesting to examine their loss in MG. Starting with relations of age, the frequent use of the genitives of nouns that denote time established their survival in MG, unlike most other functions: χρονού year old, χρονώ(ν) years old, μηνός/ μηνού month old, μηνώ(ν) months old, (η)μέρας day old, (η)μερώ(ν) days old, ώρας hour old, ωρών hours old ; however, these forms are highly fossilized which is shown by the occasional indeclinable use of numerals 50

71 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK dialectally, e.g. είνι τέσσιρα [N/A] χρουνώ [GEN] she is four years old (Μaronía, Western Thrace; ILNE 605: 11). Relations of quality are also marked by the genitive and often reflect literary or formal register and set expressions, e.g. πέτρα της υπομονής stone of patience. Relations of purpose and material are marked by prepositional phrases, unlike the rest of the non-anchoring functions. As regards purpose, it should be noted that the use of the genitive can be found in set expressions, e.g. κουταλάκι του γλυκού spoon for sweets, μαχαίρι της σφαγής knife for slaughtering, σκοινί της κρεμάλας rope for hanging, or structures showing archaistic influence, while the preposition για for (+ACC) is a more commonly used marker. The same holds for material relations which are predominantly marked by από from and the use of the genitive is mostly found in set expressions of archaistic influence, e.g. ψωμί σικάλεως [GEN] rye bread. The difference in the marking of these relations is explained by the frequent use of prepositional phrases with για for and από from as adverbial adjuncts of similar meaning, e.g. θέλω ένα κουτάλι για το τσάι μου I want a spoon for my tea or έφτιαξα ένα κάστρο από άμμο I made a castle out of sand. The reanalysis of such adverbial adjuncts as adnominal complements resulted in the expansion of their use in non-anchoring possessive relations and the replacement of the genitive. Relations of purpose were not exclusively marked by the genitive even in AG, since the dative and the prepositions εἰς, πρός (+ACC), ἐπί (+DAT) could also mark this function, e.g. σκεῦος πρὸς ἕψησιν ἐπιτήδειον utensil appropriate for grilling (Philoxenus, Fragmenta, Fragment 249*, l. 6, 1 st c. BC), which explains the use of διά/ για for in later periods. As regards the use of από in constructions denoting material, this should be attributed to the metaphor CONSTITUENT MATERIAL IS ORIGIN (Nikiforidou 1991: 180) according to which the constituent material of an entity is viewed as a relation between an originating element and its origin. The early signs of the shift from the genitive to prepositional phrases occur in HellG texts: (3.7) τὰ ὅπλα... τὰ ἐκ σιδήρου /ta ˈopla ta ek siˈdiru/ the:n/a.pl.n weapon:n/a.pl.n the:n/a.pl.n out.of iron:gen.sg.m the weapons... those of iron Apollonius Sophistes, Lexicon Homericum, p. 166 (1 st -2 nd AD) 51

72 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Such structures seem to have originated from adverbial adjuncts, e.g. (Bortone 2010: 148): Herodotus (5 th c. BC) οὐκ ἐκ ξύλων ποιεῦνται τὰ πλοῖα they don t make ships out of wood, ἀπὸ ξύλων πεποιημένα made of wood. Turning to relations of quantity, duration and value, the use of juxtapositional structures instead of the genitive can be found in ancient texts (cf. Jannaris 1897: 335): (3.8a) (3.8b) (3.8c) ἐπὶ μισθῷ τριήκοντα ταλάντοισι /epì mist h ɔ :i triέ:konta talántoisi/ on salary:dat.sg.m thirty talent:dat.pl.n on salary of thirty talents (unit of value) Herodotus, Historiae, Book 8, section 4, l. 10 (5 th c. BC) εἰς ὕψος ἓξ πήχεις /i:s hýpsos heks pέ:k h i:s/ to height:n/a.sg.n six forearm:n/a.pl.f to the height of six cubits (unit of length) Aristotle, Mirabilium auscultationes, Bekker p. 834b, l. 9 (4 th c. BC) εἰς ὕψος ἑξήκοντα πήχεις /is ˈypsos eˈksikonta ˈpik h is/ to height:n/a.sg.n sixty forearm:n/a.pl.f to the height of sixty cubits (unit of length) Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, book 15, chapter 385, l. 3 (1 st c. AD) The adnominal complement in these structures agrees in case with the head noun, in contrast to the expected genitives of value and measure ταλάντων and πήχεων/ πηχῶν respectively. It seems that these analytic structures were influenced by appositions or accusatives of respect, e.g. τὸ τεῖχος ἤγειραν εἰς εἴκοσι πήχεις τὸ ὕψος [ACC] they raised the wall up to twenty forearms in height (lit. the height) Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii, book 3, section 274, l. 3 (1 st c. AD). As juxtapositional structures are a crosslinguistically widespread strategy for marking nonanchoring relations (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2002), their early use in parallel with the genitive in Greek should not surprise. 52

73 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Even though the above examples from ClG and HellG show that the competition between juxtapositional structures and non-anchoring genitives was an early development, relics of genitives marking duration, value and quantity have survived in a few MG dialects, e.g. τριών ημερώ [GEN] δρόμος three-day distance (Rhodes, Dodecanese; Papachristodoulou 1958: 29), πέντε δραχμώ [GEN] πράμα a thing worth five drachmas (Kímolos, Cyclades; Voyatzidis 1925: 158), σαράντα οκαδιού [GEN] γ ρούνι pig of fourty okas (=unit of mass) (Skyros, Aegean; Perdika 1940: 119). The dichotomy in marking anchoring and non-anchoring relations is crosslinguistically widespread, as according to Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2002: 156), Greek belongs to a typological group of languages in which non-anchoring relations require looser formal linking with the head noun than the anchoring ones. 3.2 Ablative functions The early merger between the ablative and genitive in Proto-Greek most likely took place through the partitive notion of the PIE genitive which was closely linked to the meanings of source and origin (Luraghi 2003: 50). As Nikiforidou (1991: 173) mentions, the metaphor WHOLES ARE ORIGINS explains the cognitive connection between partitives and ablatives which can be found in other Indo-European languages as well, e.g. Balto-Slavic (Sihler 1995: 247), as well as the morphological roots of the syncretism that were mentioned in 2.1. The use of the ablative genitive was not restricted to marking the origin or the source of an entity, but it covered a wide range of functions through cognitive metaphors according to Nikiforidou (1991). Thus, the relation ORIGIN: ORIGINATING ELEMENT is linked to the relations CAUSE: EFFECT and STANDARD OF COMPARISON: THING COMPARED; in the latter case, difference is metaphorically portrayed as separation or distance. The network of the functions of the AG ablative genitive can be found in all syntactic domains 71 : 71 The ablatival use of the genitive as prepositional or adverbial complement will be discussed later. 53

74 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY (3.9a) (3.9b) Adnominal/ adjectival use i. Distinction/ comparison: ἐμοῦ [GEN] καλλίων more beautiful than me Xenophon, Symposium, (4 th c. BC) ii. Deprivation/ wanting ἅρματα κενὰ ἡνιόχων [GEN] chariots empty of drivers Xenophon, Anabasis, (4 th c. BC) Adverbal/ Adverbial use i. Origin ἀνέδυ... ἁλός [GEN] she rose from the sea Homer, Iliad, (8 th c. BC) ii. Source Μάθε δέ μου [GEN] καὶ τάδε learn from me the following as well Xenophon, Cyropaedia, (4 th c. BC) iii. Separation/ distance ἀπέχει τῆς πόλεως [GEN] it lies far from the city Thucydides (5 th c. BC) iv. Comparison/ distinction τὸ δ ἐπιστητὸν... διαφέρει τοῦ δοξαστοῦ [GEN] the matter of science differs from the matter of opinion Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione, p. 88b (4 th c. BC) v. Cause (with verbs of emotion) ἐθαύμασα τῆς τόλμης [GEN] Ι admired the boldness Lysias, In Eratosthenem, 41 (5 th c. BC) vi. Beginning σέο [GEN] δ ἄρξομαι I will start from you Homer, Iliad, (8 th c. BC) vii. Constituent material χαλκοῦ [GEN] ποιέονται τὰ ἀγάλματα the statues are made of bronze Herodotus, (5 th c. BC) 54

75 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK In addition, Humbert (1954) attributes the genitive absolute, i.e. the use of a participle in the genitive case as an adverbial adjunct, to the ablative meaning of the case; this is accurate if kept in mind that the respective structure in Latin was expressed by the ablative absolute (cf. Bortone 2010: 127). The use of adjunct clauses and the transformation of most ancient participles into indeclinable gerunds resulted in the loss of this function during MedG: AG θεοῦ [god:gen.sg.m] θέλοντος [want:pcp.prs.gen.sg.m] god willing MG αν ο θεός θέλει if god wants. However, the prepositions ἀπό from (origin), ἐκ/ ἐξ out of/ from and παρά from (source), which all governed the genitive, competed with the ablative use of the genitive quite early in the history of the language, cf. Luraghi (2003: 59), e.g.: (3.10) ἀπέχει ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου /apék h i: apó tu: he:líu:/ lie.far from the:gen.sg.m sun:gen.sg.m it lies far from the sun Aristarchus Astr., De magnitudinibus et distantiis solis et lunae, 6 (4 th -3 rd c. BC) Such structures with ἀπό (+GEN) can be found in the later centuries of HellG as well, which explains the fact that in MG all of these functions are marked by από (+ACC): ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ἕτερον νόμον ἀπὸ [from] τούτου [GEN] κρείττονα he wrote another law as well better than this one (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica (lib. 1 20), , 1 st. c. BC) 72, [χ]ωρίζωνται ἀπ [from] ἀλλήλων [GEN] they separate from each other (BGU I 252, l. 7, 98 AD), ἐλεύθεροι ἀπὸ [from] πάσης ἀναγκαίας νομίσεώς [GEN] εἰσι they are free of every necessary opinion (Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae, , 2 nd -3 rd c. AD). As regards verbs of emotion, MG either employs the accusative or the preposition για for, e.g. θαυμάζω την τόλμη της I admire her boldness / την θαυμάζω για [for] την τολμή της I admire her for her boldness. The exact same structures are found in HellG sources: ἐθαύμαζον τό τε εἶδος [ACC]... τῆς ἡδονῆς they admired the form of the pleasure (Athenaeus, 72 The prepositions παρά by (+ACC) and ὑπέρ over (+ACC) were also used to mark the standard of comparison in New Testament Greek (Moulton & Turner 1963: 216): φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ [over] τοὺς υἱοὺς [ACC] wiser than the sons (Luke 16.8, 1 st c. AD) and διαφορώτερον παρ [by] αὐτοὺς [ACC] κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα he has inherited a more distinct name than they have (Hebrews 1. 4, 1 st c. AD). 55

76 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Deipnosophistae, 2.85, 2 nd -3 rd c. AD), ἐθαύμαζον διὰ [for] τὴν ἀήθειαν [ACC] they wondered because of the unaccustomedness (Appian, Iberica, 315, 1 st -2 nd c. AD). As these data imply, the ablative functions were lost quite early, despite the marginal presence of ablative genitive relics in MG, cf. τ ακούω πολλωνώ [GEN] I hear it from many (people) (Kímolos, Cyclades; Voyatzidis 1925: 154). Nevertheless, the genitive of cause has left a few vestiges in MG, cf. the set expressions πεθαίνω της πείνας/ της δίψας I am extremely hungry/ thirsty (lit. I am dying of hunger/ of thirst) which are found in most modern dialects. Quite surprisingly, the genitive of cause is not restricted to relics, but seems to be productive in Cypriot according to Menardos (1896): σκοτωμένος της δουλειάς [GEN] he is exhausted (lit. killed) because of (his) work, εν κόκκινη του δρωταρκού [GEN] she is red because of rashes, ελούθην του κλαμάτου [GEN] s/he was showered by tears, εμαύρισεν του ήλιου [GEN] s/he tanned because of the sun, λιμάσσει του ψουμιού [GEN] s/he starves for (the desire of) bread. Similar structures can be found in other insular and southern dialects: το αμάλιν ήσκασε ττου νερού [GEN] the calf is extremely thirsty (lit. exploded for water) (Kárpathos, Dodecanese; Minás 1970: 107), πεθαμένος της κούρασης [GEN] extremely exhausted (lit. dead from exhaustion) (Andros, Cyclades; Voyatzidis 1956: 174), βρασμένος του ήλιου [GEN] extremely heated (lit. boiled because of the sun) (Kythnos, Cyclades; Koukoulés 1923: 313). Quite interestingly, Pontic also exhibits such uses: τ αντρού [GEN] κλαμέντζα crying because of her husband (Papadópoulos 1955: 99). 3.3 Partitive functions Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2001: 527) defines partitive constructions as selections of subsets out of supersets. Such relations are usually expressed by numerals and quantifiers, e.g. five of these books, some of these books. Apart from these structures, there is another type of relations that is known under the term pseudo-partitive constructions and is expressed by nouns that serve as quantifiers, e.g. a pile of books. According to Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2009: 331), the following major subtypes of nominal quantifiers can be noted: conventionalized measures (e.g. a litre of milk), abstract quantity nouns (e.g. a number of students), containers (e.g. a pail of apples), 56

77 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK fractions/ parts (e.g. a slice of bread, the majority of the students), quanta (e.g. a drop of milk), collections (e.g. a group of students), forms (e.g. a pile of sand/ bricks). The difference between these two types lies in the fact that true partitive constructions involve a definite or specific superset and that pseudo-partitive constructions simply refer to the kind of entity quantified by the nominal quantifier. More precisely, even though English employs the preposition of for both structures, true partitives can be distinguished by the presence of the determiner or another complement, e.g. five of John s books. It should be noted, however, that the formal distinction of marking the two types is more common crosslinguistically, as can be seen in Finnish which marks true partitives with the elative case and pseudo-partitives with the partitive (Rutkowski 2007: 340): pala tästä [ELAT] hyvästä [ΕLAT) kakusta [ELAT] a bit of this good cake vs. säkki perunoita [PART] a sack of potatoes. The diachrony of Greek provides an excellent example of this formal dichotomy between the two types of partitive relations; the AG genitive could mark both types, while in MG true partitives are marked by a prepositional phrase with από from and pseudo-partitives by juxtapositions, thus resembling the non-anchoring relations seen earlier: (3.11a) τις θεῶν /tis t h eɔ :n/ some:nom.sg.m god:gen.pl.m one of the gods Euripides, Heracles, l. 719 (5th c. BC) #MG κάποιος από [from] τους [ACC] θεούς [ACC] (3.11b) δέπας οἴνοιο /dépas óinoio/ cup:n/a.sg.n wine:gen.sg.m cup of wine Homer, Odyssey 8, l. 70 (8 th c. BC) #MG κούπα [cup:n/a.sg.f] κρασί [wine:n/a.sg.n] Apart from its adnominal and adjectival use, the partitive genitive was used in a very diverse range of syntactic domains in AG (Conti & Luraghi, forthcoming), as it could be found as the 57

78 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY second or third argument of verbs, as an adverbial adjunct (mostly denoting time), while the prepositional use of the ancient genitive is largely based on its partitive meaning (see 3.4.1). The use of partitive genitives as non-canonical subjects will not be discussed here due to the sporadic extent of the phenomenon and its clear origin from elliptical constructions with omission of the nominative subjects: οὐκ [NEG] ἀπέθανον αὐτῶν [GEN] none of them died (Xenophon, Hellenica , 4 th c. BC) <*ἀπέθανον αὐτῶν [GEN] oὐδένες [nobody:νομ.pl.m] True partitives Marking of true partitive constructions with a prepositional phrase with από in MG entails a transition from the bare partitive genitive to prepositional phrases of ablative and elative meaning. The use of ablative markers is the most widely used strategy in the languages of Europe for the marking of partitive relations, while the use of purely possessive markers is only found in Balto-Slavic languages (apart from Bulgarian and Makedonski) and Albanian (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009: 335). According to Bortone (2010: 128), the semantic relation of partitive with ablative functions can be understood under the sense that the partitive separates a part from a superset, while Luraghi (2003: 50) notes: Partitive envisages a trajector as being an individuated, detachable part of a whole (the landmark). Consequently, even though the AG genitive was the predominant marker of true partitive constructions, the very first signs of the shift to ἀπό and ἐκ can already be found in texts of all ancient periods: (3.12a) ὀλίγοι ἀπὸ πολλῶν /olígoi apὸ pollɔ :n/ few:nom.pl.m from many:gen.pl.m few of many Thucydides, Historiae, Book 7, ch. 87, s. 6, l. 4 (5 th c. BC) (3.12b) Ἔλεγον οὖν τινες ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν /ˈelegon ˈun tines ek ton Ierosolymiˈton/ say:3pl.pst so some:nom.pl.m out.of the:gen.pl Jerusalemite:GEN.pl.m Some of the Jerusalemites used to say New Testament, John 7:25 (1 st c. AD) 58

79 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Bortone (2010: 143) describes such findings as an attempt to reinforce the partitive notion of the genitive. Furthermore, as can be seen in the following example, the origin of this shift can be sought in structures where prepositional phrases with ἀπό and ἐκ could either be interpreted as partitives or as adverbial adjuncts: (3.13) ἐκ πολέων πίσυρας συναείρεται ἵππους /ek poléɔ:n písuras sunaéiretai híppo:s/ out.of many:gen.pl.m four:acc.pl.m take:3sg.mid horse:acc.pl.m he takes four horses out of many Homer, Iliad 15, l. 680 It can be proposed that the use of bare genitives had entirely disappeared during LMedG, as can be seen in the vernacular texts from this period: (3.14) εἷς ἀπὸ τοὺς τρεῖς μας is aˈpo tus tris mas one:nom.sg.m from the:acc.pl.m three:n/a.pl.m 1pl:ACC.wk one of the three of us Digenes Acritas (E), l. 138 (12 th c./ ms.<16 th c.) Although numerals, quantifiers and most nominal quantifiers cannot be used with the genitive in MG 73, e.g. *δύο των φίλων [GEN] σου two of your friends, the influence of formal registers and the scholarly language has introduced a few structures that employ the genitive, especially abstract quantity nouns, e.g. ο αριθμός των φοιτητών [GEN] the number of the students, and fractions, e.g. η πλειοψηφία των πολιτών [GEN] the majority of the citizens, το ένα τρίτο των υποψηφίων [GEN] one third of the candidates, το πενήντα τοις εκατό των πολιτών [GEN] 50% of the citizens. In addition, partitive relics used in superlative structures can also be found in common and dialectal MG: η καλύτερη γυναίκα του κόσμου [GEN]/ στον κόσμο the best woman of the world/ in the world, η ολόκακ ος τη κόσμο [GEN] the worst man in the world 73 Note the use of the syncretic genitive plurals of pronominal clitics: οι δυο μας [ACC/GEN] the two of us. 59

80 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY (lit. the all-bad of the world) (Demirdesi, Bithynia; Danguitsis 1943: 245). Pontic Greek employs the genitive plural όλων of all with adjectives to form superlative constructions, e.g. όλων το μικρόν το χαλίν the smallest carpet (lit. the small carpet of all) (Parcharidis 1951: 102). Similar relics of partitive origin that are based on the biblical expression τα αγία των αγίων [GEN] the holy of holies can be found in a few MG dialects, e.g. γεναίκα τωγ γεναικών [GEN] a great woman (lit. woman of the women) (Cyprus; Menardos 1896: 447) Pseudo-partitive constructions In the following examples, nominal quantifiers are predominantly used with juxtapositions in MG, even though από from and (less often) με with can also be employed: (3.15a) μια κούπα [N/A] (*από)(με) κρασί [N/A] a cup of/with wine CONTAINER (3.15b) δυο λίτρα [N/A] (*από) νερό [N/A] two litres of water MEASURE (3.15c) κομμάτι [N/A] (από) χαρτί [N/A] a piece of snow PART (3.15d) σωρός [NOM] (από) βιβλία [N/A] a pile of books FORM (3.15e) τσιμπιά [N/A] (από) αλάτι [N/A] a pinch of salt QUANTUM The use of juxtapositions in pseudo-partitive constructions is explained by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2009: 331) as the influence of structures with numerals and quantifiers on nominal quantifiers. As shown earlier, true partitive constructions with numerals, quantifiers and numeral quantifiers have always been marked in the same way and this element adapted the marking of pseudopartitive constructions with nominal quantifiers to structures with numerals and quantifiers which are also juxtapositional: Table 3.2: The origin of juxtapositional pseudo-partitive constructions true partitives: [ένας σωρός] [από] [αυτά τα βιβλία ] <[τρία/ πολλά] [από] [αυτά τα βιβλία] NOM.QUANT PREP NP NUM/QUANT PREP NP a pile of these books three/ many of these books pseudo-partitives: [ένας σωρός] [βιβλία] <[τρία/ πολλά] [βιβλία] NOM.QUANT NOUN NUM/QUANT NOUN a pile of books three/ many books 60

81 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK This view can be supported by the diachrony of numerical nouns ending in -άδα. Like the English thousands of people and the syntax of numerals higher than five in Finnic and Slavic (Koptjevskaja Tamm 2001), cf. Russian pjat jablok (GEN) five apples, numerical nouns like χιλιάδες thousands and μυριάδες ten-thousands employed the genitive both in their cardinal and nominal use, e.g. είκοσι μυριάδες Αιγυπτίων two hundred thousand Egyptians (lit. twenty ten-thousands of Egyptians) (Herodotus 2, 30.7). However, the influence of regular cardinal numerals resulted in the use of these numerical nouns with juxtapositions during HellG: (3.16) πεντακόσιαι χιλιάδες ἄνδρες /pentaˈkosie k h iliˈades ˈandres/ five.hundred:nom.pl.f millenary:nom.pl.f man:nom.pl.m five hundred thousand men Septuaginta, Chronicon 2, ch. 13, s. 17, l. 3 (3 rd -2 nd c. BC) As shown in 3.1.2, the early signs of shift of relations of quantity, duration and value to juxtapositions might have also influenced pseudo-partitive constructions. While diachronic data do not indicate that the transition from the pseudo-partitive use of the genitive to juxtapositions involved an intermediate stage of the use of ἀπό and ἐκ in the case of conventionalized measure units and containers, this seems to hold true for nominal quantifiers that denote parts, quanta and forms, cf. τμήματα ἀπὸ τῶν δερματίων parts of pieces of leather (Scholia in Aristophanem, Scholia in equites (scholia vetera et recentiora Triclini), section-verse 49f, l. 2; 14 th c.). The use of comitative markers can also be observed in pseudo-partitive constructions with containers: (3.17) κοχλιάριον μετ οἴνου /koxliˈarion meˈta ˈynu/ spoon:n/a.sg.n with wine:gen.sg.m a spoon of wine (lit. with wine) Oribasius, Synopsis ad Eustathium filium, book 9, chapter 24, section 8, l. 1 (4 th c. AD) 61

82 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Pseudo-partitive genitive relics are extremely rare in dialectal MG, as apart from some examples in Cappadocian (cf. Chapter 8), I have not encountered similar structures 74. It can be proposed that the genitive had lost these functions by the LMedG period: (3.18a) λίτρας κερίν τρεις three litres of wax /ˈlitras keˈrin tris/ litre:acc.pl.f wax:n/a.sg.n three:n/a.pl.f document from Southern Italy, 1086 AD (Minás 1994: 175) (3.18b) καυκίν κρασίν οὐ δίδουν με they don t give me a cup of wine /kafˈkin kraˈsin u ˈðiðun me/ cup:n/a.sg.n wine:n/a.sg.n NEG give:3pl 1sg:ACC.wk Ptochoprodromica, poem 4, l. 137 (12 th c. AD) Neutralization of partial and total objects Apart from its adnominal use, the AG partitive genitive could be used as the second or third argument of various semantic groups of verbs which can be summarized as follows: (3.19a) Theoretically, any kind of verb can take the genitive if the reference to that specific complement involves a part of it 75 : τῶν πώλων [GEN] λαμβάνει he takes (some) of the colts Xenophon, Anabasis, Book 4, chapter 5, section 35, l. 5 (4 th c. BC) (3.19b) Participation: οὐδενὸς [GEN] δὲ κοινωνοῦσι They don t share anything Aristotle, Fragmenta Varia, categ. 1, treatise title 6, fragment 52, l. 41 (4 th c. BC) 74 Note the structure ðʝo kaˈnnuʎa [N/A.PL.N] neˈrone [?GEN.PL.N] two troughs of water (lit. waters) (Rossi-Taibbi & Caracausi 1959: 59). In this structure, neˈrone might not reflect a genitive plural, but a nominative/accusative singular with the addition of /e/ to avoid the closed syllable: n/a.sg νερόν νερόνε. Even though this interpretation would make more sense syntactically (cf. ex. 3.15b), the maintenance of final /n/ (even with the addition of the euphonic /e/) is not seen elsewhere with nominative/accusative singulars of neuters (or masculine and feminine accusative singulars) in the dialect, but is quite often with genitive plural forms, which is something to take into consideration. Also, Dieterich (1908: 350) mentions the structure σωρό [ACC.SG.M] σταυρώ [GEN.PL.M] a pile of crosses in a folksong from Siphnos (Cyclades); nevertheless, the original verse is most likely: θωρώ [see:1sg] σταυρό [ACC.SG.M] I see a cross (observation made by Nicholas on a reader s written comment next to that verse). 75 Example taken from Smyth (1916: 230). 62

83 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.19c) Beginning, ending: τοῦ λόγου [GEN] δὲ ἤρχετο he began the speech Xenophon, Anabasis, Book 3, chapter 2, section 8, l. 1 (4 th c. BC) (3.19d) Senses (hearing, tasting, touching, taking hold of, perceiving) 76 : ἅπτονται ἄρχοντoς [GEN] they have to do (lit. touch) with the ruler Xenophon, Cyropaedia, Book 1 chapter 6 section 25 line 9 (4 th c. BC) (3.19e) Succeeding, failing, trying, aiming at, reaching for: τιμῶν [GEN] τυγχάνουσι They are treated (lit. luck into) with honors Xenophon, Memorabilia, Book 3, chapter 12, section 4, l. 7 (4 th c. BC) (3.19f) Desire, enjoyment: τούτου [GEN] ἐπιθυμεῖ he desires this Plato, Philebus, (steph.) pg. 35, section b, l. 3 (5 th -4 th c. BC) (3.19g) Memory, oblivion: ἄλλου λόγου [GEN] μέμνησθε you (pl.) remember of other words Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound, l. 522 (5th c. BC) (3.19h) Taking care of: Ἄρης δ οὐκ ἀγαθῶν [GEN] φείδεται Ares doesn t take care of good men Anacreon, Epigrammata, Book 7, epigram 160, l. 2 (6th c. BC) (3.19i) Ruling: θαλάττης [GEN] μὲν ἦρχον They ruled over the sea Demosthenes, Third Philippic, section 47, line 3 (4 th c. BC) (3.19j) Filling: αἱ δὲ λήκυθοι μύρου [GEN] γέμουσι The jugs are full of unction Aristophanes, Wealth, l (5 th c. BC) According to Luraghi (1988: 179), the use of partitive genitive direct objects is found in four ways in AG: i) verbs that exclusively use the genitive, such as τυγχάνω luck into, ii) verbs that employ partial and total objects in free variation, e.g. verbs that denote eating and drinking, iii) verbs whose genitive and accusative direct objects have different meanings, e.g. παιδὸς [GEN] ὀρέξατο he reached (towards) the child (Iliad, 6: 466)/ ὀρεξάμενος πρυμνὸν σκέλος [ACC] 76 Apart from sight. 63

84 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY reaching the end-most part of the leg (Iliad, 16: 314) and iv) verbs whose genitive and dative direct objects have different meanings, e.g. δαίτης [GEN] ἠντήσατε you chanced a feast (Odyssey, 3.44)/ ἤντεον ἀλλήλοισιν [DAT] they met each other (Iliad, 7: 423). It should not be overlooked that the adverbal partitive genitive could also be used as a marker of indefiniteness (Conti & Luraghi forthcoming): νενομισμένον ἐστὶν κροκοδείλου [GEN] φαγεῖν it is customary to eat crocodile (Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride (351c-384c), Steph. p. 371D, l. 6). As the genitive started to lose gradually its partitive meaning, the opposition between partial and total objects was heavily affected by the extension of the use of the accusative as the exclusive case of direct objects, a shift that also occurred with monotransitive verbs that governed the dative. The first signs of this tendency can be traced back to HellG according to Hatzidakis (1892: 220-2) and Jannaris (1897: 334-5), e.g. ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον [ACC] he obtained the lot (New Testament, Acta I 17, 1 st c. AD). Conti & Luraghi (forthcoming) mention that the use of the partitive genitive as a third argument never functions as an indirect object, e.g. ὠτειλὰς [ACC] πλῆσαν ἀλείφατος [GEN] they filled the wounds with ointment (Homer, Iliad, ), while its occurrence with verbs of filling was already in competition with the instrumental dative in AG: δακρύοις [DAT] γὰρ Ἑλλάδα [ACC] πᾶσαν ἔπλησε for she filled Greece with tears (Euripides, Orestes 1363), cf. the use of the preposition με with in MG: γέμισε το ποτήρι [ACC] με νερό s/he filled the glass with water. This change does not simply reflect the extension of the use of the unmarked direct object case to other domains as a strategy of syntactic simplification, but as can be seen in Luraghi s classification above, the majority of the AG verbs that governed partial objects could also take accusative objects either in free variation or with a different meaning, e.g. κρατέω + GEN rule over vs. κρατέω + ACC conquer. In addition, while most verbs denoting senses governed the genitive, verbs of vision governed the accusative, e.g. ὁράω see, providing a source of influence towards the syntactically more frequent use of accusative direct objects. This change is crosslinguistically well attested, cf. the loss of genitive objects and the shift from lexical to structural case in Middle English (Allen 1995: 218). Quite interestingly, a few southern MG dialects have maintained vestiges of genitive objects. Cypriot and a few Aegean varieties exhibit a great number of these structures, which indicates that genitive complements were more widespread in certain MedG varieties. 64

85 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.20a) ελιμπίστην της κοπέλλας [GEN] he fancies the girl Cyprus (Menardos 1896) (3.20b) ρέεται τ αππιδκιού [GEN] he yearns the pear (3.20c) του Χάρου [GEN] λησμονά του he forgets of Charon (3.20d) άκουσα του ρολογιού [GEN] I heard the clock (3.20e) μεν εγγίζεις του γλυκού [GEN] don t touch the sweet (3.20f) μυρίζομαι των νυχιώμ [GEN] μου I smell my fingers (3.20g) ακούει τση άλληνης [GEN] Andros, Cyclades He hears the other one (Basea-Bezantakou 2000: 211) (3.20h) του καλοκαιριού [GEN] μυρίζει it smells like summer (lit. of the summer) (Voyatzidis 1956: 173) (3.20i) αν ήκουε ο Χριστός των κουρουνώ(ν) [GEN] Santorini, Cyclades if Christ heard of the crows (Petalás 1876: 91) (3.20j) έκουσά του [GEN]/ εθθυμήθηκά του [GEN] Chalki, Dodecanese I heard him/ I remembered him (Tsopanakis 1949: 62) (3.20k) εν του γροίκου του Λινάρδου [GEN] Kímolos, Cyclades they don t listen to Linardos (Voyatzidis 1925: 154) Finally, even where the distinction between partial and total objects was eliminated by the exclusive use of accusative arguments, the lost partitive notion of the genitive was conveyed by ablative prepositions, e.g. τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει ἐκ [out of] τῶν ψιχίων τῆς τραπέζης the dogs eat of the crumbs of the table (John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos, vol. 55, p. 169, l. 45; 4 th -5 th c. AD), cf. MG τα σκυλιά τρώνε από [from] τα ψίχουλα του τραπεζιού Adverbial use of the partitive genitive The use of the partitive genitive as an adverbial adjunct was limited in AG, as its use in a spatial sense can mostly be located in Homer (cf. Luraghi 2003: 60): ἦ oὐκ Ἄργεος [GEN] ἦεν he wasn t in (the area of) Argos Odyssey In contrast, the extension of the spatial use of the genitive to marking time was quite productive in AG, e.g. νυκτός during night, θέρους during summer. Such relics of the temporal genitive can be found in CMG, e.g. του χρόνου next year, and dialectal MG, e.g. τς στιγμής at once (Skiathos, Sporades; Rigas 1962: 56), παλαιού τσαιρού at past times (Andros, Cyclades; Voyatzidis 1956: 174). However, the accusative of 65

86 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY time (already present in AG) and the allative/ locative preposition σε have replaced this function of the partitive genitive in MG, e.g. τον επόμενο μήνα [ACC] next month, στη [in.the:acc] στιγμή at once. 3.4 Complement of prepositions and adverbials The loss of the ablative and partitive functions of the genitive had a significant impact on the fate of the prepositional use of the genitive. More specifically, the ancient prepositions that used to govern the genitive were either lost or shifted to the accusative, while adverbial prepositions shifted to periphrastic constructions forming the modern compound prepositions. The following examples clearly demonstrate this change: Prepositions Adverbial prepositions (3.21a) ΑG ἀπὸ θαλάσσης [GEN] πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης [GEN] (3.21b) Med/MG από θάλασσα [ACC] πέρα από [from] τη θάλασσα [ACC] from the sea beyond the sea Before examining the nature of this shift that rendered the accusative the exclusive prepositional case in the system of Med and MG, it is important to refer to the syntactic status of the prepositions of AG. Thus, the semantics of the three oblique cases of the AG system operated in a complex prepositional system which often involved the use of a preposition with all cases with various semantic differentiations. The syntax of the so called proper prepositions can be represented in the following way: 66

87 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 3.3: The syntax of the Ancient Greek prepositions G/D/A ἀμφί ἀνά ἐπί μετά παρά περί πρός ὑπό around up on among by about toward under G/A διά κατά ὑπέρ GEN ἀντί ἀπό ἐκ/ ἐξ πρό through down over instead from out of before DAT ἐν σύν ACC εἰς in with το/ toward Apart from proper prepositions, spatial and other adverbs could also function as improper prepositions, cf. (3.21a) above. All of these adverbs governed the genitive apart from ἅμα and ὡς which followed the syntax of their homonymous σύν and εἰς respectively (Luraghi 1988: 178): Table 3.4: The syntax of the Ancient Greek improper prepositions GEN ἄνευ/ χωρίς ἄχρι/ ἕως/ μέχρι ἕνεκα μεταξύ etc. separately/ without as far as because of between DAT ἅμα ACC ὡς together with toward (a human) As can be seen, the genitive dominates the syntax of both proper and improper prepositions; as regards the former, their use with the genitive can be explained by both its ablative (cf. ἀπό from and ἐκ out of ) and partitive (cf. ἐπί on and μετά among ) functions. Luraghi (2003: 80) points out that the use of the partitive genitive with prepositions is an innovation of AG, as it is not normally found in other Indo-European languages. When used in prepositional phrases, the partitive genitive could mark a discontinuous landmark and created an opposition with the prepositional accusative which denoted continuous landmark, e.g. (Luraghi 2006: 490): (3.22) διὰ πάντων [GEN] (Iliad 12, 104) vs. διὰ δῶμα [ACC] (Odyssey 7, 139) amid all (=humans) (discontinuous) through the hall (continuous) Apart from the genitive-ablative merger during Proto-Greek, another factor that reinforced the use of the partitive genitive with prepositions was the tendency to restrict the prepositional dative 67

88 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY of AG (cf. Luraghi [2005: 255] on the replacement of the use of μετά with the dative by the genitive). As regards the use of the genitive with adverbial prepositions, this can be attributed to its default adnominal function (cf. Lander 2009: 589). This does not only refer to the fact that a lot of these adverbs are of nominal origin, e.g. μακράν far <feminine accusative singular of μακρός long, but also reflects their potential nominal use, e.g. τὸ ὀπίσω τοῦ μηροῦ [GEN] the back of the thigh (Apollonius, In Hippocratis de articulis commentarius, s. 25, l. 34; 1 st c. BC) or MG το πίσω (μέρος) του σπιτιού [GEN] the back (part) of the house. The syntax of the AG prepositions was related to the semantics of the three oblique cases, as can be shown in the following table (based on Luraghi 2003): Table 3.5: The interplay between the cases and the prepositions of Ancient Greek GENITIVE POSSESSIVE adverbial prepositions PARTITIVE discontinuous location ABLATIVE ἀπό from, ἐκ out of etc. e.g. μακράν far e.g. ἐπί on DATIVE LOCATIVE interior, e.g. ἐν in INSTRUMENTAL σύν with contact, e.g. ἐπί on ACCUSATIVE DIRECTION εἰς to πρός toward (MOTION TO) LOCATION continuous location, e.g. ἐπί on lack of contact, e.g. περί about This situation changed dramatically in subsequent periods, as the loss of the dative and the loss of the ablative and partitive genitive resulted in the following developments: 68

89 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.23a) Replacement or loss of prepositions that governed the genitive and the dative in AG: πρό + GEN <πρίν + GEN πρίν + ἀπό + GEN πρίν + ἀπό + ACC ὑπό + GEN <ἀπό + GEN < ἀπό + ACC ἐν + DAT <εἰς + ACC (without distinction of allative and locative meanings) σύν + DAT <μετά + GEN με(τά) + ACC (3.23b) Shift of prepositions that governed the genitive to the accusative: ἄνευ/ δίχως/ χωρίς + GEN ACC ἀπό/ ἐκ + GEN ACC μετά + GEN με(τά) + ACC μέχρι/ ἕως ACC (3.23c) Shift of adverbial prepositions that governed the genitive to prepositional phrases: i. to ἀπό/ ἐκ when the construction had ablative/ elative meaning: ὀπίσω τῆς οἰκίας [GEN] ὀπίσω ἀπό [from] τῆς οἰκίας [GEN] ὀπίσω ἀπό [from] τὴν οἰκίαν [ΑCC] behind the house ii. to εἰς (MedG εἰσέ/ MG σε) for constructions with (partitive) locative meaning: ἐμπρὸς τῆς οἰκίας [GEN] ἐμπρὸς εἰς [in/to] τὴν οἰκίαν [ΑCC] in front of the house The following sections will focus on the two latter developments that involve the retreat of the prepositional genitive in favor of the accusative and prepositional phrases with από and σε Domination of the prepositional accusative Even though the genitive was the case used with most ancient prepositions, the prepositional accusative was more frequent (cf. Luraghi 2003: 331). This element clearly facilitated the loss of the prepositional genitive, given the fact that in MG the following prepositions exclusively govern the accusative: (3.24) από/ εκ (dialectally only) 77 from (έ)ως/ μέχρι as far as/ until με (<μετά) with 77 The preposition ἐκ survives in a few dialects in various forms: ακ/ αξ/ αχ/ εξ/ εχ/ κ/ ξ/ ξε/ οκ/ οξ/ όξε/ οχ/ χ (Kriarás ). 69

90 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY χωρίς/ δίχως 78 without Given the fact that these prepositions express distinct meanings, it would be useful to examine each semantic group separately: i) ἀπό, ἐκ (spatial distance) ii) μετά (later shortened to με) & ἄνευ, δίχως, χωρίς and iii) μέχρι(ς), ἕως. Starting with ἀπό and ἐκ, the presence of the prepositional accusative in such structures as from place X to place Y must have resulted in the syntactic assimilation of these ablative prepositions. This can be best viewed in the following example where even though the genitive is used with ἀπό, as expected, in the very following sentence, the accusative replaces the genitive: (3.25) ἀπὸ τοὺς Ἁγίους Ἀποστόλους [ACC] εἰς τὸ παλάτιον [ACC] # *ἀπὸ τῶν Ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων [GEN] εἰς τὸ παλάτιον [ACC] (expected) from the Saint Apostles to the palace Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae (lib ), vol. 1, pg. 47, l. 1 (10 th c. AD) Another possible path could be the merger of ἀπό with the phonologically similar ὑπό under (cf. Bortone 2010: 212) in structures where the latter would be used with an accusative: (3.26) κάτω ὑπὸ τὸ διάφραγμα down under the:n/a.sg.n diaphragm:n/a.sg.n under the diaphragm Aretaeus Med., De causis et signis diuturnorum morborum libri duo. Book 1, chapter 9, section 1, l. 2 (2 nd c. AD) It comes as no surprise that this exact structure has survived as κάτω από in MG (cf. Jannaris 1897: 398). The shift to the accusative also occurred with ἐκ which had become synonymous to ἀπό in EMedG as the result of the elimination of the distinction between ablative and elative motion (cf. Bortone 2010: 210): 78 Note that Pontic maintains άνευ (or άναυα) which also governs the accusative. 70

91 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.27) ἐκ τοὺς Τεσσαράκοντα μάρτυρας [ACC] from the fourty martyrs Stephanus Diaconus, Vita Stephani Iunioris, section 44, l. 60 (8 th -9 th c. AD) The prepositions μετά with and ἄνευ, χωρίς, δίχως without will be discussed together, since it is clear that shift of μετά from the genitive to the accusative eventually resulted in the same development for these three antonymous prepositions. It should not be forgotten that μετά was also used with the accusative for the expression of posteriority and succession. Thus, after its grammaticalization as a temporal adverb with the meaning afterwards or later, it behaved similarly to the antonymous πρίν before the syntax of which had shifted to prepositional phrases with ἀπό. The original syntax of the temporal μετά with the accusative has survived in MG, but only if the noun is accompanied by the definite article: (3.28a) μετά (από) τα τρία πρώτα χρόνια after the first three years (3.28b) μετά *(από) τρία χρόνια after three years This change in the syntax of the temporal μετά allowed the comitative μετά to shift to the accusative. The first signs of this shift can be found in LHellG (Jannaris 1897: 387): (3.29) μετὰ τὸν πατέρα [ACC] ἡμῶν with our father Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Test. 3, ch. 9, s. 1 (2 nd -3 rd c. AD) After this shift had been completed, the partial syntactic overlap between the temporal and the comitative μετά was raised by the phonological change of the latter, as it became με during LMedG. The deletion of the final syllable is connected to the use of μετά with neuter nouns in the plural, e.g.: (3.30) μετὰ τὰ παιδία μὲ τὰ παιδία with the children In contrast, the antonymous ἄνευ, χωρίς, δίχως are not attested with the accusative until in LMedG vernacular texts: 71

92 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY (3.31a) δίχως βουλὴν [ACC] without will Imperios and Margarona, l. 109 (13 th -14 th c. AD) (3.31b) χωρὶς γνώμην [ACC] with no opinion Belthandros and Chrysantza, l (13 th -14 th c. AD) The late attestation of this development can be attributed to the late establishment of χωρίς and δίχα/ διχῶς as proper prepositions, since their function was mostly adverbial in ClG meaning separately and in two ways respectively. The maintenance of their purely lexical meaning probably prevented their use in highly archaistic texts. Nevertheless, it can be inferred that they had already shifted to the accusative by the end of the EMedG period. Turning to μέχρι and ἕως as far as/ until, it is noteworthy that even during ClG they did not exclusively govern the genitive, but a prepositional phrase with εἰς could follow them due to their status as adverbial prepositions: (3.32a) μέχρι εἰς τὸ σαρκῶδες as far as the fleshy (part) Aristotle, Historia animalium, Bekker p. 527a, l. 33 (4 th c. BC) (3.32b) ἕως εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν as far as the belly Aristotle, De partibus animalium, Bekker p. 650a, l. 17 (4 th c. BC) However, the shift to the bare accusative was most likely triggered by the directional/ motional nature of these prepositions which as noted earlier were strongly associated with the accusative. Also, the phonological merger between ἕως and ὡς toward (humans), which governed the accusative, was crucial for this development; this is reflected in MG where the preposition has two allomorphs: (έ)ως το σπίτι as far as the house. The following example from EMedG shows that this set of prepositions had also shifted to the accusative quite early: (3.33) μέχρι τὴν σήμερον [ACC] until today Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, chapter 37, l. 13 (10 th c.) 72

93 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Despite the fact that the accusative was probably established as the exclusive prepositional case since EMedG, the prepositional genitive has left a few vestiges in the MG dialects. The following examples reflect set expressions or relics rather than productive patterns in various dialects and also CMG: (3.34a) μέχρι τέλους until the end dialectal and Common Modern Greek (3.34b) μετά χαράς with pleasure dialectal and Common Modern Greek (3.34c) προς θεού for God s sake dialectal and Common Modern Greek (3.34d) επί καλού for good Corfu (Basea-Bezantakou 1998) (3.34e) από τσαιρού since a long time ago Skyros, Western Aegean (Perdika 1940: 148) (3.34f) απ ανέμου from the wind Crete (Pángalos 1955: 359) (3.34g) από θεμελίου from the keystone Mégara, Attica (Amantos 1918: 4) (3.34h) παρά θαλάσσου through the sea Rhodes, Dodecanese (Papachristodoulou 1958) (3.34i) από Μαρτιού since March Andros, Cyclades (Voyatzidis 1956: 156) (3.34j) κατά μιας once Santorini, Cyclades (Petalás 1876: 76) (3.34k) ως της ώρας until now Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 447) (3.34l) πε θεμελιού from the keystone Kýzikos (Logothetidis 1957: 292) (3.34m) αντίς τ εκείνου instead of him Pontus (Papadópoulos 1955: 172) (3.34n) θεχούς στʃυλλού without a dog Phárasa, Central Asia Minor (Andriotis 1948: 49) The development of compound prepositions The use of the genitive with adverbs that function as adpositions can be found in a few Indo- European languages (Luraghi 1988: 178); for instance, the fossilized ablative causā in Latin functions as an adverbial adposition and is used with the genitive due to its adnominal origin, much like its English equivalent because of. As noted earlier, the syntax of the adverbial prepositions followed two directions: i) in constructions of ablative meaning, the genitive was replaced by a prepositional phrase with ἀπό or ἐκ and ii) in constructions of (partitive) locative meaning the genitive was replaced by εἰς. The only exceptions are the adverbs μαζί together 73

94 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY and the preposition αντί instead which are used with the prepositions με with and για for respectively. The following table attempts to classify this distinction in the following way 79 : Table 3.6: The evolution of compound prepositions in MG ΑΠΟ type of relation ancient structure modern structure outside ἐκτός/ ἔξω + gen. έξω + από + acc. from inside ἔσωθεν + gen. μέσα + από + acc. above (ἐπ)άνω + gen. (ε)πάνω + από + acc. under κάτω/ κάτωθεν + gen. κάτω + από + acc. front ἐμπρός/ ἔμπροσθεν + gen. μπροστά + από + acc. back ὀπίσω/ ὄπισθεν + gen. πίσω + από + acc. beside παρά + dat. δίπλα/ πλάι + από + acc. far μακράν + gen. μακριά + από + acc. beyond πέρα(ν) + gen. πέρα + από + acc. opposite ἀντικρύ + gen. αντίκρυ/ απέναντι + από + acc. around πέριξ/ περί + gen./ acc. γύρω + από + acc. apart from πλήν + gen. εκτός + από + acc. anterior πρίν + gen. πριν + (από) + acc. 79 Constructions in which the relation between adverb and the prepositional phrase is loose should not neglected, e.g. καθόταν μέσα, στο σαλόνι he was sitting inside, in the living room. 74

95 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK ΣΕ type of relation ancient structure modern structure inside ἔσω/ ἐντός/ ἔνδον + gen. μέσα + σε + acc. against ἐναντίον + gen. ενάντια + σε + acc. facing ἐνώπιον + gen. μπροστά + σε + acc. front ἐμπρός + gen. μπροστά + σε + acc. beside παρά + dat. δίπλα/ πλάι + σε + acc. between μεταξύ + gen. ανάμεσα + σε + acc. proximity πλησίον/ ἐγγύς + gen. κοντά + σε + acc for the sake of χάριν + gen. χάρη + σε + acc. ΜΕ AG ἅμα + dat./ ὁμοῦ + μετά + gen./ + σύν + dat. MG αντάμα/ μαζί + με + acc. ΓΙΑ AG ἀντί + gen. MG αντί + για + acc. instead The first traces of the replacement of the genitive by prepositional phrases date back to AG, as also shown in examples (3.32a) and (3.32b). The following example from Homer is quite indicative (Theophanopoulou-Kontoú 2000: 4): (3.35) ἑκὰς δ ἀπὸ [from] τείχεος far from the wall Homer, Iliad 18, 256 (8 th c. BC) However, such structures are extremely infrequent and the construction ADVERB + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE is not established until LHellG and MedG: (3.36a) κάτωθεν ἀπὸ [from] τῆς ῥίζης from under the root Theophrastus Phil., Historia plantarum, book 4, ch. 9, s. 2 l. 6 (4 th -3 rd c. BC) (3.36b) ἔμπροσθεν ἐν [in] τῷ Ισραήλ in front of Israel Septuaginta, Ruth, chapter 4, section 7, l. 1 (3 rd c. BC-3 rd c. AD) (3.36c) ἔξω ἀπὸ τοῦ γαζοφυλακίου outside the treasury Septuaginta, Esdras 2, ch. 23, s. 8, l. 2 (3 rd c. BC-3 rd c. AD) 75

96 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY (3.36d) ἅμα μετὰ [with] τοῦ ὄντος 80 together with the entity Plotinus, Enneades, Ennead 6, chapter 2, section 13, l. 3 (3 rd c. AD) (3.36e) πρὶν ἀπὸ θεοῦ before god Pseudo-Macarius, Homiliae 7 (collectio HA), Homily 52, s. 3 (4 th c. AD) (3.36f) ἄνω [up] ὑπὲρ [over] τὸ ὕβωμα over the hump Oribasius Med., Collectiones medicae, book 49, ch. 33, s. 2 l. 4 (4 th c. AD) (3.36g) κάτω [down] ὑπὸ [under] τὰ χώματα under the ground Joannes Malalas, Chronographia, p. 421, l. 6 (5 th -6 th c. AD) (3.36h) ἐπάνω εἰς [in] τὸ χεῖλος τῆς κολυμβήθρας on top of the mouth of the baptistery Joannes Moschus, Pratum spirituale, ch. 16, p. 2864, l. 17 (6 th -7 th c. AD) As said earlier, the possessive origin of the use of the genitive as the complement of adverbial prepositions must have played a role in the abundant occurrence of remnants of this ancient use in MG dialects, even though for most varieties the development of compound prepositions with από/ (ει)σέ and the accusative must have been completed in LMedG. Once again, Southern Greek varieties (mostly from the Aegean and Cyprus) maintain such uses: (3.37a) μπρος πίσω του Χριστού [GEN] before and after Christmas couplet from Andros, Cyclades (Voyatzidis 1956: 156) (3.37b) εξέην πόσσω του σπιδκιού [GEN] he went out of the house Cypriot poem (Germasoítis 1939: 66) (3.37c) ξάγναντα των γυναικών [GEN] facing the women narrative from Corfu, Heptanese (Theotokis 1982: 51) (3.37d) ανάμεσα πελάγου [GEN] in the middle of the sea song from Kárpathos, Dodecanese (Protopsaltis 1933: 12) (3.37e) κοντά της αγκλησία [GEN] near the church Southern Italy (Rohlfs 1977: 151) (3.37f) απανωδιό του κάστρου [GEN] on the top of the castle poem from Icaria, Eastern Aegean (Poulianós 1964: 259) 80 Instead of ἅμα τῷ ὄντι [DAT]. 76

97 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.37g) ανάτριχα του ποταμού [GEN] against the current of the river Kasos, Dodecanese (Michailidis-Nouaros 1936: 20) (3.37h) κρυφά του κόσμου [GEN] without people knowing (lit. secretly from the people) couplet from Crete (Lioudaki 1936: 35) As can be observed, most of these occurrences are found in poems, songs or literary narratives, which shows that they belong to past stages of these dialects and are not productive for the most part. Regarding the origin of the loss of the adverbial prepositional genitive, the early attestation of compound prepositional syntagms, although infrequent, can already be found in AG, cf. (3.35), which leads Theophanopoulou-Kontoú (2000) to question the expected view that the preference for analytic structures over the synthetic genitive during HellG and MedG motivated the emergence of the construction ADVERB + PREPOSITION + GENITIVE, given the fact that the above examples belong to a period where the use of the genitive is still robust. Thus, she claims that the decisive factor behind the change of the syntax of these prepositions was the elimination of the frequent semantic ambiguity of the AG adverbial prepositional genitive due to its ablative or (partitive) locative. For instance, the following AG structure with ἐπάνω above could have two interpretations and the shift to prepositional phrases marked each meaning more explicitly: (3.38) AG ἐπάνω τῆς οἰκίας over the house MG (ε)πάνω από το σπίτι on the house MG (ε)πάνω στο σπίτι 3.5 Functional expansion in Medieval Greek Despite the significant restriction of the uses of the genitive, it was shown in that the loss of the dative in EMedG resulted in the use of the genitive indirect objects in the southern dialects. Quite clearly, the encoding of additional semantic roles, such as recipients, beneficiaries, experiencers, expanded the distributional potential of the case in comparison to northern and Asia Minor dialects, especially after the retreat of the ancient ablative and partitive meanings. In 77

98 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY the following sections, I will discuss three matters that have not received a lot of attention by previous researchers: i) the competition between the preposition σε and the synthetic genitive for the expression of the indirect object in the southern half of the Med and MG-speaking world, ii) the adoption of the direct object functions of the ancient dative by the genitive in a few MG dialects and iii) the use of the genitive as an adverbial adjunct in a (small) number of MedG and MG varieties Dative alternation : competition of genitive indirect objects with σε Apart from the use of the genitive or the accusative as indirect objects, a periphrastic structure was also grammaticalized for the expression of the functions of the ancient dative during MedG. In fact, the prepositions εἰς (+ACC) to and πρός (+ACC) towards can occasionally be found as markers of addressees and (rarely) recipients in AG (Luraghi 2003: 112 & 289) (3.39a) ἄλλα λέγων ἐς αὐτόν θυμαλγέα ἔπεα saying other bitter words to him Herodotus, Book 1, ch. 129, s. 1 (5 th c. BC) (3.39b) εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας σαυτὸν σοφιστὴν παρέχων presenting yourself as a sophist to the Greeks Plato, Protagoras, 312a (5 th -4 th c. BC) (3.39c) πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἕπεα πτερόεντ ἀγόρευον they spoke winged words to each other Homer, Iliad (8 th c. BC) Periphrastic indirect objects remain sporadic during HellG. Georgakópoulos (2011: 317) mentions that the verb λέγω say predominantly governs the dative (95.4%) in the New Testament, while πρός and εἰς are only used 3.19% and 0.14% of the time respectively, even though data from papyri and inscriptions verify their continuing usage: (3.40a) πέμψον εἴ[ς] με send me P.Oxy. I 19, l (2 nd -3 rd c. AD) (3.40b) ἀποτείσε[ι] εἰς <τ>ὸ ἱερώτατο[ν] ταμεῖον he will pay to the holy chest TAM III 927, l (unknown date, Pisidia, Asia Minor; Dressler 1965: 86) 78

99 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK However, according to Georgakópoulos (2011: 296) the attestation of εἰς for marking recipients is not established until the 15 th c. in MedG texts, while its use with addressees is more common at earlier stages. Data from Medieval Cypriot illustrate that the use of εις/ σε was quite limited and that the genitive was the predominant marker of indirect objects, while in the modern form of the dialect this holds true for experiencers, but recipients can also be marked by σε (Michelioudakis 2011: 493). Similarly, σε is used in this fashion in all MG dialects, creating the crosslinguistically common phenomenon of dative alternation, cf. the English structures I gave her a kiss vs. I gave a kiss to her. A small part of the modern dialects seems to be more conservative, using the genitive or the accusative frequently for the marking of indirect objects; this more archaic pattern survives mostly in insular Greece (+genitive; Crete, Cyclades, Dodecanese, Icaria and Chios) and in Eastern Asia Minor (+accusative; Pontus, Cappadocia, Phárasa and Silli). In contrast, σε is regularly used in most of the dialects that exhibit genitive indirect objects; in this group of dialects, which also includes CMG, the genitive plural faces strong competition by σε to the point that plural indirect objects are almost always marked by the periphrastic strategy. For instance, in CMG the first of the following structures are extremely rare even though they are still grammatical: (3.41a) έδωσα τα κλειδιά των γειτόνων [GEN] μου vs. έδωσα τα κλειδιά στους γείτονες μου I gave the keys to my neighbors (3.41b) είπα των παιδιών [GEN] μου μία ιστορία vs. είπα στα παιδιά μου μία ιστορία I told a story to my children It seems that the ambiguity between the indirect object and possessive functions of the genitive could be a factor that has resulted in the infrequency of genitive plural indirect objects in dialectal and common MG, e.g. έδωσα τα κλειδιά των γειτόνων [GEN] μου I gave the keys of my neighbors vs. I gave the keys to my neighbors. This is verified by the fact that when a complement clause is combined with the genitive plural, there is no conflict with the possessive use of the case and the genitive would be more easily used, e.g.: είπα των παιδιών [GEN] μου να φύγουν I told my children to leave. 79

100 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY The importance of the alternation with the preposition σε in/ to for the expression of indirect objects is reflected in statistical analyses from varieties that belong to the two major groups of GEN=IO dialects 81, namely the South-Western (Heptanese, Peloponnese, Western Epirus and the Old Athenian group) and the South-Eastern (Dodecanese, Chios, Icaria, Cretan, Cycladic). More clearly, as can be seen below, alternation with σε is more widespread in South- Western dialects, while it has significantly decreased the frequency of genitive plural indirect objects: Table 3.7: Dative alternation in South-Western and South-Eastern Greek GEN.SG = IND. OBJ ΣΕsg = IND. OBJ GEN.PL = IND. OBJ ΣΕpl = IND. OBJ Astypálea 82 83% 17% 69% 31% Zákynthos 83 58% 42% 25% 75% As will be shown in Chapter 5, the significant difference in the occurrence of dative alternation between the western and the eastern varieties of Southern Greek is most likely related to the presence of accusative-genitive plural syncretism in the third person clitic (acc.pl τους <gen.pl *των) that is found nearly everywhere in the former, while the genitive plural των is maintained in the latter Genitive direct objects of dative origin in Medieval and dialectal Modern Greek The merger between the genitive and the dative during MedG has affected more syntactic domains that the ones usually considered in the relevant literature. This is proven by the fact that the function of the ancient dative as the direct object of verbs of certain semantic categories has survived in a few dialects, which quite reasonably seem to be the same that have maintained 81 GEN=IO and ACC=IO refer to dialects that employ the genitive or the accusative to mark indirect objects respectively. Note that for most instances Cyprus will not be grouped together with South-Eastern dialects regarding the evolution of the genitive, due to the development of accusative-genitive syncretism in the nominal inflection, which is not found in the other South-Eastern dialects (cf. Chapter 5). Italiot will also be dealt with separately, due to its peripheral position. Northern Greek dialects with genitive indirect objects (Eastern Epirus, Central Greece and Lesbos) will be discussed in Chapter Dodecanese; Dawkins (1980 [1950]: , , ). 83 Heptanese; Minotou (1933: ). 84 Quite interestingly, in the statistical analysis of narratives from Zákynthos above, out of the 14 occurrences of indirect objects in the plural, masculine accusative plural indirect objects are attested twice instead of genitive plurals, most likely due to case attraction from the syncretic 3PL accusative-genitive plural clitic τους, cf

101 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK partitive genitive direct objects (cf. 3.3 above). It should be kept in mind that AG distinguishes marking of patients depending on the degree of proximity, contact and animacy like many other IE languages, cf. German sie helfen mir [DAT] they help me. Thus, the genitive can be used with bivalent verbs that denote help, fight, participation, belief or contact in Southern Aegean and Cyprus exactly like in AG 85 : (3.42a) μάχομαί σου [GEN] I fight you Chalki, Dodecanese (Tsopanakis 1949: 62) (3.42b) του γιου [GEN] της καταριόνταν she cursed her son Icaria, Eastern Aegean (Poulianós 1964: 246) (3.42c) εμάλλωνε του Παπαντώνη [GEN] he scolded Papantonis Kasos, Dodecanese (Michailidis-Nouaros 1936: 58) (3.42d) βούθα μου [GEN] help me Nísyros, Dodecanese (Sakellaridis 1982: 68) (3.42e) ακλουθώ του γέρου [GEN] I follow the old man Cythera, south-western Aegean (Kontosópoulos 1981: 136) (3.42f) αζουλέφκει της γεναίκας [GEN] του he is jealous of his wife Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 448) (3.42g) το λιοντάριν εκόντεψεν νου αππάρου [GEN] the lion approached a horse Cyprus (Symeonidis 2006: 380) Quite surprisingly, in a few dialects of Asia Minor in which the accusative marks indirect objects, the genitives of pronominal clitics are used with a few bivalent verbs that denote a higher degree of contact and proximity: (3.43a) πάτισίς μου [GEN] you stepped on me Livisi, south-western Asia Minor (Andriotis 1961: 85) (3.43b) μου [GEN] εγκαταλείψατε you abandoned me Bursa, Bithynia, north-western Asia Minor (Konstantinidou 2005: 341) 85 The following example from Corfu, albeit isolated, indicates that the genitive had this function in past stages of Heptanese varieties as well: όποιος πιστεύει γυναικός [GEN] whoever believes a woman (Martzoukos 1959: 149). 81

102 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY (3.44c) μου [GEN] κούρασε s/he exhausted me Silli, Central Asia Minor (Costakis 1968: 71) This is a very interesting phenomenon, as it shows that a split in the succession of the functions of the dative with pronominal forms in these dialects: (3.45) dative direct object genitive (clitics) indirect object accusative (clitics) Finally, given the fact that similar structures are attested in texts from LMed and EMG, it seems that the phenomenon must have been more widespread at earlier times: (3.46a) εβοήθα των Βενετζάνω [GEN] he helped the Venetians Chronicle about the Turkish Sultans (Zoras 1958: 119; early 17 th c., Southern Greece) (3.46b) ακλουθάς του χάρου [GEN] σου you follow your Charon Sacrifice of Abraham (Legrande I), l. 436 (17 th c., Crete) Adverbial functions in medieval and modern varieties Despite the great number of instances of the functional retreat of the genitive, it seems that different developments took place in a number of MedG varieties and their modern successors. More specifically, the genitive acquired functions that it never had before; as can be seen in the following examples from MedG, the genitive began to mark spatial relations: (3.47a) ὑπάγουν τῆς θαλάσσης [GEN] they go by sea War of Troy, l (14 th c.) (3.47b) ὑπάγουν τῆς στερέας [GEN] they go by land Chronicle of Morea (H & T), l (14 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) 82

103 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK It is unclear whether these genitives denote the path or the direction of the movement. The situation becomes even more complicated when the following examples from Cypriot are taken into consideration (Menardos 1896: 446): (3.48a) επάαινεν του πόρου [GEN] she went to the passage (3.48b) έλα του μελισσώνα [GEN] come through the beehive (3.48c) έρκουμουν του τοίχου [GEN] I was coming through the wall (3.48d) ανέφανεν ο Γιάννουλλος του κάμπου [GEN] Yánnullos showed up through the plain (3.48e) μπαίνω του χωρκού [GEN] I enter the village (3.48f) αντάν να μπεις του περβολιού [GEN] as you enter the croft (3.48g) αντά διαβώ της πόρτας σου [GEN] as I pass through your door As can be seen, the genitive can be interpreted as two different spatial relations: i) in examples (b), (c), (d) and (g) the genitive has a perlative meaning and ii) in examples (a), (e) and (f) the genitive is allative or perlative. According to Menardos, the allative meaning was an extension of the perlative use of the genitive: ξεβαίνω, δκιαβαίνω της πόρτας [GEN] I come out of/ through the door μπαίνω της πόρτας [GEN] I enter the door. Quite interestingly, Cypriot is not the only Southern Greek dialect that exhibits these structures: (3.49a) εκίνησε να πα του ζευγαριού [GEN] του he started to go to his mate song from Icaria, Eastern Aegean (Poulianós 1964: 42) (3.49b) πήγαινα του ποταμιού [GEN] I was going along the river song from Kónitsa, Epirus (Rébelis 1953: 74) (3.49c) πήγαινα του ψήλου [GEN] I was going uphill song from Acarnania, Central Greece (Passow 1860: 49) (3.49d) πάω του ρεματιού [GEN]/ πάνε του κατηφόρου [GEN]/ έρχεται του κάμπου [GEN] I go along the gorge they go downhill he comes from the plain Kalávryta & Mani, Peloponnese (Anastasiadis 1994: 20) 83

104 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Quite strangely, such structures do not exist in AG, as the use of the bare genitive as an ablative or (partitive) locative is only rarely found after Homer, cf , and was limited to adverbs with genitive morphemes which are clearly relics, e.g. ποῦ where, αὐτοῦ there (<gen.sg.m/n of αὐτός this ) etc. Nevertheless, the merger with the dative and the expansion to marking spatial goals was probably a factor in the resurgence of these archaic uses, a development that is not uncommon crosslinguistically, cf. the expression of spatial goals by the dative in Turkish. Another element that could have possibly led to the use of these genitives was the merger between locative and allative spatial relations which were both expressed by εἰς/σε at/ in/ to, as the distinction between an allative genitive and the locative εἰς/σε served for the elimination of this semantic ambiguity. The actual path that this development followed seems to be related to the allative use of the prepositionless accusative that is occasionally found with the verb πάω/ πηγαίνω in MG. As Menardos (1896: 446) notes, the difference between the prepositionless spatial use of the genitive and the accusative in Cypriot is that the former denotes the path, whereas the latter refers to the actual spatial goal: επήεν του Ζυού [GEN]: s/he took the road to Zyón # επήεν το Ζυόν [ACC] s/he went to Zyón (toponym). Thus, it can be proposed that the initial stage of this structure involved the use of the preposition σε in/ to (+ΑCC) or the prepositionless accusative 86 with an adnominal complement in the genitive and the omission of the former resulted in the allative/perlative use of the latter, e.g. επήρεν τον δρόμον [ACC] του Ζυού [GEN] s/he took the road to Zyón / επήεν στον [in.the:acc] δρόμον του Ζυού [GEN] επήεν του Ζυού [GEN], cf. the Italiot ekaˈtevi ti [the:acc] meˈrʝa [side:αcc] tiθ [the:gen] θaˈlassi [sea:gen] (<*εκατέβη την μεριά της θαλάσσης) he went to the seaside (Rossi-Taibbi & Caracausi 1959: 59). Apart from spatial relations, there is a great number of set expressions and relics that employ the genitive in dialectal and CMG, e.g.: (3.50a) μονομιάς [GEN] at once (3.50b) είναι του πεταματού [GEN] s/he is worthless (lit. s/he is of throwing) (3.50c) είναι του σκοινιού [GEN] s/he is worth of being hanged (lit. s/he is of rope) (3.50d) γίνεται της τρελής [GEN] crazy things happen (lit. it happens of the crazy woman) 86 The allative accusative in MG could be a continuation of its ArchG spatial use, but it probably involves mere ellipsis through the omission of the preposition σε in/ to (and in most cases the definite article), e.g. CMG πάω στο σπίτι πάω σπίτι (cf. English I go home). 84

105 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (3.50e) είναι του θανατά [GEN] s//he is nearly dead (lit. s/he is of death) (3.50f) είναι του κουτιού [GEN] it is brand new (lit. it is of the box) (3.50g) κάνει του κεφαλιού [GEN] του he is being stubborn (lit. he is doing of his head) dialectal and Common Modern Greek (3.50h) είναι του γυριού [GEN] s/he is a beggar (lit. s/he is of going around) Kythnos, Cyclades (Koukoulés 1923: 313) (3.50i) είμαι της θέρμης [GEN] I have had fever (lit. I am of fever) Cyprus (Menardos 1896: 447) Even though some of these structures are clearly derived from non-anchoring genitives of quality or purpose 87, the abundance of such set expressions and the surviving relics of genitives of cause (cf. 3.2) potentially indicate that after the loss of the dative, the MedG genitive, being the least grammatical case in the system, was able to acquire the encoding of concrete meanings and adverbial functions, such as manner (3.50a), state (3.50i) or purpose (3.50.b) Since the data from colloquial EMedG are extremely limited, it is a difficult task to determine the range of the exact degree of the semantic expansion of the medieval genitive Exceptional maintenance of ancient functions Despite these major changes that resulted in the semantic and syntactic restriction of the genitive, there are some instances where it is unexpectedly preserved. First, the genitives of the personal pronominal clitics have survived in a few functions that have generally been lost in MG: (3.51a) μεγαλύτερός μου [GEN] bigger/ older than me STANDARD OF COMPARISON (3.51b) μακριά μου [GEN] far from me ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT (3.51c) οι τρεις τους [ACC/GEN] the three of them PARTITIVE 87 E.g. είναι άνθρωπος του πεταματού s/he s the kind of person to get rid of 88 Note the use of the bare genitive in non-literary Egyptian papyri of LHellG/EMedG with instrumental or comitative meaning - quite clearly, in competition with the decaying instrumental dative (Soliman 1965: 77-82). 85

106 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Quite clearly, the incompatibility of pronominal clitics with proper prepositions (e.g. *από με) and the peculiar (phonologically and otherwise) nature of clitics resulted in the maintenance of these ancient functions with them. Second, the impact of Katharévousa on Standard CMG during the 19 th and 20 th c. has led to the reappearance of functions that had been lost during ΕMedG. This development does not simply involve set or frozen expressions, but also structures that are quite productive: (3.52a) προηγείται του αντιπάλου [GEN] του he antecedes his opponent (3.52b) κατά του υπουργού [GEN] against the minister DIRECT OBJECT PREPOSITIONAL COMPLEMENT Another element that shows the increased use of the genitive due to archaistic influence can be seen in the high frequency of nominalizations, which are mostly characteristic of formal registers, e.g. η απόσυρση του νομοσχεδίου [GEN] the withdrawal of the bill. Even though structures of archaistic origin are beyond the scope of this study, it will be shown later (Chapter 4) that the influence from Katharévousa is a very important factor in the current status of the genitive and its increased frequency in CMG. 3.7 Conclusions The data presented so far allow for a few conclusions on the diachronic changes in the functions of the genitive. As regards the loss of the ancient non-possessive functions of the genitive, three types of change can be identified: i) disambiguation of polysemy, ii) replacement by the unmarked complement of a construction and iii) replacement by an analytic strategy whose roots can already be traced in AG. Starting with the first type, it seems that the polysemy of the ancient genitive created the need for more explicit marking of its multiple functions. As shown in 2.2.1, this development is not only related to the genitive, but it affects the general transformation of the ancient polysemous case system into the modern one in which cases are almost exclusively grammatical and their former semantic functions are marked by prepositions (cf. Luraghi 2009). After the prepositions ἀπό from and ἐκ out of were used to reinforce the ablative or partitive meaning of the genitive in true partitive relations, adverbial adjuncts, adverbial prepositional 86

107 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK phrases, standards of comparison and non-anchoring relations of material, a decisive turning point in this type of development was the fact that the ablative and the partitive meaning began to be associated more with the prepositions rather than the genitive itself. With regard to the second type of change, the unmarkedness of the accusative as a direct object and a prepositional complement resulted in its expansion to syntactic domains of the genitive; for instance, the structures βλέπω see + acc. and εἰς τὴν πόλιν to the city were analogically extended: ἀκούω hear + gen. + acc./ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἀπὸ τὴν πόλιν from the city. This change was not only based on the factor of morphological economy, due to the more unmarked morphology of the accusative (cf ), but also related to the disassociation of the ablative and partitive meaning from the genitive. The use of juxtapositional analytic structures is a quite interesting strategy, as it is found with both non-anchoring possessive and pseudo-partitive relations. Their common marking may be related to the fact that they differ from anchoring and true partitives in that they refer to more general entities, e.g. μία κούπα [N/A] κρασί [N/A] a cup of wine (pseudo-partitive) vs. μία κούπα από αυτό το κρασί a cup of this wine (true partitive)/ γουρούνι [N/A] είκοσι κιλά [N/A] a pig of twenty kilos vs. το γουρούνι αυτής της φάρμας [GEN] the pig of that farm. The replacement of non-anchoring and pseudo-partitive genitives by juxtapositions can be explained as an analogical extension of appositions, e.g. λαβών ὑδράργυρον [ACC] λίτρας [ACC] γ taking mercury (element), three litres Moses Alchemistes, Εὐποία και εὐτυχία, vol. 2, p. 312 (1 st -2 nd c. AD?), and also by their similarity to adjectives, numerals and quantifiers (cf. Table 3.2). Quite clearly, the advantage of juxtapositional structures is their morphological economy, but the role of explicit marking should also be noted, as it is possible that the pseudo-partitive function of genitives could conflict with other functions, e.g. AG ποτήριον οἴνου [GEN] a cup of wine (pseudo-partitive) vs. a cup for wine (non-anchoring relation of purpose) MG ποτήρι κρασί (juxtaposition) vs. ποτήρι του κρασιού (genitive)/ για [for] κρασί (periphrasis). These changes are summarized in the following table: 87

108 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Table 3.8: Competing strategies of the genitive strategies domains Disambiguation of polysemy ΑΠΟ from with the use of a preposition adverbial ablative (origin, separation, cause) adverbal partitive (direct object) adjectival ablative (standard of comparison) adnominal partitive (true partitive relations) adverbial prepositional complement of ablative meaning non-anchoring possessive relations (material) ΣΕ in/ to adverbial prepositional complement of locative meaning indirect object (in Southern Greek) Replacement by the unmarked ACCUSATIVE member of a construction direct object of partitive and ablative origin prepositional complement adverbial adjunct denoting time Replacement by an analytic JUXTAPOSITION strategy with roots in AG non-anchoring possessive relations pseudo-partitives As pointed out in 3.0, the distinction between prototypical and peripheral functions is also of great importance, since there is a clear tendency for the Greek case system to reduce the peripheral functions of the genitive, as can be seen in the case of non-anchoring possessive relations and the indirect object functions which are in competition with the preposition σε in southern MG; the prototypical/ peripheral distinction explains why anchoring possessive relations are always maintained in MG, since there is no modern variety that has completely lost the genitive in both numbers. This gradual process of reducing the polysemy of the genitive began with the restriction of the most peripheral and less grammatical function, the use of the ablative genitive as an adverbial adjunct (already rare in Homer), and was continued with the formal distinction between pairs of functions of similar kind: i) possessive anchoring (GENITIVE) 88

109 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK vs. non anchoring (GENITIVE <JUXTAPOSITION), ii) true partitives (GENITIVE <από) vs. pseudopartitives (GENITIVE <JUXTAPOSITION) and iii) adverbial prepositional complement of ablative meaning (GENITIVE <από) vs. adverbial prepositional complement of locative meaning (GENITIVE <σε). Furthermore, as the examples (3.8a), (3.8b), (3.32a), (3.32b) and (3.35) indicate, the roots of this process go back to AG, given the fact that three already available strategies in the language were extended to the multiple functions of the ancient genitive: i) periphrases, namely prepositional phrases with ἀπό/ ἐκ and εἰς, ii) the accusative, as it was the most unmarked oblique case in the system, and iii) analysis, through the establishment of juxtapositional structures. Starting with the first structures that competed with the genitive, ἀπό and ἐκ were initially used to reinforce the ablative meaning of the genitive, namely they were used to mark ablative functions more explicitly, raising the polysemy of the case; at a later stage the ablative meaning was associated more with the prepositions than with the genitive and this element resulted in their grammaticalization as markers of true partitives through the metaphor WHOLES ARE ORIGINS, as mentioned previously, while their further expansion in MedG was motivated by the shift of their syntax to the accusative. The diachronic order of the loss of the ancient non-possessive functions of the genitive and their degree of survival in the modern dialects not only corroborate the importance of the distinction between prototypical and peripheral functions, but also reveal the importance of the grammatical status of the genitive in Southern Greek due to its use as an indirect object; more specifically, genitive direct objects of ablative and partitive origin are maintained in southern varieties, even though the adnominal or adjectival use of the genitive with ablative or partitive meaning is not attested at all in dialectal MG. Therefore, the order of the functional restriction of the genitive involves four phases: i) in adverbial ablative adjuncts, true partitive relations, prepositional phrases and as a standard of comparison, ii) in pseudo-partitive relations and the genitive of time, iii) the loss of the genitive in adverbial prepositional phrases, as a direct object of partitive and ablative origin and in non-anchoring relations (apart from age and quality) and finally iv) the restriction of genitive indirect objects due to competition with σε in Southern Greek. 89

110 FUNCTIONAL DIACHRONY Table 3.9: The survival of ancient (and medieval) functions in the diatopy of Modern Greek 89 Cypriot Italiot South- South- Eastern Eastern 90 Western 91 Asia Minor Northern N-Anch. Poss. 92 (relics) (relics) (relics) (relics) (relics) (relics) Adjectival Obj. (+) (+) (+) - (+) - Direct Object (<Partitive) Dir. Obj. (<Abl.) [mainly cause] (relics) (+) - Direct Object (+)/- 93 (<Dative) (ACC=IO) (ACC=IO) Adverbial Prepositional (relics) (+)/- - Allative/Perlative +? + (+)/- - - Prepositional (relics) - Genitive of Time?? (relics) (relics) - - Pseudo-partitives -? - - (rare) - True Partitives (relics) Stand. of Comp To sum up, the functions of the Greek genitive can be presented as follows: 89 As noted earlier, even in dialects where an archaic function is marked with +, the use of the genitive occurs in parallel with the innovative constructions that were developed during LHellG/ MedG. 90 Dodecanese, Icaria, Chios, Cyclades and Crete. 91 Heptanese-Peloponnese (hence CMG), Western Epirus, Old Athenian (+Kymi, Mégara, Mani). 92 Apart from age and quality. 93 E.g. in Corfu. 94 Note the use of genitive pronominal clitics with this function in some of these varieties. 95 Note that some Northern Greek varieties employ the genitive to mark the indirect object, however this function is not attested in any of them. 90

111 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 3.10: The functional range of the Greek genitive in its diachrony 96 age quality?purpose *quantity *value *duration *material non-anchoring relations RELATIONS BETWEEN ENTITIES allative/ perlative (varieties of Southern Med/MG) indirect object (Southern Med/MG) anchoring relations ownership body parts person relations attributes experiences/ actions (intr.) passions (subjective) (objective) part-whole relations *pseudo-partitive relations *partitive relations *true partitive relations *origin (PIE Proto-Greek) separation difference/ comparison material (adv.) cause 96 Functions with asterisks have been lost in MG. 91

112 4. THE GENITIVE IN THE CASE HIERARCHY OF GREEK The findings on the diachrony of the case system presented thus far allow for a closer examination of the dynamic relations between the genitive and the other members of the case system. The central aim of this chapter is to determine the position of the genitive in the hierarchy of the Greek case system based on the five criteria of markedness described in Conceptual complexity As mentioned in the previous chapters, the polysemy of the AG oblique cases was the result of inherited patterns from PIE as well as functional mergers and syncretisms that took place in the earliest periods of Greek. The increased functional load of the ancient cases triggered a series of developments whose primary motivation was the disambiguation of meaning and the increase of iconicity. In the case system of AG, it can be argued that the most conceptually complex case was the dative mainly due to the fact that its three basic semantic roles (recipient, location and instrumental) were not as closely connected cognitively as the meanings of the genitive (possession, partitive, ablative), which is further supported by the concurrent morphological basis of the dative-locative-instrumental syncretism in Pre-alphabetic Greek (cf. 2.1). The relative unmarkedness of the accusative is reflected in the fact that it only had two basic functions (direct object and allative) in AG. Despite the semantic unmarkedness of possessives (Lander 2009: 581), the greater topicality of subject/agent and object/patient case roles according to Givón (1990: 960) signifies that the nominative and the accusative were more unmarked than the genitive. Another matter that possibly increases the conceptual complexity of the genitive is its use for inanimate possessors, given the fact that animacy is related to possession, as prototypical possessors tend to be human and other animate referents. With regard to the genitive-dative merger in Southern Greek, it could have increased the conceptual complexity of the case, which can be reflected in the

113 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK competition with preposition σε in/ to, the use of which can raise possible ambiguities of genitive forms regarding their possessive or indirect object meaning (cf. 3.41). 4.2 Structural complexity The data provided in 2.3 clearly demonstrate that the genitive case has been the most morphologically complex case in the diachrony of the language, followed by the dative which also required movement of accent/ stress in many paradigms of AG, even though not as many as the genitive 97 ; more clearly, the majority of genitive plural and a few genitive singular forms require stress shift that has not been phonologically justified since the deletion of distinctive vowel length c. the 2 nd c. BC. What is more, the inherited stress patterns are quite often in competition not only with innovative patterns of fixed (columnar) stress, but also among each other due to the merger of some declensional paradigms. For instance, the fact that feminine nouns of various origins end in -α renders their stress patterns opaque, cf. antepenult-stressed feminines that might be derived from the ancient 1 st, the 3 rd declension or MedG/ MG loanwords and native formations: θάλασσα sea gen.pl θαλασσών, πέρδικα partridge gen.pl περδίκων, μπανανόφλουδα banana peel gen.pl?μπανανόφλουδων/ *μπανανοφλούδων/ *μπανανοφλουδών. While the genitive plural is irrefutably the most marked member in the case system from a morphological perspective, the genitive singular is less marked in MG, despite the requirement of stress shift in the paradigms of archaic o-masculines and o-neuters, penult-stressed ι-neuters and occasional archaic patterns maintained dialectally (cf. άντρας man gen.sg αντρ-ός [<AG ανδρ-ός], #CMG άντρα-ø). The lower markedness of the genitive singular in many paradigms is not only reflected in the maintenance of stress, but also in the formal simplicity of the suffixes -Ø for α-/η-masculines and -ς for all feminine nouns in MG and the extremely high frequency 98 of the suffix -ου, which explains its wide extension to 3 rd declension paradigms in MedG and dialectal MG (cf ). 97 E.g. νίκη victory (penult-stressed η-feminine, 1 st declension)/ dat,pl νίκαις gen.pl. νικῶν or γείτων neighbor (3 rd declension polysyllabics)/ dat.pl γείτοσι/ gen.pl γειτόνων. 98 According to the online database of the Dictionary of the Triantafyllidis Institute ( modern_greek/tools/lexica/triantafyllides/), 52% of masculine nouns belongs to the o- 93

114 CASE HIERARCHY The fact that the genitive plural has always been expressed by only one morpheme (-ων) can be interpreted in many ways. Zwicky (1978) makes three predictions of implicational markedness, namely universal laws that are related to certain categories, one of which involves the universal markedness of the plural number in comparison to the singular. Quite interestingly, the genitive plural fits all three predictions with regard to its status in CMG and most dialects: (4.1a) Implicationally marked forms show fewer irregularities: the irregularity of the three stress shift patterns highly increases the structural complexity of the genitive plural, given the markedness of its case and number, which will be proven to provide motivation for its replacement by other strategies later. (4.1b) Implicationally marked forms are often non-distinctive: as will be shown in Chapter 5, the syncretism of the genitive plural with the accusative in the personal pronouns of almost every MG variety and the syncretism in masculine (and feminine) nominal paradigms of a few dialects are considerably more widespread than the occasional instances of identical realization of the genitive singular with other cases that were shown in In other instances, the genitive singular and plural forms are identical (ex. 2.24c). Also, the genitive plural forms of modifiers, determiners and non-personal pronouns are always common for all genders as opposed to other case forms (cf ) (4.1c) Implicationally marked forms are more often defective: as will be seen in Chapter 6, the genitive plural is more defective than any other case form in MG Iconicity and genitive case marking As has been shown in and 4.1, a series of elements, such as the semanto-syntactic unmarkedness of the nominative and the accusative, and their morphological neutralization, have shifted the hierarchical relations in the MG case system, as they have created in many instances a [-GEN/ +GEN] opposition. This change in the case hierarchy has led to the need for greater constructional iconicity of the genitive, due to its increased markedness in the system after the LMedG period. For instance, as can be seen in examples (2.12a)-(2.12e), in some varieties the paradigm, which means that in dialects where the suffix -ου is used with 3 rd declension masculines, the percentage of its usage is much higher. As regards neuter nouns, o- and ι-neuters are the two predominant paradigms for this gender, since 3 rd declension neuters are much lower in number and in most dialects these paradigms also take the suffix -ου. 94

115 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK shift of the stress to the ultima (ANT/PEN ULT) is extended to many paradigms, which marks the genitive plural (and the genitive singular) more explicitly. In dialectal MG and CMG, two major phenomena that are related to the increase of the diagrammaticity of genitive forms can be found. The first phenomenon affects the genitives of non-personal pronouns, such as demonstratives, interrogatives, relative, indefinite and distributive pronouns. Especially when they function as heads of a nominal phrase and not as determiners, the genitives of these pronouns take the extended suffixes -(oυ)νού (Μ/N)/ -νής (F) and -(ω)νών for the singular and plural respectively, e.g. αυτ-ός (M)/ αυτή (F)/ αυτ-ό (N) this αυτ-ουνού (M/N)/ αυτη-νής (F)/ αυτ-ωνών (M/F/N). The original genitives, e.g. αυτ-ού (M/N)/ αυτή-ς (F)/ αυτ-ών (M/F/N, plural), are also used, but mostly when they function as determiners. This phenomenon is extremely widespread, as it can be found in almost every MG variety. The second phenomenon involves the development of new genitive suffixes from the paradigm of ι-neuters. More specifically, -ιου/ -ιων were reanalyzed as separate suffixes from such genitives as κεφαλι-ού/ κεφαλι-ών (<κεφάλι head ; Karatsareas 2011: ) and were extended to a great number of paradigms of all genders in some dialects, e.g. σίδερ-ο iron (oneuter) σιδερ-ιού (#CMG σίδερ-ου). This phenomenon can be sporadically found in many dialects, even though the degree of its extension varies greatly. According to Bybee (2011: 143), the added morphological complexity of the marked form reflects its added semantic complexity, which can be clearly shown by the fact that these two iconic phenomena involve three features: i) they always involve stress movement (apart from ultima-stressed nouns), ii) they are often extended to both numbers, thus unifying the marking of genitive singulars and plurals, iii) they increase the number of phonemes in the genitive suffix by one in the case of -ιου/ -ιων and by two in the case of -νου (/-νης) / -(ν)ων, cf. σιδερ-ιού [siðerˈʝu] vs. σίδερ-ου [ˈsiðeru] and αυτ-ουνού [aftuˈnu] vs. αυτ-ού [aˈftu] this The genitives of non-personal pronouns The vast majority of the MG-speaking world exhibits the extension of the suffixes -νού/ -νών to the genitives of non-personal pronouns. This phenomenon is very interesting, because it shows a distinct morphological path from the nominal and adjectival inflection. 95

116 CASE HIERARCHY Table 4.1: The genitives of non-personal pronouns in Modern Greek 99 nom.sg εκείν-ος αυ-τός άλλ-ος όλ-ος κάποι-ος ποι-ος gen.sg εκείν-ου/ αυτ-ού/ άλλ-ου/ όλ-ου κάποι-ου/ ποι-ου/ εκειν-ού 100 αυτ-ουνού αλλ-ουνού (ολ-ουνού) καποι-ανού ποι-ανού 101 nom.sg εκείν-οι αυτ-οί άλλ-οι όλ-οι κάποι-οι ποι-οι gen.pl εκείν-ων/ αυτ-ών/ άλλ-ων/ όλ-ων/ κάποι-ων/ ποι-ων/ εκειν-ών αυτ-ωνών αλλ-ωνών ολ-ωνών καποι-ωνών ποι-ανών that this other all someone who As mentioned earlier, the original forms are still in use, but they are much less frequent and are mostly used as determiners, while their use is rare when the pronoun functions as the head of the nominal phrase: (4.2a) το βιβλίο αυτό είναι του άλλ-ου παιδι-ού [GEN] this book belongs to another kid (4.2b) το βιβλίο αυτό είναι (του) αλλ-ουνού [GEN] this book is someone else s As regards dialectal variation, Italiot only exhibits stress change and not the addition of an extra syllable (Karanastasis 1997: 69): τούτο this (M/N), τούτη (F) gen.sg τουτού (M/N), τουτή (F), gen.pl τουτώ (M/F/N). The Bithynian dialect of Demirdesi (Danguitsis 1943: 90-3) exhibits some very interesting phenomena that involve an iconic distinction between the genitive forms of the singular and the plural, as the former has an extra syllable, but the latter has two; what is more, some pronouns have developed new nominative and accusative forms modeled after the initial extended genitives and at a later point these new forms acquired new extended genitives (Danguitsis 1943: 92): 99 For reasons of economy the feminine forms ending in -νής are not included in this table, e.g. αυτή/ gen.sg αυτή-ς αυτη-νής, εκείνη/ gen.sg εκείνη-ς εκεινή-ς, ποια/ gen.sg ποια-ς ποια-νής, άλλη/ gen.sg άλλη-ς αλλη-νής etc. Accusative plural forms of masculine nouns with the extended suffixes were also developed from these extended genitives, e.g. acc.pl αυτ-ούς acc.pl αυτουν-ούς (<gen.sg αυτ-ουνού). In some dialects, nominative forms are formed after these genitives, e.g. αυτούν-ος. 100 Note the effect of haplology on the lack */ekinuˈnu/. 101 Quite surprisingly, the masculine forms appear to be analogical from the feminine ποιανής (<nom.sg ποια), possibly due to dissimilation of the consecutive -oυ-, *ποι-ουνού, possibly due to the fact that it only has two syllables as opposed to the extended genitive singulars of other pronouns. 96

117 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (4.3a) (4.3b) nom.sg.m τούτ-ος this / gen.sg.m/n τουτ-ουνού/ gen.pl τουτ-ουναρού nom.sg.f αυτή/ gen.sg.f αυτη-νάς 102 nom.sg.f αυτηνά gen.sg.f αυτηνα-νάς The iconic marking of non-personal pronominal genitives is clearly an old development, as it can be found in MedG texts: War of Troy l (14 th c.) αὐτουνοῦ. Due to the expansion of this phenomenon in most pronouns, a few proposals have been attempted 103, the most likely of which is provided by Hatzidakis (1889), who claims that genitive singular forms such as εν-ού 104 (<ένας one ), κανεν-ού (κανένας no one ), αυτ-ού/ αυτ-ών (αυτός this ) triggered the development of ultima-stressed forms of the demonstrative εκείνος that : εκειν-ού/ εκειν-ών. At a later point, the genitives of αυτός were remodeled after these innovative genitives: αυτου-νού/ αυτων-ών. This solid analysis is based on analogy from frequently attested MedG and dialectal MG pronominal forms, such as κανεν-ού, καθεν-ού, αυτ-ού/ αυτ-ών. Consequently, the course of this change can be reconstructed as follows: (4.4a) (4.4b) I: gen.sg αυτ-ού εκειν-ού (<εκείν-ου) II: άλλ-ου αλλου-νού III: αυτ-ουνού I: gen.sg αυτ-ών εκειν-ών (<εκείν-ων) ΙΙ: άλλ-ων αλλω-νών ΙΙΙ: αυτ-ωνών According to this approach, Italiot pronominal genitives remained in the second stage of this process, namely the stress change, while in the rest of the MG dialects the process was completed with the addition of the syllable -νού. Furthermore, it can be argued that the initial stress change and the subsequent addition of an extra syllable served as iconic marking of pronominal genitives, which have a greater functional load and are extremely frequent 105. Furthermore, the fact that these genitives often function as heads motivated a more explicit 102 The ending in -νάς instead of -νής should not be a surprise, as it also occurs by analogy from the feminine genitives μια-ς someone s / ποια-ς whose, cf. μια-νάς in Rhodes (Papachristodoulou 1958: 49). 103 Pernot (1946: 170) proposes that an extra syllable -ων was added to the genitive plurals of non-personal pronouns for emphatic reasons, e.g. *αυτ-ών-ων των ημερών αυτ-ωνών των ημερών of these days. However, the existence of an intermediate form *αυτ-ώνων is entirely not attested. Henrich (1996) believes that these forms reflect ancient Doric pronominal genitive plurals that followed the PEN ULT pattern (cf. Doric ἀλλ-ῶν [<*ἀλλό-ων] vs. Attic-Ionic ἄλλ-ων [<*ἄλλο-ων]), the phenomenon should be regarded as a remnant of the Doric substratum of some MG dialects, such as Italiot. This approach is equally problematic, as it presupposes a Doric influence on every MG dialect; for instance, the modern counterparts of Greek settlements in Asia Minor of Ionic do exhibit this phenomenon (e.g. in Pontus). 104 Note the replacement of the 3 rd declension suffix -oς by -ου, as mentioned in : AG nom.sg.m εἷς /he :s/ (<*hen-s) one / gen.sg.m ἑν-ός dialectal MG nom.sg.m ένας/ gen.sg.m εν-ού. 105 As will be shown in Chapter 7 dealing with the retreat of the genitive in Northern Greek, non-personal pronouns are the last lexemes to lose their genitive plural forms. 97

118 CASE HIERARCHY marking; this can also be shown by the development of extended genitives of cardinal numerals that function as heads: (4.5a) μια-νής <μιά-ς, nom.sg μια/ μία one (F) (dialectal and CMG) (4.5b) εν-ανού <εν-ού, nom.sg ένας one (Μ) (Northern Euboea; Settas 1960: 118) (4.5c) δυο-νών <δύο (indeclinable for case and gender) two (dialectal and CMG) (4.5d) τρι-ωνών <τριών, nom.pl τρεις (Μ/F)/ τρία (N) three (Kárpathos; Μinás 1970: 97) Extension of the suffixes -ιου/ -ιων in Μodern Greek varieties As noted earlier, genitives ending in -ιου/ -ιων are only found in the paradigm of ι-neuters in CMG and most MG dialects, but they can be found in a few additional paradigms in the dialects of Asia Minor, Lesbos and sporadically in other parts of insular and continental Greece. Their distribution varies, as there are dialects where -ιου/ -ιων almost exclusively mark the genitive across all paradigms, while in others the extension is limited to a few lexemes of other paradigms. The phenomenon is extremely widespread in the dialects of Eastern Asia Minor, particularly in Pontic where the suffixes -ί(ου)/ -ίων 106 are extended to all the paradigms, apart from the singular of α-/ε-/η-masculines and feminines and some o-masculines (Papadópoulos 1955) 107 : Table 4.2: The overextension of -ί(ου) and -ίων in the majority of the paradigms in Pontic o-masc α-masc o-masc paris-fem imparis-fem o-neut μα-neut nom.sg άνθρωπ-ος ποπά-ς λύκ-ος γυναίκα-ø νύφε ξύλ-ον αίμα-ν gen.sg ανθρωπ-ί(ου) ποπά-ø λύκ-(ου) γυναίκα-ς νύφε-ς ξυλ-ί(ου) αιματ-ί(ου) nom.pl άνθρωπ-(οι) ποπάδ-ες λύκ-(οι) γυναίκ-ες νυφάδ-ες ξύλα αίματ-α gen.pl ανθρωπ-ίων ποπαδ-ίουν λυκ-ίων γυναικ-ίων νυφαδ-ίων ξυλίων αιματ-ίων human priest wolf woman bride wood blood In some Northern Greek varieties, the genitive singular -ιου is extended to most neuter paradigms and its plural equivalent can be found with nouns of all genders, as in Lesbos 106 Pontic lacks synizesis. The suffix -ί exhibits deletion of unstressed /u/ in final position. 107 Similar phenomena are also found in the dialects of Central Asia Minor (Silli, Phárasa and Cappadocia), cf. Chapter 8 98

119 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (Anagnostou 1996: 15-7, Papadópoulos 1927: 69), e.g. άθριπους person (ο-masculine)/ gen.pl αθριπ-ιούν, θάλασσα sea (α-feminine)/ gen.pl θαλασσ-ιούν, πρόβατο sheep (ο-neuter)/ gen.sg προβατ-ιού/ gen.pl προβατ-ιούν, πράμα thing (μα-neuter)/ gen.sg πραματ-ιού/ gen.pl πραματ-ιών 108. This phenomenon is also attested in dialects from various regions, even though more sporadically and with a more limited number of lexemes and paradigms, e.g.: (4.6a) (4.6b) (4.6c) (4.6d) (4.6e) (4.6f) α-feminines (parisyllabic): gen.pl βdoμαδ-ιών (<βdομάδα/ nom.pl βdομάδες week ) μα-/ας-neuters: gen.pl κριατ-ιών (κριάς) meat Rhodes, Dodecanese (Papachristodoulou 1958: 29 & 37) η-masculine: gen.pl κλιφτ-ιών (<κλέφτς <*κλέφτης thief ) ο-neuter: gen.pl μλ-ιών (<μήλου <*μήλο apple ) Aetolia, Central Greece (Loukópoulos 1910: 390 & 1921: 40, Papadópoulos 1927: 70) α-feminine: gen.pl θυγατερ-ώ/ θυγατιρ-ιώ (<θυγατέρα daughter ) Zagori, Epirus (Papadópoulos 1927: 60) ος-neuter: gen.pl ορ-ιών (<όρος, nom.pl όρη mountain ) Ios, Cyclades (Tzavaras 2005: 77) μα-/ας-/α-neuters: gen.sg γαλατ-ιού (<γάλα milk ) α-feminine: κοτ-ιώνε (<κότα hen ) Laconia, Peloponnese (Koukoulés 1908: 177 & 179) η-feminine: gen.pl φων-ίω (<φωνή voice ) Sternatía, Salento, Southern Italy (Lambroyorgu 2001: 51) According to Karatsareas (2011), in the extension of -ιου/ -ιων in Pontic and Cappadocian, the suffix -ιου offered a higher degree of diagrammaticity, as genitive singulars that exhibited deletion of unstressed /u/ appeared to consist of the bare stem of the noun which did not serve for the optimal alignment between case markers and semantic relations, cf. Pontic nom.sg 108 The neighboring dialects of Kydoniés (Sákkaris 1940: 107) and Imbros (Andriotis 1996: 23) also have similar forms, e.g. κουκκαλ-ιού (nom.sg κούκκαλου bone <*κόκκαλο), σιδιριού (nom.sg σίδιρου iron <*σίδερο), κληματ-ιού (nom.sg κλήμα vine ) for the former and δρουμ-ιώ (nom.sg δρόμους road <*δρόμος), σφιδ-ιώ (nom.sg σφίδα earthenware ), βιργατ-ιώ (nom.sg βιργάτς laborer <*εργάτης) for the latter. In the Sporades and Samos, also in the Aegean, the pattern is restricted to μα-, ας- and ο-neuters, but it affects both numbers (Papadópoulos 1927: 69-70), e.g. gen.sg προσουπ-ιού/ gen.pl προσουπ-ιούνι 108 (nom.sg πρόσουπου <*πρόσωπο face ). 99

120 CASE HIERARCHY άνθρωπος/ gen.sg ανθρώπ (<*ανθρώπ-ου) nom.sg άνθρωπος/ gen.sg ανθρωπ-ίου. The phenomenon also solved the problem of conflicting stress patterns, particularly the penult- vs. ultima-stressed genitives of α-feminines and the antepenult- vs. penult-stressed genitives of ο- masculines and ο-neuters (cf ), since the genitive suffixes of ι-neuters are inherently specified for stress (-ίου/ -ίων for the dialects without synizesis and -ιού/ -ιών for dialects with synizesis). A clear example that supports this view is the genitive κλιφτιών from Aetolia (Central Greece; Northern Greek dialect group); since the original genitive plural κλιφτ-ών (<*κλεφτ-ών) of the η-masculine κλέφτς (<*κλέφτης thief ) follows the PEN ULT pattern, the selection of the suffix -ιών from ι-neuters served for the merger of the two distinct PEN ULT patterns for η-masculines and ι-neuters: PEN ULT I κλεφτς/ gen.pl κλιφτ-ών of thieves / PEN ULT II σπιτ/ gen.pl σπιτι-ών of houses PEN ULT (-ιών) κλιφτ-ιών/ σπιτ-ιών. However, it can be added here that, although genitives ending in -ιου/ -ιων are predominantly characteristic of ι-neuters, such forms were also associated with masculines in earlier stages of the language; more precisely, masculine nouns ending in -ιος underwent the exact same changes as the AG neuter diminutives in -ιον, which gave rise to the MedG paradigm of ι-neuters (cf. Table 2.8), even though in most cases they ended up merging with the paradigm of η- masculines 109 : MG dialectal data corroborate the presence of such masculine genitives ending in -ιου: (4.7a) (4.7b) (4.7c) Αλωναρι-ού <Αλωνάρης nickname for July (<*Aλωνάριος) Epirus (Koukoulés 1923: 296) Δεκεβρι-ού <Δεκέβρης December (<Δεκέμβριος) Kythnos, Cyclades (Koukoulés 1923: 296) Μποφιλακι-ού <Μποφιλάκης surname (the suffix -άκης comes from MedG -άκιος) western Crete, Pángalos (1955: 394) 109 This matter is related to what Hatzidakis (1934: ) mentions regarding the masculine paradigm of οκνέας lazy in Pontic, the plural of which is as follows: nom.pl οκνεάρ-οι/ gen.pl οκνεαρ-ίων/ acc.pl οκνεάρ-ους. The original nominative and accusative plural forms must have been *οκνεάρι-οι/ *οκνεαρί-ους, but the simplification of the vowel sequence /ii/ ([okneˈarii]) resulted in the form οκνεάρ-οι [okneˈari], cf. nom.pl καβαλάρ-οι (nom.sg καβαλάρη-ς /kavaˈlaris/ cavalier <MedG καβαλάρι-ος/ nom.pl καβαλάρι-οι) in Digenes Acritas (E), l (ms. 15 th -16 th c.). Karatsareas (2011: 253) claims that the form οκνεάρους is not accounted for by Hatzidakis analysis. However, it can be easily explained as a form modeled after the nominative plural οκνεάροι, exactly like MedG καβαλάρους from καβαλάροι, cf. Digenes Acritas (E), l

121 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (4.7d) Γιασημακι-ού <Γιασημάκης surname (lit. little jasmine ) Chalki, Dodecanese (Baud-Bovy 1935: 293) The crucial generalization behind this phenomenon seems to be the tendency to render genitive forms more iconic and unified. This tendency can be attributed to the increase of the markedness of the genitive during LMedG/ EMG as a result of the loss of most of its ancient functions, while keeping in mind that the case system developed a [-GEN/ +GEN] opposition in many instances. For example, the use of these suffixes even with nouns that have predictable stress position shows that iconic marking is of great significance, e.g. gen.pl Γρεβεν-ιού 110 (instead of the expected Γρεβεν-ών) <nom.pl Γρεβενά toponym Grevená (Peloponnese; Papazafirópoulos 1887: 133). 4.3 Distributional potential and frequency The markedness criteria of distributional potential and frequency will be discussed together, given the fact that the extensive restriction or expansion of the functions of a grammatical property may have a remarkable impact on the frequency of its usage 111. As was shown in Chapters 2 and 3, the accusative came to dominate most syntactic environments during MedG, while the distributional potential of the genitive was significantly reduced despite its merger with the dative in Southern Greek: 110 Quite obviously, there is no need for stress change in ultima-stressed nouns. Also, note the use of the singular suffix for a plural noun (cf. 2.24c). 111 Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that the distributional potential of a grammatical element does not always guarantee its frequency. For instance, the genitive is used with more prepositions in AG, but the prepositional accusative was more frequent (cf ). 101

122 CASE HIERARCHY Table 4.3: The distributional potential of the Greek genitive Ancient Greek Late Medieval/ Modern Greek Ia 112 A. Predicative possessive (copular clauses) A. Predicative possessive (copular and existential) B.i Adnominal (anchoring possessive) B.i Adnominal (anchoring possessive) B.ii Adnominal (non-anchoring possessive) B.ii Adnominal (non-anchoring: time and quality) B.iii Adnominal (pseudo-partitive) C. Adverbal (indirect object) B.iv Adnominal (true partitive) Late Medieval/ Modern Greek Ib 113 C.i Adjectival (objective) A. Predicative possessive (copular and existential) C.ii Adjectival (true partitive) B.i Adnominal (anchoring possessive) C.iii Adjectival (standard of comparison) B.ii Adnominal (non-anchoring: time and quality) D.i Adverbal (partitive) C.i Adverbal (indirect object) D.ii Adverbal (ablative) [C.ii Adverbal (direct object <dative)] E.i Adverbial adjunct (time) [C.iii. Adverbal (partitive)] E.ii Adverbial adjunct (ablative, e.g. cause) [C.iv Adverbal (ablative)] F. Adverbial prepositional [D. Adverbial prepositional] G. Prepositional [E. Adverbial adjunct (allative; limited)] H. Participial adjunct (genitive absolute) Late Medieval/ Modern Greek II 114 A. Predicative possessive (copular and existential) B.i Adnominal (anchoring possessive) B.ii Adnominal (non-anchoring: time and quality) The decisive effect of the reduced distributional potential of the genitive on its text frequency in the diachrony of Greek is depicted very clearly in the following table: 112 Heptanese, Peloponnese, Western Epirus and Northern Greek dialects with genitive indirect object marking (Central Greece, Eastern Epirus, the Sporades and Lesbos). 113 South-Eastern dialects (Chios, Ionia, Icaria, Dodecanese), Cyprus, Cyclades and to a lesser extent Crete. The additional syntactic distributions of the genitive in these dialects are in brackets, as they are not always fully productive and in some instances they constitute relics of earlier stages of these varieties. 114 Northern Greek dialects with accusative indirect object marking (Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Northern Aegean), Bithynia, Livisi, Vourlá, Kydoniés, Eastern Asia Minor, Mariupol. 102

123 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 4.4: The frequency of the Greek cases diachronically and dialectally Ancient Greek 115 (8 th BC - 2 nd c. AD) NOM: 25.4% ACC: 38.6% GEN: 22% DAT: 14% Chron. of Turk. Sult. 116 (early 17 th c.) (Early Modern Greek Ib) NOM: 32.2% ACC: 68.5% GEN: 15.3% Zákynthos 117, Ionian (20 th c.) (Modern Greek Ia) NOM: 36.1% ACC: 57.7% GEN: 6.2% Livisi 118, Asia Minor (20 th c.) (Modern Greek II) NOM: 31% ACC: 65.8% GEN: 3.2% Standard CMG 119 (late 20 th c.) NOM: 41.3% ACC: 45.6% GEN: 13.1% Despite the fact that statistical analyses can only be indicative of some phenomena in a given linguistic system and in spite of the differences in the methodology and size of corpora between these statistics (Chronicle about the Turkish Sultans, the dialects of Zákynthos and Livisi) and other researchers findings (AG and CMG), the data on Table 4.4 illustrate very clearly the reduction in the use of the genitive diachronically depending on the dialectal variation of its distributional potential. More specifically, the wide range of the functions of the genitive in AG is reflected in the high percentage of its high frequency; this becomes even clearer if it is kept in mind that the case system involved four and not three cases, which renders the proportion of the usage of the genitive in comparison to the nominative and the accusative even higher. The percentage of the genitive is lower in later periods after the loss of the dative and the reformation of the ancient case system. The Chronicle about the Turkish Sultans is one of the most representative prose texts of the spoken language of the LMedG/ EMG period and is highly valuable for the examination of the status of the modern genitive in earlier periods for various reasons. The text is based on a southern variety and exhibits use of the genitive in various 115 Based on the statistics provided by Winter (1971: 55) with the exclusion of vocatives. His statistical analysis is based on noun forms from sample texts of Homer, Herodotus, Xenophon, Aristophanes and the Gospel of John. 116 Samples from the edition of Zoras (1958: 25-32, 33-41, 79-95). The statistical analysis involves only heads of nominal phrase, as mentioned in Samples from narratives (Minotou 1929: ). Heads of nominal phrases only. 118 Samples from narratives (Mouseou-Bouyoukou (1976: 12-20, 24-38, 110, ). Heads of nominal phrases. 119 Based on one dialogue and oral corpora by Kavoukópoulos (1990), who mostly counts heads of nominal phrases. In his analysis, he also includes a monologue and a written text that are excluded here due to their formal and standardized register. 103

124 CASE HIERARCHY syntactic domains, such as indirect object (with limited competition with εἰσέ/ σε) indirect objects, as well as direct object of partitive and dative meaning (4.8a) and complement of adverbial prepositions (4.8b), leading to a high percentage of use of the case 120 : (4.8a) διὰ νὰ βοηθήσουν τῆς Πόλης [GEN] in order to help Constantinople (Zoras 1958: 82) (4.8b) καταπάνω τῆς Οὑγγαρίας [GEN] against Hungary (Zoras 1958: 95) As regards dialectal variation in MG, the occurrence of the genitive in narratives from Zákynthos and Livisi are illustrated well in the distributional potential of the genitive in Table 4.3. Southern dialects such as the variety of Zákynthos exhibit the use of genitive indirect objects, albeit used interchangeably with the preposition σε (cf. Table 3.7), which is reflected in the much higher frequency of the case in comparison to dialects that mark indirect objects through the accusative, like Livisi in south-western Asia Minor where the genitive is essentially monofunctional. The considerably higher percentage of the genitive in standardized CMG (as analyzed by Kavoukópoulos 1990) is not only explained by the fact that it was based on usage by educated speakers who are more exposed to formal registers, but also quite clearly by the effect of Katharévousa on CMG through the extensive usage of nominalizations with subjective and objective genitives and the revival of the prepositional genitive (cf. 3.6) 121. This type of effect of standardization and codification on the maintenance of marked grammatical elements parallels the findings of Scott (2013), according to whom the use of the genitive in Standard Dutch and Standard German has greatly increased compared to dialectal and earlier forms of the languages. Another matter that needs to be noted is the difference in frequency between the singular and the plural forms of the genitive. In the statistical analyses of narratives from the dialects of Zákynthos and Livisi, the percentage of each case form is quite indicative of the low occurrence of plural possessors and the overall markedness of the plural number: i) Zákynthos gen.sg 5.4% of all nominal heads, gen.pl 0.7% of all nominal heads, and ii) Livisi gen.sg 2.9% of all nominal heads, gen.pl 0.3% of all nominal heads. 120 Archaistic structures with the genitive are not very common in the text, which further supports the authenticity of the status of the genitive in varieties like the one that the text of the Chronicle of the Turkish Sultans is based on, e.g. ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς wholeheartedly (use of the prepositional genitive with the ancient ἐξ; Zoras 1958: 88). 121 The high percentage of the genitive in Kavoukópoulos (1990) statistics can also be attributed to the fact that he counts the weak genitive forms of the third person (του/ της/ του/ τους) as heads of nominal phrases, although this element alone could not have crucially altered the frequency of the genitive in his samples. 104

125 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK 4.4 Implications for the inflectional potential of the genitive As has been clearly demonstrated, the position of the genitive in the case hierarchy of Greek was crucially altered during the recent history of the language. More clearly, the genitive dropped to the bottom of the hierarchy after the loss of the dative, while the morphological neutralization between the nominative and the accusative combined with the distributional enhancement of the latter - which competed with the genitive the most, being an oblique case - further increased the markedness of the possessive case creating in many cases the binary opposition -GEN/+GEN: (4.9) Ancient Greek: NOM < ACC < GEN < DAT Late Medieval/ Modern Greek: NOM ACC < GEN Besides this development, the status of the genitive in the case system is not only defined by its position in the hierarchical order, but mainly by its qualitative features. As shown in Table 4.4, the genitives in the Chronicle about the Turkish Sultans and varieties like Zákynthos might be both be the lowest ranked members in the case hierarchy, but their status in the case system is different with regard to their distributional potential and frequency. As mentioned in , there are many instances of loss of the inflectional potential of the genitive that were summarized in examples (2.24b)-(2.24h). Among these phenomena, there are some that are more or less isolated, such as overlap with other case forms due to accidental phonological changes or analogical developments (cf. the extension of the suffix -Ø of α-/ηmasculines to ο-masculines) or the occasional overlap of genitive singular with plural forms in the case of toponyms. While these developments are interesting in terms of the general changes in the inflectional potential and the structural coding of the genitive, other phenomena seem to be more systematic, as they appear more consistently, they involve broader domains of the inflectional morphology - i.e. they occur in more declensional paradigms - and they can be found in a wide range of dialectal varieties, not only due to diffusion through dialect contact, but also through independent developments, which is far more important for the nature of language change and in this particular case, decline in inflection. 105

126 CASE HIERARCHY If we consider the fact that there must have been a particular point in EMedG after the loss of the dative when the genitive still maintained the full inflectional potential of its ancient ancestor, one of the central aims of the second part of this study will be to trace and explain the main forms that the loss of the inflectional potential has taken in the diachrony and the diatopy of Greek. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are four main phenomena of loss of the inflectional potential that can be identified in the MG-speaking world: first, the replacement of genitive by the accusative plural in the personal pronouns of almost every modern variety and parallel developments in nominal paradigms in varieties from various regions; second, the reduction in productivity of the genitive related to the development of defective paradigms that cannot form the case; third, the expansion of the continuum of defectivity to the extreme extent through the complete loss of the genitive plural in most varieties of the Northern Greek dialect group; finally, the development of various changes resulting in loss of inflectional forms in the periphery of the Greek-speaking world that raise a question regarding the role of language contact. Therefore, in the following chapters, I will analyze each of these phenomena not only with regard to the examination of their history and development, but also in terms of their relation to the position of the genitive in the case hierarchy of Greek, as has been described in this chapter. 106

127 5. SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE 5.0 Introduction The first phenomenon of loss of the inflectional potential of the genitive in the diachrony of Greek involves the syncretism between the genitive and the accusative in the personal pronouns of Medieval Greek (cf. Mertyris 2008), which was followed a few centuries later by the same development in the nominal declension of Cypriot (cf. Mertyris 2013). In this chapter, I will examine the nature and the origins of this syncretism and also the relationship between these two phenomena. Before examining these two developments, it is important to clarify the notion of case syncretism, so that the analysis is based on solid theoretical ground. According to Baerman et al. (2005: 1), the term syncretism refers to instances of asymmetry between categories distinguished by the syntax of a language and those distinguished by its morphological system. For example, the first and third plural verb forms in German are syncretic in contrast to the morphologically distinct singular and second plural forms: helfen help helfe (1sg) - hilfst (2sg) - hilft (3sg) - helfen (1/3pl) - helft (2pl). As regards case systems, according to Baerman s classification of the types of case syncretism (2009: 222), four different types can be found: i) syncretism of core cases (e.g. nominative with the accusative), ii) syncretism of a core case and a non-core case, iii) syncretism of non-core cases and iv) case syncretism combined with syncretism in other features (e.g. number). Based on this classification, the syncretism between the genitive and the accusative that is found in the personal pronouns of most MG dialects and in the nominal inflection of a few MG dialects belongs to the second type which involves a core case (accusative) and a non-core case (genitive).

128 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE 5.1 Syncretism in the personal pronouns As can be seen in the following table, the personal pronouns of CMG do not have a morphologically distinct genitive plural form for the weak forms nor a distinct genitive singular and plural for the strong forms. Table 5.1: The personal pronominal inflection of Modern Greek and its syncretic forms (in bold) STRONG FORMS WEAK FORMS 1SG 2SG 3SG (M/F/N) 1SG 2SG 3SG (M/F/N) nom. εγώ εσύ [αυτ-ός/ -ή/ -ό] acc. εμένα εσένα [αυτ-όν/ -ήν/ -ό] με σε τον/ την/ το gen. εμένα εσένα [αυτ-ού/ -ής/ -ού] μου σου του/ της/ του 1PL 2PL 3PL (M/F/N) 1PL 2PL 3PL (M/F/N) nom. εμείς εσείς [αυτ-οί/ -ές/ -ά] acc. εμάς εσάς [αυτ-ούς/ -ές/ -ά] μας σας τους/ τις/ τα gen. εμάς εσάς [αυτ-ών] μας σας τους In contrast, AG distinguished the genitive from the accusative throughout the paradigm: 122 The demonstrative αὐτός began to be established as a suppletive third person form during the HellG period, however it is not a proper personal pronoun, as Greek is a pro-drop language. The archaic third person forms (nom.sg -/ gen.sg οὗ / nom.pl σφεῖς) are omitted, since they had stopped being used in inscriptions by 395 BC (Jannaris 1897: 152). 108

129 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 5.2: The personal pronominal inflection and its morphologically distinct genitives in AG STRONG FORMS WEAK FORMS 1SG 2SG 3SG (M/F/N) 1SG 2SG 3SG (M/F/N) nom. ἐγώ σύ [αὐτ-ός/ -ή/ -ό] acc. ἐμέ σέ [αὐτ-όν/ -ήν/ -ό] με σε (τον/ την/ το) 123 gen. ἐμοῦ σοῦ [αὐτ-οῦ/ -ῆς/ -οῦ] μου σου (του/ της/ του) dat. ἐμοί σοί [αὐτ-ῷ/ -ῇ/ -ῷ] μοι σοι *(τῳ/ τῃ/ τῳ) 124 1PL 2PL 3PL (M/F/N) 1P L 2PL 3PL (M/F/N) nom. ἡμεῖς ὑμεῖς [αὐτ-οί/ -αί/ -ά] acc. ἡμᾶς ὑμᾶς [αὐτ-ούς/ -άς/ -ά] (ἡμας) 125 (ὑμας) (τους/ τας/ τα) gen. ἡμῶν ὑμῶν [αὐτ-ῶν] (ἡμων) (ὑμων) (των) dat. ἡμῖν ὑμῖν [αὐτ-οῖς/ -αῖς/ -οῖς] (ἡμιν) (ὐμιν) *(τοις/ ταις/ τοις) This change is quite peculiar due to the fact that it exhibits fewer case distinctions in the inflection of personal pronouns than in the nominal declensional classes, even though caseasymmetry and asymmetry-relevant syncretism usually involve the distinction of more categories in personal pronouns (cf. Iggesen 2005). According to Mertyris (2008) and (2011), the main aspects of this development are as follows: i. The personal pronominal inflection underwent some major analogical changes during MedG, namely the creation of new plural forms from the singular stem and the development of monosyllabic plural clitics. These changes resulted in an otherwise symmetrical system, apart from the accusative-genitive syncretism. ii. The first attestation of the syncretic accusative plural dates back to the 10 th c. AD, which indicates that despite its early establishment in MedG it did not extend to the rest of the inflectional system in the majority of the MG dialects. 123 These forms appear in LHellG and were not completely established until the MedG period, but they are included here to demonstrate the distinction between the two cases. 124 Third person dative clitics are unattested or poorly attested (cf. Dressler 1966: 43). 125 According to Humbert (1954) and Dressler (1966: 41), the plural forms had unstressed/ clitic counterparts, as indicated by the ancient grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus. As these disyllabic weak forms are not attested in text, they seem to be ambiguous. 109

130 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE iii. The first and second person strong genitive singulars have been lost in all MG dialects, apart from Icaria and a few islands in the Dodecanese. iv. The first and second person genitive plurals have been lost in all MG dialects, apart from Pontic Greek: εμούν/ μούνα/ μούνε and εσούν/ σούνα/ σούνε for the first and second person respectively (Papadópoulos 1955: 58, Oeconomides 1958: 232). v. The third person weak genitive plural has been lost in CMG and most dialects, even though it has survived in some others. vi. According to previous researchers (Jannaris 1897, Dieterich 1898, Hatzidakis 1931, Dressler 1966, Browning 1969 and Horrocks 1997/2010), the course of the loss of the pronominal genitive plural involved the replacement of the poorly attested or unattested intermediate forms?ἐμῶν/ *μων-*ἐσῶν/ *σων by the modern accusative forms The syncretism in the plural of the first and the second person The development of the accusative-genitive syncretism in the personal pronouns dates back to EMedG when new plural forms were created from the stem of the singular, due to the developing homophony between the first and the second plural forms caused by the shift of /y/ to /i/: Table 5.3: The phonology of the personal pronouns in Ancient Greek ClG (5 th -4 th c. BC) LHellG (3 rd -4 h c. AD) 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL nom. ἡμεῖς /hε:me :s/ ὑμεῖς /hy:me :s/ ἡμεῖς /iˈmis/ ὑμεῖς /yˈmis/ acc. ἡμᾶς /hε:mâ:s/ ὑμᾶς /hy:mâ:s/ ἡμᾶς /iˈmas/ ὑμᾶς /yˈmas/ gen. ἡμῶν /hε:mɔ :n/ ὑμῶν /hy:mɔ :n/ ἡμῶν /iˈmon/ ὑμῶν /yˈmon/ dat. ἡμῖν /hε:mî:n/ ὑμῖν /hy:mî:n/ ἡμῖν /iˈmin/ ὑμῖν /yˈmin/ The creation of the modern forms probably took place in different ways and at different diachronic points, since in some areas /y/ shifted to /i/ quite early (e.g. during the 4 th -5 th c. AD in Egypt and Syria, as will be discussed below) 126, while elsewhere it survived until the 10 th -11 th c. 126 Gignac (1976: 276) has located a few instances of erroneous use between the plurals of the two persons, e.g. P.Tebt. ΙΙ 420, 13 (Arsinoe, Egypt, 3 rd AD) ημις (=ὑμεῑς). 110

131 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (Horrocks 2010: 274), probably in the core of the MedG-speaking world 127. At least theoretically, the ancient plural forms could have survived in the latter areas until that time, which is supported from the use of the ancient genitive plural in the following structure from a Protobulgarian inscription written in Greek (9 th c. AD), despite the vernacular character of these sources: (5.1) εκ(α)ψ(εν τα) χωρηα ημον he burnt our villages /ˈekapsen ta xoˈria iˈmon/ burn:3sg.pst.pfv the:n/a.pl.n village:n/a.pl.n 1pl:GEN Malamirovo, Southern Bulgaria, 813 AD (Beševliev 1963: 125; Horrocks 2010: 326) The formation of the modern plural forms must have been a gradual process that probably started with the accusative, as it has been the most frequent case in Greek (cf. Table 4.4) and serves as the perfect candidate of being the first plural form that was developed from the stem of the singular pronouns. Even though it is not easy to determine whether the strong forms were developed before the weak ones or vice versa, that process must have occurred at approximately the same time. The formation of the new accusative clitics could have started in environments where homophony could be developed due to aphaeresis caused by hiatus (vowel sequence): (5.3) βλέπει ἡμᾶς/ βλέπει ὑμᾶς βλέπει μας/ βλέπει μας [ˈvlepi.imas]/ [ˈvlepi.ymas] [ˈvlepimas]/ [ˈvlepimas] s/he sees us s/he sees you βλέπει μας/ βλέπει σας < βλέπει με/ βλέπει σε [ˈvlepimas] [ˈvlepisas] [ˈvlepime]/ [ˈvlepise] s/he sees us s/he sees you s/he sees me s/he sees thee 127 Due to the stronger influence of the archaistic language in the large urban centres of the Eastern Roman Empire, such as Constantinople and Thessaloniki, it is possible that the phoneme survived for a longer time there (cf. Browning 1983: 57). This is confirmed by Michael the Grammarian s ironic comments on the pronunciation of /y/ as /i/ in the 11 th c. town of Philomelion (mid-western Asia Minor; Lauritzen 2009). Also, in a few MG dialects the medieval /y/ survived as /u/, e.g. in the dialectal group of Kymi, Old Athens, Mani, Mégara and Aegina. Note that in Tsakonian (<Ancient Doric), the ancient genitive ὑμῶν has survived as νύμου /ˈnimu/ or νιούμου /ˈnjumu/, which has replaced the morphological accusative and also functions as a syncretic genitive-accusative form (Costakis 1951: 85). 111

132 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Quite similarly, the stem of the strong singular forms ἐμέ(ν)(α)/ ἐσέ(ν)(α) was used for the new strong plural forms ἐμᾶς/ ἐσᾶς, while the same pattern was applied to the nominative forms ἐμεῖς/ ἐσεῖς with the /em-/, /es-/ stems of the singular. As regards the innovative genitive plurals?ἐμῶν-*μων/ *ἐσῶν-*σων, their complete absence in archaistic or vernacular Byzantine texts and the modern dialects, apart from Pontic, indicates that the ancient genitive plurals ἡμῶν/ ὑμῶν must have been directly replaced by the new clitic accusatives μας/ σας in a period when the transition from the ancient to the modern plural forms had not been completed 128. The lack of development of innovative genitive plural forms can be attributed to two factors. First, the increased markedness of the genitive during EMedG after the loss of the dative resulted in the employment of the already available innovative accusative clitics for the marking of all oblique functions 129. This development should not be a surprise if we take into consideration a similar process from Old Church Slavonic, in which the lack of pronominal clitic forms for the genitive resulted in its replacement by the already available dative clitics (Pancheva 2004: 176): Old Church Slavonic mene (gen.str)/ mьně (dat.str.) - mi (dat.wk) Bulgarian/ Makedonski mi (gen/dat.wk). Second, the development of ἐμῶν-*μων/ *ἐσῶν-*σων could have been prevented due to the presence of the homophonous or neuter singular forms of the possessive adjective ἐμόν my / ἐσόν your which probably constituted a blocking effect for their formation (cf. Baerman [2011] on the avoidance of homophony); in Pontic, which has maintained the possessive adjectives (τ ) εμόν/ (τ ) εσόν unlike most MG varieties, the homophony was raised by the shift of?ἐμῶν/ *ἐσῶν to εμούν/ εσούν, possibly due to influence from the singular μου/ σου as well (cf. Hatzidakis 1931: 61). In order to understand the use of the innovative accusative plural clitics μας/ σας as possessors, it needs to be kept in mind that these innovative accusatives were not only used as direct objects, but also as indirect objects during a time when the loss of the dative resulted in fluctuation between the genitive and the accusative (cf. example 2.1 in 2.2.2). Thus, as proposed in Mertyris (2008 and 2011), in structures where a recipient, an experiencer or a beneficiary expressed by the new accusative plurals had an underlying possessive notion, they were reanalyzed as genitives: 128 As is always the case with language change, when a new structure appears, it is used alternatively with an old one, until it gradually replaces the latter, which is not immediately lost after the emergence of the former. 129 Another element that should not be neglected is that the use of the strong genitive singulars ἐμοῦ/ ἐσοῦ must have been greatly reduced during EMedG (cf ) and could not provide a strong enough basis for the analogical development of?ἐμῶν/ *ἐσῶν. 112

133 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (5.4a) RECIPIENT i. *ἔδωσάν σας τὰ κλειδία give:3pl.pfv.pst 2pl:ACC.wk the:ν/α.pl.n key:ν/α.pl.n ii. *τὰ κλειδία σᾶς ἔδωσαν the:ν/α.pl.n key:ν/α.pl.n 2pl:ACC.wk give:3pl.pfv.pst They give you the keys iii. *ἔδωσαν τὰ κλειδία σας They gave your keys (5.4b) BENEFACTIVE/ MALEFACTIVE i. *ἔκαψάν σας τὰ σπίτια burn:3pl. PST.PFV 2pl:ACC.wk the:ν/α.pl.n house:ν/α.pl.n ii. *τὰ σπίτια σᾶς ἔκαψαν the:ν/α.pl.n house:ν/α.pl.n 2pl:ACC.wk burn:3pl.pst.pfv (lit.) They burnt you the houses iii. *ἔκαψαν τὰ σπίτια σας burn:3pl.pst.pfv the:ν/α.pl.n house:ν/α.pl.n 2pl:ACC/GEN.wk They burnt your houses Quite interestingly, the first attestation of the syncretic accusatives comes from Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (10 th c. AD), where a very similar structure shows quite clearly how an accusative plural clitic could be interpreted as either possessive or benefactive: (5.5) πάντα ἐχθρόν σας δουλώσῃ πρὸ τῶν ποδῶν σας /ˈpanda exˈθron sas ðuˈlosi every:acc.sg.m enemy:acc.sg.m 2pl:ACC.wk enslave:3sg.pfv.sbj pro ton poˈðon sas/ before the:gen.pl foot:gen.pl.m 2pl:ACC/GEN.wk may he enslave every enemy of/ for you before your feet De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae (book ), vol. 2, pg. 183, l

134 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE This development should not be at all surprising, since case forms marking dative functions are crosslinguistically known for being grammaticalized as possessives through the event schema of Goal: Y exists for/to X (Heine 1997). If the matter is viewed from a wider perspective, it can be said that the genitives were not simply replaced by the accusative, but we can speak of a triple case syncretism/ merger: HellG acc. ἡμᾶς/ ὑμᾶς <dat. ἡμῖν/ ὑμῖν MedG: acc./dat. ἐμᾶς-μας / ἐσᾶς-σας <gen. ἡμῶν/ ὑμῶν MG: acc./dat./gen. ἐμᾶς -μας/ ἐσᾶς-σας. The fact that it was the weak accusatives μας/ σας and not their strong counterparts εμάς/ εσάς that replaced the ancient genitives can be best proved by the limited ability of the latter to function as full genitives in MG, e.g. *το παιδί εμάς our child, since the clitics μας/ σας were the ones that replaced the ancient genitive plurals. Instead, they were used a topicalized or dislocated possessors due to the emergence of object and possessor reduplication structures in LMedG (cf. Bubenik 2001): (5.6) βασιλεὺς ἐμᾶς τῶν ἐδικῶν μας /vasiˈlefs eˈmas ton eðiˈkon mas/ king:nom.sg.m 1pl:ACC/GEN.str the:gen.pl own:gen.pl.m king of ours War of Troy, l (13 th -14 th c. AD) 1pl:ACC/ GEN.wk Thus, the course of the syncretism can be reconstructed as follows: i) the developing homophony between the first and the second plural forms resulted in the creation of new forms with ἐμ-/ ἐσ- based on the singular stem apart from the genitive possibly due to the blocking effect of the homophonous adjectives ἐμόν my / ἐσόν your [N/A.SG.N], ii) the accusative plural clitics were reanalyzed as possessives when functioning as datives in the process described in 5.4 and iii) after the ancient genitives became obsolete, the modern system was established: 114

135 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 5.4: The stages of the syncretism in the first and second plural STAGE 0: ClG-HellG STAGE Ι: EMedG I 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL nom. ἡμεῖς ὑμεῖς ἡμεῖς ὑμεῖς acc. ἡμᾶς ὑμᾶς ἡμᾶς ὑμᾶς gen. ἡμῶν ὑμῶν ἡμῶν ὑμῶν dat. ἡμῖν ὑμῖν (ἡμῖν) (ὑμῖν) STAGE ΙΙ: EMedG II STAGE ΙII: EMedG III 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL nom. ἡμεῖς - ἐμεῖς ὑμεῖς - ἐσεῖς ἐμεῖς - ἡμεῖς ἐσεῖς - ὑμεῖς acc. ἡμᾶς - ἐμᾶς/ μας ὑμᾶς - ἐσᾶς/ σας ἐμᾶς/ μας - ἡμᾶς ἐσᾶς/ σας - ὑμᾶς gen. ἡμῶν ὑμῶν μας - ἡμῶν σας - ὑμῶν STAGE IV: 10 th c. AD - 1PL 2PL nom. ἐμεῖς ἐσεῖς gen/acc. ἐμᾶς/ μας ἐσᾶς/ σας This analysis reflects the course of the syncretism in the core of the MedG-speaking world, however alternative processes must have taken place in some varieties if closer attention is paid to the maintenance of the Pontic εμουν/ εσουν and to the attestation of intermediate forms from the periphery of the EMedG-speaking world: (5.7a) τὴν ἐλευθέραν ἡσῶν your freed woman /tin eleˈfθeran iˈson/ the:acc.sg.f free:acc.sg.f 2pl:GEN P.Ross.Georg III 10, l. 16 (Egypt, 4 th -5 th AD) (5.7b) τῆς ἀδελφῆς ἑμῶν (/eˈmon/?) in favor of our sister SEG XXXVII 1484, 2 (Gaza, Palestine, 474 AD ac) 115

136 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.7c) ὡ (=ὁ) θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἑμῶν (/eˈmon/?), τίς ὡ καθ ἱμῶν (/iˈmon/?); 130 God is with us, who is against us? IGLSyr IV 1442, 1 (Apamene, Syria) (5.7d) μεθ ἑμῶν (/eˈmon/?) with us IGLSyr IV 1453, 1 (Apamene, Syria) (5.7e) φυλά[ξατε] [τὴν] εἴσοδ(ον) ἐμ[ῶν] (/eˈmon/?) guard our entrance IGLSyr IV 1583, 3 (Apamene, Syria) Starting with the data from Christian inscriptions, the attestations of accusatives and genitives starting with εμ- are probably not related to the ancient η being pronounced closer to /e/ or /ε/, but they seem to be true innovative forms. In SEG XXXVII 1484 (Gaza, 474 AD) η is misspelled as υ and this is a sign that the ancient 1PL and 2PL forms had become homophonous, which created the need for new plural forms. Also, ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν are interchanged very often in other inscriptions from these regions, which implies that the shift of /y/ to /i/ took place quite early in Greek spoken in that area, e.g. IGLSyr IV 1449 (Apamene, unknown date) εἰ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (=ἡμῶν), τίς ὁ καθ ὐμῶν (=ἡμῶν). This is completely normal, if we take into consideration that many of the writers of these inscriptions were not native speakers of Greek and probably spoke Semitic languages, which do not have /y/ in their phonology. As there is no attestation of forms with the singular stem in the second person, we can assume that in the varieties of these areas first person plural forms with the stem ἐμ- were created so that they would be distinct from the homophonous second person. Turning to the papyrological ἡσῶν, it was clearly based on the ancient first person ἡμῶν which means that it was not formed by the singular stem like the hypothetical *ἐσῶν-*σων. Even though Dressler (1966: 60) wonders whether ἡ- represents /e/ or /i/, a close look at the whole text of the papyrus shows that there is no alternation between η and ε (or αι). On the contrary, η alternates with ει (l. 22 ημε= εἶμαι) which in turn alternates with ι (l. 22 ιδε= εἶδε). In some cases υ is used incorrectly right after a preceding correct υ (l. 5 [υ]γυενοντος= ὑγιαίνοντος, l. 9 γυνυκος= γυναικός, l. 25 υγυας= ὑγιείας), which possibly implies that the extra effort of speakers to pronounce /y/ correctly resulted in hypercorrections. Thus, the ησ- forms in this papyrus 130 In this case both forms are first person plural, which means that there is simultaneous use of ἡμῶν and ἐμῶν are being used in the inscription. 116

137 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK constitute a different development that does not relate to the unattested *ἐσῶν-*σων in the core of the EMedG-speaking world. As regards Pontic, the relation of?ἐμῶν-*μων/ *ἐσῶν-*σων to the Pontic Greek εμούν/ εσούν is not guaranteed either, if we look carefully at the phonology of this sui generis MG dialect. More clearly, a well known feature of Pontic Greek is the frequent maintenance of the AG η (/ε:/) as /e/ in many cases, e.g. κέπιν < AG κήπιον small garden 131. Therefore, it is very probable that the first person plural forms of Pontic are the direct descendants of the ancient ἡ- forms and were not created later by the singular ἐ- like in the other MedG varieties. Due to this phonological feature of Pontic Greek, /em-/ of the first person singular and plural forms may have resulted in the analogical second person plural forms based on the singular stem /es-/. The independent development of the first and second plural forms of Pontic from the core EMedG varieties can be best reflected in the fact that Pontic has maintained the disyllabic clitic forms of HellG (cf. Table 5.2) unlike every other MG dialects, e.g. ετίμεσαν εμας [1PL:ACC.wk] /eˈtimesan emas/ they honored us. Thus, the following paths of the innovative first and second plural forms can be proposed for peripheral varieties of EMedG: Table 5.5: Alternative developments in peripheral varieties of Early Medieval Greek Syria and Palestine Egyptian variety of P.Ross.Georg. III 10 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL 2PL nom. ἡμεῖς = ὑμεῖς [iˈmis] [*eˈmis] [iˈmis] [iˈmis] [yˈmis/ iˈmis?] [iˈsis] acc. ἡμᾶς = ὑμᾶς [iˈmas] [eˈmas] [iˈmas] [iˈmas] [yˈmas/ iˈmas?] [iˈsas] gen. ἡμῶν = ὑμῶν [iˈmon] [eˈmon] [iˈmon] [iˈmon] [yˈmon/ iˈmon?] [iˈson] 131 According to Horrocks (2010: 400), the occurrence of AG η as /e/ in Pontic might be irrelevant to its ancient phonetic status, since /e/ appears instead of the expected /i/ in other instances as well, e.g. λεχνάρι < λυχνάρι oil lamp. Even in that case though, the Pontic first person plural forms are directly descended from their ancient counterparts and do not constitute analogical formations based on the stem of the singular as in the rest of the MG varieties. 117

138 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE *HellPontic 132 *MedPontic I *MedPontic II Modern Pontic 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL 1PL 2PL nom. [ḙˈmis] [yˈmis] [eˈmis] [yˈmis] [eˈmis] [eˈsis] [eˈmis] [eˈsis] acc. [ḙˈmas] [yˈmas] [eˈmas] [yˈmas] [eˈmas] [eˈsas] [eˈmas] [eˈsas] gen. [ḙˈmon] [yˈmon] [eˈmon] [yˈmon] [eˈmon] [eˈson] [eˈmun] [eˈsun] The fact that the inscriptional?ἐμῶν, the papyrological ἡσῶν and the Pontic εμούν/ εσούν come from remote areas of the EMedG-speaking world is also noteworthy, especially when we consider that the Greek presence in Syria, Palestine and Egypt was limited after the Arab conquest (7 th c. AD), while Pontic has plenty of peculiar features due to its distant position from most Greek varieties. Consequently, it can be inferred that the complete absence of the intermediate forms?ἐμῶν-*μων/ *ἐσῶν-*σων in the core of the EMedG-speaking world - namely mainland Greece, the Ionian Sea, the Aegean Sea, Cyprus, Propontis and Western Asia Minor - possibly renders their actual existence in the mainstream varieties highly unlikely. Finally, an interesting innovation found in Dodecanese varieties that maintained εμού/ εσού (cf. 5.0 and 5.1.2) is that they also formed morphologically distinct strong genitive plural forms based on the syncretic accusatives. Pernot (1946: 169) mentions the forms εμανάς/ εσανάς for Symi and Icaria and μανώ/ σανώ for Kos. These forms exhibit the iconic marking of genitive forms that is found in non-personal pronominal genitives such as ποιανώ(ν) (cf ). Karanastasis (1958: 129) mentions the forms εμανώ(ς)/ εσανώ(ς) for the dialect of Astypálea in with analogical -ς from the third person τως (see and 5.5) The loss of the strong genitive singular of the first and the second person As can be seen in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the strong singular forms of the first and the second person underwent a few changes that can be traced back to the HellG period. Thus, the initial ἐ- of the first person was extended to the second person: Ο.Petr 245, 4 παρ ἐσοῦ (viz. παρὰ σοῦ) (Apollonos Hydreuma, Eastern Egypt, AD). What is more, the accusatives of both persons underwent a series of changes. First, they acquired a final -ν by analogy to the accusative αὐτόν of the third person: ἐμέν P.Alex 27, 11 (mid 3 rd c. AD), σέν P.Mil.Vogl. 24, 4 (Arsinoite, 117 AD), ἐσέν P.Iand. VI 128, 16 (5 th c. AD). Second, by analogy to third declension accusatives 132 Before /ḙ/ shifted to /i/. The asterisks indicate unattested forms for the previous stages of Pontic. 118

139 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK such as ἕνα (<εἷς one ) or τινα (<τις someone ), they also acquired -α (Gignac 1981: 163): ἐμένα SB XII 10841, 8 (Oxyrhynchos, 4 th c. AD). Finally, given the fact that final -ν of the first and second declension accusative singulars had started to be extended to the accusative singular of third declension nouns, the form ἐμέναν is also attested: P.Oxy. XIV 1683, 17 (Oxyrhynchos, late 4 th c. AD), P.Oxy. XLVIII 3407, 21 (Oxyrhynchos, 4 th c. AD). Quite clearly, this is the origin of the MG εμένανε/ εσένανε 133 which are rarer alternative forms of εμένα/ εσένα and are mostly used with an emphatic nuance. The first attestation of a strong accusative singular used instead of a genitive is not attested until the vernacular texts of the LMedG period 134 : (5.8a) τῆς ταπεινῆς ἐμένα of humble me /tis tapiˈnis eˈmena/ the:gen.sg.f humble:gen.sg.f 1sg:ACC/GEN.str Phlorios and Platzia Phlora, l (14 th c.-15 th c.) (5.8b) Ἐμέναν ὁ πατέρας μου as for me, my father /eˈmenan o paˈteras mu/ 1sg:ACC/GEN.str the:nom.sg.m father:nom.sg.m 1sg:GEN.wk Imperios and Margarona, l. 174 (15 th c.) The more archaic accusative ἐμέ is also used as a genitive in EMG texts and has actually survived in a few MG dialects. (5.9) ἐμὲ καὶ τοῦ παιδιοῦ μου Both of me and my child /eˈme ke tu peðiˈu mu/ 1sg:ACC/GEN.str and the:gen.sg child:gen.sg.n 1sg:GEN.wk Georgios Chortatsis, Erophile, Act IV, Scene VII, l. 694 (Crete, 16 th -17 th c.) 133 The final -ε was added in order to avoid a closed final syllable, something which is usually preferred in MG, cf. κάνουν κάνουνε they do. 134 It is safe to say that the accusative-genitive syncretism in the singular had been established in most varieties during LMedG, even though the ancient genitives can still be found in the medieval vernacular texts, as they are restricted to frozen expressions of archaistic influence that almost no text from that period manages to avoid: μετ ἐμοῦ οὐκ εἶσαι you are not with me (Kallimachos and Chrysorrhoe, l. 1758, 14 th c.). 119

140 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Given the fact that the loss of the genitive plural is attested earlier than that of the loss of the strong genitive singular, it is only logical to propose that the latter development took place under the influence of the former and only after the former was established. Another element that confirms this is the fact that the genitives ἐμοῦ/ ἐσοῦ have left traces in MG dialects of the core of the Greek-speaking world, while the genitive plurals can only be found in Pontic. Apart from the influence of the pattern of syncretic genitive-accusatives in the plural, the demise of the forms ἐμοῦ/ ἐσοῦ can be sought in their extremely restricted functionality during EMedG. More specifically, even though the emphatic forms could appear in a few syntactic environments in AG, the major changes of the genitive case during the LHellG and EMedG period resulted in a completely different situation. As has been mentioned in previous chapters, the genitive lost its ablative and partitive adnominal and adverbal functions and also stopped being used as the complement of prepositions and prepositional adverbs due to the rise of periphrastic structures with prepositional phrases and the vast expansion of the use of the accusative. As is clearly shown below, the strong genitive singulars lost almost all of their functions due to the general replacement of the genitive by the accusative or periphrastic structures. Table 5.6: The elimination of the functions of the strong genitive singulars in MedG ABLATIVAL USE (STANDARD OF COMPARISON) μικρότερος ἐμοῦ μικρότερος ἐξ/ ἀπὸ ἐμοῦ μικρότερος ἀπὸ ἐμένα COMPLEMENT OF PREPOSITIONS/ PREPOSITIONAL ADVERBS χωρίς ἐμοῦ χωρίς ἐμένα πλησίον (ἐ)σοῦ πλησίον/ κοντά εἰς ἐσένα DIRECT OBJECT ἀκούεις ἐμοῦ ἀκούεις ἐμένα GENITIVE ABSOLUTE ἐμοῦ ἐρχομένου καθὼς ἠρχόμην smaller than me without me near thee you hear (of) me As I was coming Consequently, ἐμοῦ and ἐσοῦ were restricted to marking topicalized possessors and indirect object functions (only in Southern Greek) as the emphatic counterparts of the incomparably more frequently used weak genitives μου/ σου. Structures such as ἐμοῦ ὁ πατήρ/ ὁ πατήρ ἐμοῦ were significantly less frequent than the default use of the weak form already in AG, e.g. ὁ πατήρ μου 120

141 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK my father. Another crucial factor for the loss of these forms must have been their competition with the ancient possessive adjective ἐμός/-ή/-όν mine, (ἐ)σός/-ή/-όν yours and its medieval counterpart (ἰ)δικός/-ή/-ό μου/ σου/ του - της my/ your/ his - her own that caused the loss of the only function left of ἐμοῦ/ ἐσοῦ as emphatic possessives. Quite clearly, the lack of syncretism between the weak first person forms μου/ με or the second person forms σου/ σε is not only related to the unmarkedness of the singular (cf. 4.1b) and the incomparably higher frequency of the weak forms of the personal pronouns, but mainly related to the fact that the weak singular forms were always present in the language, while monosyllabic weak forms never existed in the plural until MedG, as shown previously. Even though the loss of the strong genitive singular is found in almost every MG dialect, the south-westerrn Aegean dialects of Icaria (Hatzidakis 1907: 443), Kárpathos (Minás 1970: 96), Kasos (Sofós 1987) and Astypálaea (Karanastasis 1958: 128) have preserved εμού and εσού 135 : (5.10a) πότε μού δωτσες εμού ένα πουλάτσι; /ˈpote mu ˈeðokes eˈmu ˈena puˈlaki/ when 1sg:GEN.wk give:2sg.pst 1sg:GEN.str one:n/a.sg.n little.bird:n/a.sg.n when did you give me a little bird? (5.10b) θα σου την εύρει τσι εσού /θa su tin ˈevri ke eˈsu/ fut 2sg:GEN.wk 3sg:ACC.f find:3sg:pfv and 2sg:GEN.str he will find it for you as well Kasos (Sofós 1987: 187 & 155) In other Dodecanese islands, e.g. in Chalki (Tsopanakis 1949: 50), Rhodes (Papachristodoulou 1958: 53) 136 and Symi (Angelopoulou et al. 2004: 294), the forms εμουνού, εσουνού were based on the ancient genitives and the analogical addition of -νού from non-personal pronominal genitives, such as αυτουνού of this, ποιανού whose (cf and 5.1.1). 135 Kassis (1982: 63) mentions μοῦ, σοῦ as emphatic forms for the first and the second person in his description of the Maniot dialect. Nevertheless, the absence of such forms in Mirambel s grammar (1929) and the exclusive use of εμένα/ εσένα in collections of narratives and poems (e.g. Koutsilieris 1978: 159) show that Kassis most likely referred to the proclitic use of the weak forms μου/ σου which are spelled with the circumflex in polytonic orthography, e.g. μοῦ ἔδωσε. 136 Papachristodoulou also mentions the genitives εμενού and (ε)σενού which are clearly based on the stem of the accusative singulars εμένα/ εσένα and are later formations. 121

142 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.11) να μου στρώσητε κ' εμουνού κομμάτι απού το κρεβάττι /na mu ˈstrosite ke emuˈnu SBJ 1sg:GEN.wk strew:2pl.pfv and 1sg:GEN.str koˈmmati aˈpu to kreˈvatti/ piece:n/a.sg.n from the:n/a.sg.n bed:n/a.sg.n You should make a little bit of the bed for me as well Symi (Angelopoulou et al. 2004: 294) The maintenance of such ancient forms in these Dodecanese varieties definitely seems unusual, especially since these genitives have been lost in every other MG dialect. Another idiosyncratic element of these dialects is that the second person nominative singular appears as εσού. This could be treated as a remnant of the EMedG phonological representation of ἐσύ as /eˈsy/. The phonetic resemblance of this form to the genitive /eˈsu/ most likely led to an overlap between these forms. In turn, this development resulted in a two-case distinction in the singular of the personal pronouns (nom=gen, #acc) which was symmetrical to the already established by then two-case distinction in the plural (nom, #acc=gen) that possibly allowed the maintenance of the genitive singular as opposed to the rest of the Greek dialects: Table 5.7: The strong genitive singulars εμού/ εσού in Icaria and the Dodecanese 137 EMedG LMedG in Dodecanese & Icaria # LMedG elsewhere nom. [eˈsy] [eˈsu] [eˈsi] gen. [eˈsu] [eˈsu] [eˈsena] acc. [eˈse(n)(a)] [eˈsena] [eˈsena] Consequently, this nominative-genitive overlap that occurred due to accidental phonological changes, which is unique in the morphological system of Greek, must have played a role in the maintenance of the first person genitive εμού as well. 137 Despite the maintenance of these ancient genitives and their more recent innovative counterparts, it should be noted that the syncretic accusatives are also in use in some of these varieties, e.g. εμένα d όνομάμ μου as for me, my name (Symi; Karanastasis 1994: 181). 122

143 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Interestingly, in Chios and Pontic, the strong genitive singulars were not replaced by their accusative counterparts, but by the possessive adjective ἐμός/ ἐσός. In Chios, the neuter singular εμόν(α) mine has been grammaticalized as a strong genitive singular form, forming an iconic distinction with the accusative εμέν(α) (Pernot 1946: 165), while in Pontus, the neuter singular form of the adjective is used for all genders, but has not been entirely grammaticalized as a case form, since it still has plural forms (τ εμέτερον ours / τ εσέτερον yours ): (5.12a) Εμόν το λες; Εσόν το λέω. Are you saying it to me? I am saying it to you village Pyrgí in Chios, Eastern Aegean (Tsikís 2002: 36) (5.12b) τ εσόν η πεθερά [t eˈson i peθeˈra] the:n/a.sg.n your:n/a.sg.n the:nom.sg.f mother.in.law:nom.sg.f your mother-in-law Pontic (Oeconomides 1958: 234) The loss of the weak genitive plural of the third person Data from MedG sources show that the replacement of the genitive των by the accusative τους occurred at a later time than its first and second person counterparts. One clear example comes from Constantinus Porphyrogenitus in the same text where the syncretic second person σας is already attested: καλά των [3PL:GEN.wk] τὰ ἔτη! (may) their years (be) happy! (De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae [book ], Vol. 2, pg. 104, l. 2, 10 th c.). Early attestations of a third person accusative plural functioning as a genitive come from LMedG vernacular texts that were composed c. the 12 th c. 138 : (5.13a) τὰ ροῦχα τους [3PL:ACC/GEN.wk] their clothes τὸ ἀλαλάιν τους [3PL:ACC/GEN.wk] their shouting Ptochoprodromica (ed. Eideneier), 2 nd poem, l. 86/ 4 th poem, l It should always be kept in mind that the manuscripts of these texts almost always come from later centuries. 123

144 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.13b) τὸ νοῦν τους [3PL:ACC/GEN.wk] their mind Digenes Acritas (E), l. 76 (ms. 15 th -16 th c.) Data from the Cypriot text of Greek Laws (13 th c. AD) confirm that the phenomenon was established by that time and had wide regional range: (5.14) μὲ τὸ παιδίν τους [3PL:ACC/GEN.wk] with their child (Sathas 1877: 524) Moreover, in most LMedG and EMG vernacular texts the older genitive των continues to be used side-by-side with the syncretized accusative, e.g. ς τὰ χέρια των [3PL:GEN.wk] in their hands (Digenes Acritas [E], l. 433). An interesting innovation is the use of the analogical τως which exhibits -ς modeled after the first and second person μας/ σας: Achilleis [Bodl], l. 687 (ms. 16 th c.) ἡμέρες τῆς χαρᾶς τως [3PL:GEN.wk] days of their joy (cf. 5.5). The main difference between the third person genitive plural and the situation in the other two persons is reflected in its maintenance across a wide range of MG dialects. More specifically, των was preserved in the following areas: as τως/ τω(ν) in Southern Italy (Karanastasis 1997: 67-68), as τως/ τωνε in Crete (Kontosópoulos 1981), the Cyclades (also τω), Dodecanese (Dieterich 1908: 118), Icaria, Chios and Smyrna, as τωνε/ τουνε in Cythera (south-western Aegean; Kontosópoulos 1981), as των(ε) in Mégara (Attica; Benardís 2006: 361), as τ νε (<τουνε <τωνε) in Skyros (Western Aegean; Vamvakeridis 2008: 209), as dουν in Lesbos (Anagnostou 1996) and Kydoniés (Sákkaris 1940), as τνα/ τουν(α) in Bithynia (Danguitsis 1943), as τνε in Cappadocia (Dawkins 1916), as τουνε/ dουνε in Phárasa (Dawkins 1916), as ατουν 139 / τουν(α)/ τουν(ε) in Pontus (Oeconomides 1958: 234) and as τουν (Pappou-Zhuravliova 1995)/ τιν (Ashla 1999: 50) in Mariupol. As can be seen, in nearly half the Greek-speaking world the syncretism was not extended to the third person clitics. Since the syncretism in the third person could only have occurred after the relevant developments in the first and the second person, των must have been in use in all MedG varieties at least until the 12 th c. The fact that the third person clitics follow the paradigm 139 Pontic has preserved the disyllabic clitics that were formed by the HellG demonstrative ἀτός (see Joseph 2001: 175). 124

145 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK of the rest of the non-personal pronominal and nominal inflection and the influence of the demonstrative αὐτός (gen.pl αὐτῶν), which can function as the strong form of the third person, most likely played a role in the maintenance of των in a number of MG dialects. In addition, in Crete and Cyclades where the masculine accusative plural τους was replaced by the feminine τσι (<τες/ τις), the homophony with the feminine genitive singular τση (< της) prevented the extension of the case syncretism to the third person. Such a development would cause confusion, since it could refer to either a feminine possessor or many possessors: τα παιδιά τση [ta peˈðʝa tsi] her children : *τα παιδιά τσι [ta peˈðʝa tsi] τα παιδιά τωνε/ τως their children. As regards the dialects of Cappadocia and Phárasa, the gender distinction in the plural of the third person clitics has been lost, since the neuter τα has replaced the masculine τους and feminine τες, e.g. τις ποντιτζοί έπνιξέν τα he strangled the mice (lit. as for the mice [masc.], he strangled them [neut.] ) (Theodoridis : 234). A further syncretism of the genitive and the accusative would excessively decrease pronominal marking and the avoidance of that preserved the genitive τνε/ τουνε in these dialects. In contrast, τους has replaced των in the Peloponnese and the Ionian islands (hence in CMG as well), in all of mainland Greece, a few (mostly northern) Aegean islands (the Sporades, Samos, Thasos, Imbros, Samothraki, Lemnos), Cyprus, Silli (Costakis 1968), Kýzikos (ILNE 767), the village Armutli of Bithynia (ILNE 424) and the village Bolshoi Yanisol of Mariupol (Pappou-Zhuravliova 1998: 468). The replacement of the genitive των by the accusative τους clearly took place under the influence of the already established syncretic accusatives μας/ σας in the first and the second person. The use of the masculine form τους for all genders can be interpreted by the fact that when it coexisted with των it was used exactly like the latter as the single form of the genitive plural for the masculine, feminine and neuter gender. The unmarkedness of the masculine gender in Greek played a role in this development as well: Table 5.8: The loss of the genitive plural in the third person weak forms Stage Ι Stage ΙΙ Stage ΙΙΙ acc. τους-τες-τα τους-τες-τα τους-τες/ τις-τα gen. των των/ τους τους 125

146 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE An interesting phenomenon of some varieties in Macedonia is the extension of the syncretism to the neuter gender. The accusative plural τα is used to refer to neuter nouns instead of the oblique τ(ου)ς, used elsewhere for all genders. This phenomenon is found in Siátista, Kozani and Kastoriá: (5.15a) τα κουρίτσια χούριβαν απ τη χαρά τα [3pl:ACC.wk.n] the girls danced out of their joy Siátista (Tsopanakis 1983: 334) (5.15b) τα ρούχα τα [3pl:ACC.wk.n] their clothes Kastoriá (Georgiou 1962: 377) (5.15c) στου κατόπ π τς μάνις τα [3pl:ACC.wk.n] after their mothers. Kozani (Kouziaki 2008: 68) The cause of this development can be sought in the homophony between the masculine and the feminine accusative plural, due to the deletion of unstressed high vowels: τους/ τις τς/ τς 140. Consequently, the presence of a morphologically distinct genitive plural form only for the neuter gender was considered asymmetrical and possibly redundant, which promoted its replacement by the accusative: Table 5.9: Syncretism of the neuter accusative plural in varieties of Macedonia M F N Μ F N Μ F N acc. τους τις τα τς τς τα τς τς τα gen. τους τους τους τς τς τς τς τς τα 140 The homophony between the 3SG feminine genitive τς (<*της) and the 3PL accusative-genitive (for all genders) τς (<*τους) in Northern Greek dialects is explained by the fact that the replacement of των by τους occurred before the deletion of unstressed /i, u/ 126

147 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK 5.2 Accusative-genitive syncretism in the nominal inflection: dialectal range As was mentioned in the previous section, in CMG and the vast majority of MG dialects the syncretism between the genitive and the accusative has been restricted to the strong forms of the first and the second person and the weak plural forms of all three persons. However, a few MG dialects exhibit some quite interesting phenomena of syncretism between the genitive and the accusative in the nominal inflection. The most well-known and discussed case is that of Cypriot Greek, however similar developments are found in varieties from a few scattered areas of the MG-speaking world, namely in Samos, the Sporades, Epirus, Thessaly, Kýzikos and the dialect of Corsican Maniots that used to be spoken in the region of Cargèse among others. Map 5.1: The range of nominal case syncretism in the Greek-speaking world (before 1922) 127

148 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Map 5.2: Cyprus and the Greek-speaking area of Corsica (before the 20 th c.) Following Calabrese (2008), the following instances involve contextual syncretism, which entails a type of syncretism that does not apply to all paradigms, as neuter nouns and in some cases feminine nouns maintain their genitive plural forms in the following dialects Cyprus As noted in many studies, beginning with Menardos (1896) until the most recent ones (e.g. Newton 1972, Symeonidis 2006), the genitive plural of the masculine nouns has been almost completely lost in all modern varieties of Cypriot 141. In contrast, the genitive plurals of feminine and neuter nouns have been preserved, forming an unusual distribution of the cases in the plural of the nominal inflection. Apart from masculine nouns, the syncretism has affected the genitive plural of the masculine form of the definite article (τους <των) masculine forms of adjectives, e.g. κακός bad gen./acc.pl κακ-ούς (Newton 1972: 58). In non-personal pronouns, 141 It should be mentioned that the influence of Katharévousa and standardized CMG as the official language forms of Cyprus since the declaration of its independence in 1960 have reintroduced the morphologically distinct masculine genitive plurals and the younger generations employ them regularly (Philippou et al. 2008). 128

149 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK morphologically distinct genitive plurals have been preserved according to Symeonidis (2006): όπκοι-ων (<όπκοιος whoever )/ αλλ-ωνών (<άλλος other ). Table 5.10: The syncretism in the plural of the nominal inflection of Cypriot nom. άνθρωποι γυναίκες παιδιά καλοί καλές καλά acc. ανθρώπους γυναίκες παιδιά καλούς καλές καλά gen. ανθρώπους γυναικών παιδιών καλούς καλών καλών persons (M) women (F) children (N) good (M) (F) (N) The situation seems to be even more complicated if we take into consideration that Cypriot is a dialect with nearly no paradigmatic gaps in the inflection of feminine nouns and neuter diminutives (cf. Chapter 6). As will be shown, the origin of the development can be traced back to MedCyp texts, such as the Greek Laws (13 th c.), Assises (14 th c.) and the Chronicles of Leontios Machairas (15 th c.) and Boustronios (16 th c.). Due to this fact, it constitutes the only instance of nominal case syncretism in a MG dialect to have gathered so much attention from researchers (cf. 5.3) Voúrbiani Voúrbiani is a small village in the northern part of Ioánnina Prefecture in Epirus. The phonology of the variety is semi-northern, namely it exhibits deletion of unstressed high vowels, but not raising of unstressed mid vowels. According to the grammatical description of this variety by Anagnostópoulos (1928-9), syncretic accusative plurals can be found in masculine non-personal pronouns and nouns: αυτουνούς of these (<αυτός), τς κλερονόμς of the inheritors (<*κλερονόμους acc.pl of κλερονόμος). The deletion of unstressed vowels (/i, u/) has resulted in the overlap of the accusative plural for the masculine and the feminine form of the definite article: τους (M)/ τις (F) τς; this syncretic accusative of the definite article has replaced the genitive *των in all genders. Quite strangely, the use of the syncretic τς with feminine and neuter nouns has resulted in innovative accusative-genitive plural forms of feminine and neuter nouns that are formed with the suffix -ιούς 142 (Anagnostópoulos ): 142 <*-ιών, cf

150 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Table The plural of the nominal inflection in the dialect of Voúrbiani nom οι κληρονόμ 143 οι γυναίκες 144 τα χωριά 145 acc τς κληρονόμ ς τς γυναίκες/ τς γυναικιούς τα χωριά/ τς χωριούς gen τς κληρονόμ ς τς γυναικιούς τς χωριούς inheritors (M) women (F) villages (N) Samos, Sporades and Northern Euboea As was seen earlier, Cypriot is not the only MG dialect with accusative-genitive case syncretism in its nominal inflection. In fact, the syncretism is considerably more advanced in the northern 146 dialects of Samos, the three islands of the Sporades (Skópelos, Skiathos, Alónnisos) and Northern Euboea. I shall examine these four dialects together for various reasons. First, dialect contact between Skiathos, Skópelos, Alónnisos and Northern Euboea should be taken as a given due to the vicinity of these areas. Second, the fact that Samos and the Sporades exhibit very similar developments and isoglosses could imply that the ancestors of modern Samians were originally settlers from the Sporades or Northern Euboea who were brought to the island after it was depopulated during the 15 th c. (Gratsia 1998: 353). Quite interestingly, Promponás (1998: 378) mentions Euboea as one of the possible places of origin of these Northern Greek-speaking settlers. Third, in these dialects the syncretism was extended to the inflection of feminine nouns as well, since their accusative plurals can be used as genitives. Fourth, only neuters, non-personal pronouns and a small set of masculine nouns have maintained morphologically distinct genitives, which are formed by the innovative suffix -ούνις (-ώνις in Alónnisos; ILNE 1488: 9). Αccording to the grammatical description of the Samian dialect by Zafiriou (1914: 47-48), the inflection of nouns and the accompanying definite article can be presented as follows: 143 <nom. pl *οι κληρονόμ-οι, acc.pl *τους κληρονόμ-ους, gen.pl *των κληρονόμ-ων. 144 <acc.pl *τις γυναίκ-ες, gen.pl *των γυναικ-ών. 145 Instead of gen.pl *των χωριών. 146 The term here is used here to describe the phonology of these varieties. 130

151 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 5:12: The nominal inflection in Samos SG PL SG PL SG PL nom. ου πετ νός 147 οι πετ νοί η γ ναίκα οι γ ναίκις του πιδί τα πιδιά acc. τουν πετ νό τς πετ νοί τη γ ναίκα τς γ ναίκις του πιδί τα πιδιά gen. τ πετ νού τς πετ νοί τς γ ναίκας τς γ ναίκις τ πιδιού τς πιδιούνις the rooster (M) the woman (F) the child (N) As can be seen, the influence of northern vocalism has affected the deletion of the unstressed high vowels /i, u/ and the raising of unstressed mid vowels /e, o/ to /i, u/. Also, the accusative plural of masculine and feminine nouns has replaced the genitive forms which are no longer found in the dialect, apart from relics and set expressions 148. Furthermore, the merger of the accusative suffix -oυς of the ο-masculine paradigm with the nominative -οι (/i/; cf ), has resulted in identically realized forms in the plural of all masculine and feminine nouns. In contrast, neuter nouns have maintained innovative genitive forms, but have also acquired the syncretic accusative plural of the definite article τς. Non-personal pronominal genitive plurals are also distinct from accusatives, as they are formed with the innovative suffix -ούνις: κ ν-ούνις (κείνους that ), ποιαν-ούνις (ποιος who ) 149. These unusual genitives are found in all four varieties discussed here and their origin will be discussed in 5.5. This syncretic pattern can also be found in Skópelos, where according to Kretschmer (1905: 228) feminine accusative plurals are also used as possessives. However, he only gives examples of masculine syncretic accusatives, e.g. the houses of the neighbors (# CMG τα σπίτια των γειτόνων). In a large collection of narratives from Skiathos (Rigas 1962), similar structures can be found, which verifies that the development was common in other islands of Sporades as well: 147 <nom.sg *ο πετειν-ός, nom.pl *οι πετειν-οί, acc.pl *τους πετειν-οί (<πετειν-ούς), gen.pl *των πετειν-ών. 148 E.g. gen.pl μιρού (μέρα day ) <*(η)μερών. 149 κνούνις <*(ε)κεινών, ποιανούνις (<*ποιανών), cf

152 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.16a) τα μάτια τς ανθρώπ the eyes of the people [ta ˈmatça ts anˈθrop] the:n/a.pl.n eye:n/a.pl.n the:acc/gen.pl.m human:n/a/g.pl.m Skiathos, Sporades; Rigas 1962: 149) (5.16b) τα σπίτια τς αθρώπ [ta ˈspitça ts aˈθrop] the houses of the people Alónnisos, Sporades (ILNE 1488: 9) (5.16c) τα σπίτια τς γ τόν [ta ˈspitça ts ˈʝton] the houses of the neighbors Skópelos, Sporades (Kretschmer 1905: 228) (5.16d) είναι τς δυο ανθρώπ [ˈine ts ðʝo anˈθrop] They belong to these two men (lit. they are of the two men) Ayía Anna, Northern Euboea (Settas 1960: 119) (5.16e) ήτανι ιπουχή τσι 150 κράμπις [ˈitaɲi ipuˈçi tsi ˈkrabis] be:3sg.pst season:n/a.sg.f the:acc/gen.pl.f cabbage:n/a/g.pl.f it was the harvest time of cabbage (lit. of the cabbages) Samos (Dimitriou 1993: 275) Epirot and Thessalian Sarakatsans The Sarakatsans are a group of nomadic shepherds scattered in many regions of Νorthern Greece, i.e. Epirus, Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, and often outside the borders of the modern Greek state, e.g. in Bulgaria. The varieties spoken by Sarakatsans exhibit both features of northern vocalism, like Samos and the Sporades. Carsten Høeg, a Danish philologist, conducted fieldwork in areas inhabited by Sarakatsans during the 1920s and published an ethnolinguistic study that describes the variety of Pápigo, in Ioánnina Prefecture of Epirus. According to his morphological description (1925: ), distinct genitive plurals have been preserved, but they face competition from two innovative structures: i) prepositional phrases 150 Instead of τς, the epenthetic /i/ serves for the avoidance of a quadruple consonant cluster [*tskrabis], also found in the other dialects discussed here (cf ). 132

153 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK with από from (cf. Chapter 7) and ii) accusative plurals. Once again, the syncretism occurs in the paradigms of masculine and feminine nouns: (5.17a) οι φουλιές τς αϊτούς/ αϊτοί [i fuˈʎes ts aiˈtus/ aiˈti] the:nom.pl.f nest:n/a.pl.f the:acc.pl.m eagle:acc/gen.pl.m/ eagle:n/a/g.pl.m the nests of the eagles (5.17b) τα φστάνια τς γναίκις [ta ˈfstaɲa ts ˈʝnekis] the:n/a.pl.n dress:n/a.pl.n the:acc/gen.pl.f woman:n/a/g.pl.f the dresses of the women In his brief reference to varieties spoken by Sarakatsans in Thessaly, Høeg gives another example which demonstrates the fact that the structure was not restricted to Epirot Sarakatsan communities (1925: 288): (5.18) τα σκλια τς τʃουμπαναραίοι [ta skʎa ts tʃu (m) banaˈrei] the:n/a.pl.n dog:n/a.pl.n the:acc/gen.pl.m shepherd:n/a/g.pl.m the dogs of the shepherds Quite interestingly, Tzártzanos (1909: 233) mentions masculine syncretic accusatives for the Thessalian varieties of Lárisa and Tírnavos as well. Even though Thessalian Greek belongs to the group of northern Greek dialects where possession is mostly marked by the preposition από from and the genitive has been restricted to the singular, the researcher offers the following example where a bare accusative plural is used: (5.19) σήμιρα είνι η γιουρτή τζ γουναράδις [ˈsimira ˈini i ʝurˈti dz ɣunaˈraðis] today be:3 the:nom.sg.f festivity:n/a.sg.f the:acc/gen.pl.m furrier:n/a/g.pl.m Today it s the festival of the furriers 133

154 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE This is the only example mentioned by Tzártzanos and it remains unknown whether the syncretism occurred also with feminine nouns as in the other dialects discussed earlier. However, he does provide an extremely interesting example in which an accusative singular is used instead of the genitive, but the complete lack of attestation of such structures implies that it must be extremely isolated: (5.20) για τουν άντρα τς του σόι [ʝa tun ˈandra ts tu soj] for the:acc.sg.m man:acc.sg.m 3sg:GEN.sg.f the:n/a.sg.n kin:n/a.sg.n because of her husband s family Kýzikos In most of the villages where Greek used to be spoken in the peninsula of Kýzikos in Propontis (Sea of Marmara) until the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey during the 1920s, syncretic accusative plurals were attested. Sgouridis (1968: 480-1) provides a brief description of the nominal declension of the variety of the village Péramos, according to which morphologically distinct genitive plurals are used alongside with accusatives in the inflection of masculine and feminine nouns, while the syncretic determiner τς is used with all genders, possibly due to the semi-northern phonology of the variety and the deletion of unstressed /i/ and /u/: Table 5.13: The plural in the nominal inflection of the variety of Péramos in Kýzikos nom. οι δασκάλ οι οι μουριές τα ψάρια acc. τς δασκάλ οι τς μουριές τα ψάρια gen. των δασκάλων/ τς δασκάλ οι των μουριών/ τς μουριές των ψαριών/ τς ψαριούς the teachers (M) the mulberry trees (F) the fish (N) What is more, in ILNE (767: 27 & 51 respectively) the following structures are attested in parallel use with morphologically distinct genitives from the village Artaki in Kýzikos: 134

155 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (5.21a) για το χάσιμο τσι 500 (sic) λίρες [ʝa to ˈxasimo tsi 500 ˈlires] for the:ν/α.sg.n loss:n/a.sg.n the:acc/gen.pl.m 500 pound:n/a/g.pl.f for the loss of 500 pounds (5.21b) στο άκουσμα των εκατό λιρώ [s.to ˈakuzma ton ekaˈto liˈro] in.the:n/a.sg.n hearing:n/a.sg.n the:gen.pl hundred pound:gen.pl.f upon talking about the 100 pounds (lit. upon the hearing of the 100 pounds The following example from the neighboring island of Prokónnisos (Marmara Island; ILNE 756: 137) confirms that the phenomenon was not isolated in the region, while the definite article does not exhibit deletion of the unstressed /u/, which shows that the semi-northern dialect of Kýzikos had not completed the deletion of unstressed high vowels: (5.22) του γαμπρού πιτζάμες και δώρα όλου τους συγγενείς [tu ɣaˈbru piˈdzames ce the:gen.sg.m groom:gen.sg.m pyjamas:n/a.pl.f and ˈðora ˈolu tus siɉeˈnis] gift:n/a.pl.n all:acc/gen.pl.m the:acc/gen.pl.m relative:n/a/g.pl.m the groom s pijamas and gifts of all the relatives Corsican Maniot During the 17 th c. the Genoese rulers of Corsica allowed the establishment of Greek populations from Oetylon in the region of Mani (southern Peloponnese) as part of their policy that aimed to reduce the nationalist sentiment of native Corsicans. These Greek populations settled in the Cargèse region in the western coast of the island, where Greek managed to survive until the first half of the 20 th c. Gerard Blanken, a Dutch researcher of Modern Greek, has provided a full description of the grammar of this dialect as well as the history of its speakers (1951). According to him, Corsican Maniot - as opposed to metropolitan Maniot - exhibits nominal case syncretism that is similar to those of the previously discussed dialects. Thus, in the paradigm of the definite article (1951: 135

156 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE 87), the masculine accusative plural τους and the feminine τις (interchangeably with τους) are used instead of των, whose usage is described as an archaistic influence. As regards nominal paradigms, only masculine syncretic accusatives have been attested, e.g. τους αθρώπους (<άθρωπος human )/ τους γαϊδάρους (<γάιδαρος donkey ). While feminine genitive plurals have been retained, they are used with either the masculine or the feminine accusative of the definite article: τις/ τους γυναικώνε. These syncretic accusative plurals of masculine nouns are used in parallel use with morphologically distinct genitives either in possessive or indirect object function: (5.23a) το ύπινο τους ευτυʃισμένους [to ˈipino tus eftiʃiˈzmenus] the:n/a.sg.n sleep:n/a.sg the:acc/gen.pl.m happy:acc/gen.pl.m the sleep of happy people (5.23b) το μεγάλο μερντικό τους αθρώπους [to meˈɣalo merdiˈko tus aˈθropus] the:n/a.sg.n big:n/a.sg.n share:n/a.sg the:acc/gen.pl.m human:acc.gen.pl.m the big share of the people (5.23c) είπε τους φίλωνε [ˈipe tus ˈfilone] say:3sg.pst.pfv the:acc/gen.pl.m He said to the friends friend:gen.pl.m Due to the gradual loss of this Greek dialect in Corsica, it can be argued that language shift was a crucial factor for the simplification of the case system. Blanken (1951) mentions that the syncretism could be attributed to a possible overlap of the genitive plural τουν 151 and the accusative plural τους of the masculine definite article: (5.24) gen.pl τουν φίλωνε του φίλωνε [deletion of final /n/ before fricatives] acc.pl τους φίλους του φίλους [deletion of final /s/ before consonants 152 ] 151 By analogy to the genitive singular του, cf. του στραϊτιώτουνε of the soldiers (Mani; Kassis 1983: 180). 152 Cf. τη γυναικός (<της γυναικός) of the woman (Mani; Kassis 1983: 190). See also Nicholas (2011). 136

157 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK τους ανθρώπους τους ανθρώπωνε [extension of τους to genitives] τους ανθρώπους [ACC/GEN.PL.M] Summary Based on the data presented above, the following issues can be pointed out regarding the features of nominal syncretic accusative plurals: i) the syncretism always involves masculine forms of nouns, the definite article, non-personal pronouns and adjectives, ii) the syncretism involves masculine and feminine nouns in Samos, the Sporades, Northern Euboea, Kýzikos and the dialect of Sarakatsans and iii) the syncretism resulted in innovative forms of genitive plurals that were based on accusative forms in the neuter gender of Samos, Skópelos, Skiathos, northern Euboea and Kýzikos, and in the feminine and neuter gender in Voúrbiani, iv) in the dialects of Samos, the Sporades, Northern Euboea, Kýzikos and partially in the varieties of Sarakatsans all three plural case forms with masculine and feminine nouns are identically realized. 5.3 Previous analyses on the development in Cypriot Among the dialects discussed so far, the nominal case syncretism in Cypriot has been studied the most, which is quite reasonable not only because of the quite large number of its speakers, but also due to the major attestation of the phenomenon in medieval texts Agglutinative construction The first researcher who dealt with the origin of the syncretism was Menardos (1896) who supports the view that its cause was the addition of the plural marker -ς to the genitive singular of the masculine nouns and that resulted in the overlap of this agglutinative form with the accusative plural: του ανθρώπου του-ς ανθρώπου-ς τους ανθρώπους (gen=acc.pl). This approach was supported by Hadjioannou (1988) who added that the homophony with the third person accusative-genitive plural τους contributed to the establishment of the development. 137

158 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Besides the fact that Greek does not exhibit such agglutinative developments in its morphology 153, this approach does not explain what the motivation of the replacement of the original genitive plural των ανθρώπων would be Avoidance of homophony The identical accusative plurals of the third person and the definite article (τους : τους) was also stressed by Henrich (2002: 329) who added that the homophony between the accusative singular and the genitive plural of the masculine nouns also constituted a source for the syncretism, e.g. μοναχός monk acc.sg τον μοναχόν - gen.pl των μοναχών [ton monaˈxon], since Cypriot retains the final -ν in most cases. Notwithstanding, the homophony would not be very frequent, as it would not take place with antepenult-stressed o-masculines (άνθρωπον # ανθρώπων), with imparisyllabic α-/η-masculines (καβαλάρην # καβαλάρηδων) and α-/η-masculines that stem from the ancient first declension (ράφτην # ραφτών) Language contact with Old French Turning to more recent analyses, Papadópoullos (1983) and Sitaridou & Terkourafi (2009) have linked the syncretism with the factor of contact with Old French during the Frankish rule of the island. More specifically, the fact that the first attestations of the phenomenon coincide chronologically with the Frankish rule of Cyprus led these researchers to focus on the influence of the Old French nominal system on MedCyp. The Old French nominal system had a nominative vs. oblique plural case distinction only in the masculine paradigms, e.g. li baron vs. les barons <ber baron. Sitaridou & Terkourafi do not clearly propose that language contact was the sole driving force behind the syncretism and imply that the Old French nominativeoblique distinction in masculine paradigms influenced their MedCyp counterparts. As the syncretism found in the dialects discussed in 5.2 cannot be attributed to language contact, contact with Old French could not have been the sole driving force behind this morphological change in Cypriot. Nevertheless, it could be said that the Old French phenomenon 153 Except under significant influence from Turkish, as is the case with varieties from Central Asia Minor, cf. Chapter As will be shown in Chapter 8, this explanation will be employed for a similar development in Pharasiot, albeit due to the crucially different features of the genitive in that dialect. 138

159 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK could have assisted the diffusion of the phenomenon, given the fact that the Cypriot instance is attested much earlier than the rest of the dialects with syncretic nominal accusatives Overlap with the dative in Early Medieval Greek In contrast to previous accounts, the analysis made by Markópoulos (2010) focuses on the following points: i) the origin of the syncretism must be attributed to the use of accusative plurals as indirect objects, something which was triggered by the possible phonological overlap between the genitive and the dative plural during Roman and Byzantine times, cf. ἄνθρωπος EMedG dat.pl τοῖς ἀνθρώποις /tys anˈθropys/ acc.pl τοὺς ἀνθρώπους /tus anˈθropus/, and ii) the syncretism is linked to data in Hellenistic and medieval sources from Egypt, the Middle East and the northern shore of the Black Sea, where the accusative plural of masculine nouns is also used instead of the genitive: (5.25a) ἐπίλυσις Πετεαρσεμθέως καὶ τοὺς αδελφούς discharge:nom.sg.f PN:GEN.sg.m and the:acc.pl.m brother:acc.pl.m discharge of Petearsemtheus and his brothers P.Grenf. II 26, v (Pathyris, Upper Egypt, 103 BC) (5.25b) τὸ προσκύνημα τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ the:n/a.sg.n pilgrimage:n/a.sg.n the:acc.pl.m son:acc.pl.m 3sg:GEN.m καὶ τοὺς γονεῦσιν and the:acc.pl.m parent:dat.pl.m the pilgrimage of his sons and the parents Temple de Kalabchah 200b, l. 5-9 (Kalabchah, Upper Egypt, 1 st -3 rd c. AD) (5.25c) σοὶ δὲ ζητήσαντος παρ ἐμοῦ 2sg:DAT prt ask:pcp.pfv.gen. sg.m from 1sg:GEN.str τὴν συμπλήρωσιν τοὺς τόκους the:acc.sg.f completion:acc.sg.f the:acc.pl.m interest:acc.pl.m With you asking from me the completion of the interest SB XVIII 13777, l (Thebes, Upper Egypt, 556 AD) 139

160 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.25d) τὸν κάματον τοὺς ἀνθρόπους the:acc.sg.m fatigue:acc.sg.m the:acc.pl.m man:acc.sg.m the hard work of the people IGLSyr XXI 2: 100, l. a.1-4 (Belqa-Makhayyat, Jordan, AD) (5.25e) τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ βασιλί(α) τιμὴ καὶ the:gen.sg prt Christ:GEN.sg.m?kingship honor:nom.sg.f and τὸ κράτος τοὺς ἀξίους the:n/a.sg.n power:n/a.sg.n the:acc.pl.m worthy:acc.pl.m Christ s kingship, honor and power to/of the worthy (?) Nessana 35, l. 7 (Palestine, 6 th - 7 th c. AD) (5.25f) ἱγούμενος (=ἡγούμενος) τῆς μoνῖς (=μονῆς) τοὺς abbot:nom.sg.m the:gen.sg.f monastery:gen.sg.f the:acc.pl.m Ἁγίους Ἀποστόλους 155 saint:acc.pl.m apostle:acc.pl.m abbot of the monastery of the Saint Apostles Latyshev 69, l (Partenit, Crimea, 906 AD) (5.25g) τὰ σιμάδια τὶς Γενουβέζους 156 the: N/A.pl.n sign:n/a.pl.n the:acc.pl Genoese:ACC.pl.m The arms of the Genoese Latyshev 42 (eastern Crimea, 15 th c. AD) Markópoulos analysis is very careful and points out some very interesting matters, such as the fact that the development cannot be solely based on external factors due to contact with Old French, since it could not have produced such a morphosyntactic merger within only a few decades, given the fact that the Lusignan Franks conquered the island in 1192, while the syncretism is already attested in the text of Greek Laws, the manuscript of which is dated in the 13 th c. AD. In addition, as I have also pointed out (Mertyris 2008 & Mertyris 2011), he links the 155 The structure is written as ΤΗCMONICTOYCAΓΙΟΥCAΠΟCΤΟΛΟΥC in the inscription, which leads Papadópoulos-Kerameus to suspect that it might reflect τῆς μονῆς εἰς τοὺς Ἁγίους Ἀποστόλους the monastery at the Saint Apostles with the usual abbreviations in the inscriptions of the period (Latyshev 1896: 77). 156 In the inscription, the scribe uses the Cyrillic letters H and 3, which implies that he might not have been a native speaker of Greek: ΤΙCΓΕΗΟΥΒΕ3ΟΥC (Latyshev 1896: 151). 140

161 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK origin of the syncretism to the use of the accusative as an indirect object, a function shared with the genitive during the EMedG period. Nevertheless, his analysis has a few disadvantages. First, he neither discuss the case syncretism found in the personal pronouns in almost every MG variety (apart from Pontic, cf. 5.1), nor does he compare the situation in Cypriot to the nominal case syncretism of other MG varieties, e.g. of Samos and the Sporades (Kretschmer 1905, Zafiriou 1914, Papadópoulos 1927). Second, the relevance of the data in (5.25) to the Cypriot development needs to be reexamined due to the quite large temporal and spatial gap between the data from inscriptions of the 6 th -7 th c. from Jordan and Palestine and the first attestation of the phenomenon in MedCyp texts (13 th c.). As Cyprus has been predominantly Greek-speaking since ancient times, it cannot be compared to regions where Greek was either a minority language or served as a lingua franca; for instance, the use of the dative γονεῦσιν after τοὺς in (5.25b) most likely reflects the scribe s difficulty in handling the complex nominal morphology of AG rather than an actual morphological change. What is more, the following data from the same or related collections of inscriptions and nonliterary papyri exhibit a variety of solecisms regarding case marking: (5.26a) τὸ προσκύνημα Σανσνῶν πρεσβύτερον the:n/a.sg.n pilgrimage:n/a.sg.n PN:ACC.sg.m elder:acc.sg.m (# *τὸ προσκύνημα Σανσνῶ πρεσβυτέρου [GEN]) the pilgrimage of Sansnos the elder Temple de Kalabchah 200[b], l. 4-5 (Kalabchah, Upper Egypt, 1 st -3 rd c. AD) (5.26b) [μ]νησον(?) ὁ γράψας καὶ τὰ remember:2sg.imp the:nom.sg.m write:pcp.pst.nom.sg.m and the:n/a.pl.n τέκνα... καὶ τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος child:n/a.pl.n and the:gen.sg.m read:pcp.gen.sg.m (# *μνῆσον τoῦ γράψαντoς [GEN] καὶ τῶν τέκνων [GEN]...) remember(?) of the writer and his children and the reader. Temple de Kalabchah 201[b], l

162 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.26c) εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τὸ ἥμισυ the:acc.sg.f completion:acc.sg.f the:n/a.sg.n half:n/a.sg.n (# *εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ ἡμίσεως [GEN]) to the completion of half P.Vat.Aphrod 25, l. 27 (6 th c. AD, Antaeopolis, southern Egypt) (5.26c) εκυμιθι τον (δ)ουλον του Θ(ε)ου sleep:3sg.pst.pfv the:acc.sg.m slave:acc.sg.m the:gen.sg.m god:gen.sg.m (# *ἐκοιμήθη ὁ δοῦλος [ΝΟΜ] τοῦ Θεοῦ) The servant of God passed away (Crimea, 1622 AD; Latyshev 1896: 66) Another problematic aspect is the phonological overlap between the dative and the accusative plural of second declension masculines proposed by Markópoulos. Given the fact that the dative had become obsolete in most Greek varieties by the EMedG period, it is not reasonable to claim that its phonological overlap with the genitive plural affected a phenomenon attested many centuries later in Cypriot. Regarding the early medieval findings from the Middle East, it should not be forgotten that /y/ is interchanged with /i/ in many inscriptions from this region and this period, which renders the phonological overlap between the (most likely already obsolete) dative plural with the accusative highly unlikely. Finally, phonological overlap was certain between the dative -αις and the new accusative plural -ες of feminine nouns, e.g. ταῖς μοναχαῖς /tes monaˈxes/ = τὲς μοναχές /(<μοναχή nun ), but there is no syncretism in the feminine paradigms 157. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the possessive use of the Cypriot accusative is a remnant of the ancient dative which was most likely lost during the first centuries of Medieval Greek (6 th - 9 th c.) and has not left any vestiges in any modern dialects. Therefore, Markópoulos (2010: 107) remark that structures such as εἰς φυλακὴν τοῖς [DAT.PL.M] Ἀγαρηνοῖς [DAT.PL.M] in a prison of the Saracens (Assises A 228; 14 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) reflect an earlier stage of MedCyp is highly arbitrary, as they clearly constitute an unsuccessful attempt by the editor or scribe to archaicize a pattern of the vernacular. 157 Terkourafi (2005: 313) mentions the only example of such a use in Cypriot: ο αριθμός τις σωλήνες που ννα βάλουμε στο δρόμο the number of the pipes that we should put on the street. Apart from the fact that this seems to be an isolated attestation, this utterance involves a partitive construction with a nominal quantifier which is normally used with a prepositional phrase with από (+ACC) in dialectal MG (cf ). 142

163 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK 5.4 Proposed analysis of the syncretism in the nominal inflection The role of the syncretic third person accusative plural clitic τους As has been shown, previous proposals on the syncretism in Cypriot have neglected the accusative-genitive syncretism in the personal pronouns, apart from Hadjioannou (1988) and Henrich (2002). Nevertheless, both of their accounts only refer to the homophony between the accusative plural of the masculine definite article and the masculine accusative-genitive plural of the third person and do not expand their analysis further than that. In addition, they employ false arguments in order to determine the origin of the development, suggesting the addition of the plural -ς to the genitive singular and the homophony between the accusative singular and genitive plural of masculine nouns respectively. This renders their analyses incomplete, since most aspects of the matter remain untouched. Regarding the syncretism in the rest of the dialects, the only researcher who keeps in mind that such nominal syncretic forms have pronominal equivalents was Høeg (1925: 231): On voit donc que les substantifs déterminés par l article ont suivi le me me développement qui jadis s est produit en grec byzantin pour les formes pronominales μας, σας et τους, et qui nous est familier par l ancien français, et il s est constitué une sorte de cas regime, qui s emploie concouramment avec des expressions prépositionnelles. As has been shown in 5.1.3, the loss of the 3PL genitive των due to its replacement by the accusative τους was the result of the developments in the first and the second person established by the 10 th c. According to data from LMedG texts (cf.5.13 and 5.14), it is safe to say that in many varieties τους started to replace των as early as the 12 th c. Nevertheless, it is yet to be determined whether it occurred at such an early stage in Cypriot, Samos/ Sporades/ northern Euboea, Sarakatsans, Kýzikos and Corsican Maniot as well. Starting with Cypriot, according to the statistical analysis performed by Markópoulos (2010), the occurrence of the replacement of the genitive plural of masculine nouns by the accusative forms in the texts of Medieval Cypriot Greek can be summarized as follows 158 : 158 Based on the functions of adnominal complement, prepositional complement and indirect object. 143

164 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Table 5.14: The competition between masculine genitive plurals and syncretic accusatives in Medieval Cypriot texts according to Markópoulos (2010): TEXT ORIGIN MANUSCRIPT ACC-GEN.pl vs. GEN.pl Greek Laws 13 th c. 13 th c. 44.9% vs. 55.1% Assises (B) 14 th c. 15 th c. 72.3% vs. 27.7% Assises (A) 14 th c. 16 th c. 77% vs. 23% Chronicle of Machairas 15 th c. 16 th c. 86.6% vs % Chronicle of Boustronios 15 th -16 th c. 16 th c. GEN.pl: once These statistical data are extremely important, because they exhibit the gradual retreat of the masculine genitive plural forms in late Medieval Cypriot. Regarding the developments in the personal pronouns, given the fact that the loss of the genitive plural of the first and the second person has been established since the 10 th c. AD, as was shown in 5.1, this process may have taken place in Medieval Cypriot by that time with μας and σας replacing the ancient forms ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν. As has been pointed out, the 3PL genitive των survived a lot longer in many MedG varieties, which means that its loss in Cypriot needs to be examined at this point so that it can be compared to the loss of the genitive plural of masculine nouns. As it turns out, των is only attested twice in the Greek Laws, once in Assises B twice in Assises A, while it is completely absent from the Chronicles of Machairas and Boustronios: (5.26a) ἡ μάνα των their mother (Greek Laws, 542) (5.26b) τῆς μάνας των τὰ πράγματα their mother s things (Greek Laws, 578) (5.26c) μὲ τὸ θέλημάν των τὸ ἴδιον with their own will (Assises B, 409) (5.26d) τὰ πράγματά των their things (Assises A, 14) (5.26e) τὸ ἀγκάλεμάν των their arraignment (Assises A, 28) On the contrary, τους is used possessively numerous times in all of these texts, to such an extent that it would be redundant to present a statistical comparison. This is undisputed evidence that τους replaced των a lot earlier than the syncretism between the genitive and the accusative plural in masculine nouns. In fact, this marginal presence of των in the Greek Laws and the Assises may 144

165 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK indicate that the uses of των in (5.26) are essentially archaisms and that the third person genitive plural clitic was already absent in the spoken language during the 13 th c. AD. Turning to the rest of the dialects that were discussed in 4.1, even though diachronic data are not available as in the case of Cypriot and our knowledge about them comes from data collected during the 20 th c., it is clear that the syncretism in the third person preceded that in the nominal inflection. This can be best shown by the fact that in these dialects there are no vestiges of των, and τους/ τς (depending on the phonology of each dialect) are the exclusive 3PL forms, while morphologically distinct nominal genitives are found in all of them. This proves that syncretic forms of the nominal inflection were a more recent development The extension of the pronominal syncretism to masculine nouns After establishing the diachronic order of the two syncretisms, the question that arises at this point is the following: how is the syncretic τους related to its masculine nominal counterparts? In order to answer this question, we must examine the syntactic domains in which masculine accusatives first replaced genitives in nominals. As Markópoulos (2010) accurately mentions, syncretic accusatives are more common in MedCyp texts when they function as indirect objects 159. At this point, it can be proposed that the reason why indirect objects began to be marked by masculine accusative plurals instead of genitives was attraction from the already established syncretic 3PL accusative clitics. More specifically, in structures with object reduplication where the clitic τους would be used together with a demonstrative pronoun or a masculine noun, the accusative form of the pronoun may have affected the morphological case of the latter: (5.27a) I: λαλώ σας [ACC]/ λαλώ των [GEN] λαλώ τους [ACC] I talk to you I talk to them (5.27b) II: λαλώ τους [ACC] εκείνων [GEN] λαλώ τους εκείνους [ACC] λαλώ εκείνους I talk to those What is truly remarkable is the fact that such structures can easily be traced in MedCyp texts: 159 Quite clearly, Cypriot as a southern dialect marks indirect objects through the genitive after the loss of the dative. 145

166 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.28) ἀρέσκει τους καὶ κείνους it pleases those as well /aˈreski tus ke eˈkinus/ please:3sg 3pl:ACC.pl.m.wk and that:acc.pl.m Machairas 304 Such a development should not surprise us; masculine accusative plurals used as indirect objects in dialects where exclusively the genitive inherited the ancient dative functions are not hard to find (cf ). For example, in the following example the masculine accusative plural of the non-personal pronoun άλλους (/ˈalos/, [ˈalus]) is used as an indirect object, even though the varieties of Central Greece (apart from Phthiotis) employ the genitive strictly as the indirect object, as can be seen in (5.29b) 160 : (5.29a) για να πάει χιριτήματα τς αλλνούς in order to send greetings to others [ʝa na paj çiriˈtimata ts alˈnus] for SBJ go:3sg greeting:pl.n the:acc.pl.m other:acc.pl.m Aetolia, Central Greece (Loukópoulos 1921: 31) (5.29b) λέει τ λιονταριούν he says to the lions [lej t ʎo (n) darˈʝun] say:3sg the:gen.pl lion:gen.pl.n Aetolia, Central Greece (Loukópoulos 1910: 388) What is more, even in CMG it is not very difficult to locate similar structures. The following structures, collected from impromptu conversations with native Greek speakers, demonstrate that the case of the demonstrative pronoun can be attracted by the morphologically accusative clitic and can be used in parallel with the expected genitive αυτών/ αυτωνών: (5.30a) τους μίλησα αυτωνών /tus ˈmilisa aftoˈnon/ the:acc/gen.pl.m I spoke to them speak:1sg.pst.pfv this:gen.pl.m 160 As noted in 5.1.3, these varieties also exhibit the 3PL syncretic τους. 146

167 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (5.30b) αυτούς τους έχεις δώσει λεφτά; [aˈftus tus ˈeçis ðosi leˈfta] this:acc.pl.m the:acc/gen.pl.m have:2sg give:inf.pfv money:n/a.pl.n have you given them money? Τhus, the genitives of feminine and neuter nouns remained in full use as indirect objects - and consequently as possessives - in Cypriot, since the maintenance of the two-case distinction in the 3PL clitics of these genders (F gen. τους/ acc. τες, N gen. τους/ acc. τα) could not trigger syncretism in the feminine and neuter paradigms through case attraction: (5.31a) τόσα ἔδωκεν τῶν μαυλιστρίων he gave so much to the seducers /ˈtosa ˈeðoken ton mavliˈstrion/ so:n/a.pl.n give:3sg.pst.pfv the:gen.pl seducer:gen.pl.f Μachairas 239 (5.31b) ἐμηνῦσαν τῶν κατέργων they announced to the galleons (=to the people inside) /emiˈnisan ton kaˈterɣon/ announce:3pl.pst.pfv the:gen.pl galleon:gen.pl.n Machairas 414 After the syncretic pattern was established for the function of the indirect object, it was extended to marking possession in MedCyp. More precisely, this could have happened either in possessive structures with double marking where both the third pronoun and a demonstrative pronoun or noun are used, or through reanalysis of recipients/ benefactives/ experiencers as possessives (cf. 5.4): (5.32a) III: το σπίτιν τους [ACC] εκείνων [GEN] το σπίτιν τους [ACC] εκείνους [ACC] 161 The house of those 161 The case attraction of the nominal phrase by the possessive syncretic clitic fits exactly the following structure, which was uttered at the situational comedy series Το αμάρτημα της μητρός μου My mother s sin (ANT1 TV): τους [the:acc.pl.m] Πακιστανούς [Pakistani:ACC.pl.m] ξέρουμε τα ονόματά τους [3pl:ACC.m] of the Pakistanis, we know their names instead of των [GEN.pl.m] Πακιστανών [GEN.pl.m] ξέρουμε τα ονόματά τους; accessed on 22/7/2014: 147

168 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.32b) IV: το χαρτίν τους ανθρώπους [ACC] έδωκεν το χαρτίν είναι τους ανθρώπους [ACC] He gave the paper to the people The paper is of the people The process of the extension of the syncretism to the masculine paradigm most likely involved the earlier loss of the genitive plural των of the definite article, as can be seen in MedCyp texts: (5.33a) περὶ τοὺς ἐνκυτάδων του about his guarantors /peˈri tus engiˈtaðon tu/ about the:acc/gen.pl.m guarantor:gen.pl 3sg:GEN.sg.wk Assises B 254 (5.33b) τὴν αὐλὴν τοὺς πουργεσιῶν the yard of the burgesses /tin aˈvlin tus purɣesiˈon/ the:acc.sg.f yard:acc.sg the:acc/gen.pl.m burgess:gen.pl Assises A 49 This is also verified by dialectal data; as shown in the following examples, some masculine nouns in Samos have maintained distinct genitive forms (with the characteristic suffix -ούνις), while in the varieties of Argyrades (Salvanos 1918) and Liapades (Repoulios 2011) in Corfu the accusative-genitive syncretism is restricted to the plural forms of the definite article, but not in the nominal inflection (see also 5.5 later): (5.34a) τς γουνιούνις [ts ɣuˈɲuɲis] of the parents the:acc/gen.pl.m parent:gen.pl.m Samos (Dimitriou 1993: 279). (5.34b) τσ ανθρώπωνε [ts anˈθropone] of the people the:acc/gen.pl.m person:gen.pl.m Argyrades, Corfu (Salvanos 1918: 13) This analysis explains why the syncretism primarily involves masculine forms in all these dialects, something that was not discussed by previous accounts. Thus, it can be inferred that the reconstruction of the syncretism proposed earlier followed the same steps in these dialects, given 148

169 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK the fact that indirect objects are marked by the genitive in Samos, the Sporades, Northern Euboea, the varieties of Sarakatsans and in Voúrbiani: τα ρίχνουμι τς ζούνις [GEN] we throw them (=food) to the animals (Samos; Zafiriou 1994: 145) τσού πανι τς πιδιούνι τς [GEN] they said to her children (Skiathos, Sporades; Rigas 1962: 211), μού [GEN] φερε he brought me (Northern Euboea; Settas 1960: 120), τς είπι τ πιδιών [GEN] he said to the children (Sarakatsans; Høeg 1926: 53), λέει τς μάνας [GEN] του he says to his mother (Voúrbiani; Rébelis 1953: 135). In the varieties of Kýzikos, both the genitive and the accusative are employed to mark the indirect objects in the singular, while it seems that the accusative is used exclusively in the plural, e.g.: λέω αυτουνού [GEN] I told him, έλεε ο ένας τον άλλονα [ACC] one said to the other, λέω τσι τσανταρμάδες [ACC] I say to the policemen (ILNE 756: 18, 122 & 41 respectively). This could either mean that the syncretism in the plural affected the marking of indirect objects in the singular or that in these varieties the syncretism was extended to nouns through double marked possessive structures as shown earlier and reanalysis of experiencers, benefactives and recipients as possessors if accusative marking of indirect objects preceded the syncretism. Such cases are not hard to locate in dialects with accusative indirect objects: (5.35a) μπαίνει μες στου ματ τς χααμουφάδις [ˈbeni mes s.tu mat ts xaamuˈfaðis] get.in:3sg inside in.the:n/a.sg.n eye:n/a.sg.n the:acc.pl.m wastrel:n/a.pl.m He makes the wastrels jealous (lit. he gets in the eyes to the wastrels ) Samothraki (Heisenberg 1918: 40) (5.35b) κόπηκε γουλουνούς η καρδιά τους [ˈkopice ɣuluˈnus i karˈðʝa tus] cut:3sg.pass.pst.pfv all:acc.pl.m the:nom.sg.f heart:n/a.sg.f the:acc.pl.m Their hearts were hurt (lit. their heart to all of them was cut) Armutli, Bithynia (ILNE 424: 120) The extension of the syncretic pattern to feminine nouns As shown in 5.2, in the dialects of Samos, the Sporades, Northern Euboea, Kýzikos and Sarakatsans syncretic accusative plurals can also be found with feminine nouns, unlike in 149

170 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Cypriot, Voúrbiani and Corsican Maniot. The explanation for this development should be sought in the phonological features of these dialects, as all of them have developed deletion of unstressed high vowels with the loss of distinction between the 3PL masculine and feminine accusative clitics and the respective forms of the definite article: 3PL/ def.art τους (Μ)/ τις (F) τς. This change extended the syncretism to the 3PL feminine clitics and the two-case distinction was maintained only in the neuter gender: (5.36) THIRD PERSON MASCULINE: gen/acc.pl τους gen/acc.pl τς THIRD PERSON FEMININE: gen.pl τους/ acc.pl τις gen/acc.pl τς THID PERSON NEUTER: gen.pl τους/ acc.pl τα gen.pl τς/ acc.pl τα This fact was decisive for the further extension of the syncretism to feminine accusative plurals, especially when it is kept in mind that the forms of the accusative plural of the definite article for the two genders became identical: Table 5.15: The extension of the syncretism to feminine nouns THIRD PERSON DEFINITE ARTICLE AND NOUNS 162 M/F gen/acc.pl τς gen/acc.pl τς αθρώπ people / τς γναίκις women N gen.pl τς/ acc.pl τα gen.pl πιδιούνις/ acc.pl τα πιδιά children One may notice that the dialect of Voúrbiani also exhibits deletion of unstressed high vowels, but the feminine accusatives are not used as possessives, as feminine and neuter genitive plurals are morphologically distinct and have developed the innovative suffixes -ιούς. Nevertheless, Anagnostópoulos (1928-9: 448) mentions that the deletion of high vowels is not as frequent as in other northern varieties of Epirus, something which is verified in narratives where τους has not lost the intervocalic /u/ (e.g. στις δουλειές τους to their jobs ; Rébelis 1953: 130). This seems to apply for the variety of the Marmara Island (cf. example 5.22), where deletion of unstressed vowels seems to be inconsistent as well, and feminine possessors are often marked through the preposition από instead of the bare accusative plural, e.g. τα μαμούκια είναι απ [from] τσι 162 The examples are taken from Samian, but the pattern applies also for the Sporades, Northern Euboea, Kýzikos and Sarakatsans. 150

171 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK γυναίκες the veils of the women ; the late extension of the syncretism to feminine nouns is also verified by the parallel use of από from in the following example from Skiathos as well (cf. Chapter 7 on periphrastic possessive structures): η βασίλ σσα απ [from] τζ γάτις [i vaˈsilsa ab dz ˈɣatis] the queen of the cats (Rigas 1962: 78) Discussion As can be observed in the data presented earlier, the syncretism in Cypriot followed a different path than in the other dialects, in the sense that despite being the oldest development, it is the most conservative when it is kept in mind that feminine and neuter nouns maintained their morphologically distinct genitives not only in the nominal inflection, but also in the forms of the definite article. The intact unstressed vowels in the dialect retained the distinction between masculine and feminine nouns of the 3PL clitics and the definite article, which could not trigger the extension of the syncretism to feminines: Table 5:16: The restriction of the syncretism to the masculine gender in Cypriot STAGE I STAGE II STAGE I STAGE II 3PL/DEF.ART 3PL DEF.ART nominal/ non-personal pronominal inflection gen. acc. gen. acc. gen. acc. gen. acc. gen. acc. Μ των τους τους τους εκείνων εκείνους εκείνους F των τες τους τες των τες εκείνων εκείνες εκείνων εκείνες N των τα τους τα των τα εκείνων εκείνα εκείνων εκείνα Another element that should not be overlooked is the fact that Cypriot belongs to a group of Southern Greek varieties that have maintained (or extended) a few archaic functions of the genitive (cf. Chapter 3 and 4.3). However, the loss of inflectional potential of a case in a dialect where its distributional potential is quite robust seems rather strange, especially since it is the variety of Southern Greek that exhibits this phenomenon 163. Leaving aside the possible role of contact with Old French (cf ) and the fact that Cypriot, in spite of being in the core of the Greek-speaking world, is quite isolated from the dialects of mainland and insular Greece, which has resulted in the development of many idiosyncratic features in the dialect, another element 163 The case of Corsican Maniot is extremely different due to the sociolinguistic situation of the dialect. 151

172 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE that demands more attention is the pressure for further symmetry in the plural of the nominal inflection. More specifically, o-masculines, the most numerous paradigm 164 of masculine nouns, had maintained a three-case distinction in the plural, but in all other paradigms only two cases were morphologically distinct (cf. 2.3). While some southern dialects treat this asymmetry by replacing the suffix -ους with the nominative -οι (cf ) 165, the syncretism of the genitive with the accusative plural of masculine nouns eliminated this asymmetry, which can be schematically presented in the following way: Table 5.17: Three-case vs. two-case distinction in the plural of the Cypriot nominal inflection STAGE I NOM # ΑCC # GEN ΝOM=ΑCC # GEN O-MASCULINES άνθρωποι FEMININES μητέρες NEUTERS δώρα ανθρώπους ανθρώπων μητέρων δώρων STAGE II NOM # ACC=GEN NOM=ACC # GEN MASCULINES άνθρωποι FEMININES μητέρες NEUTERS δώρα ανθρώπους μητέρων δώρων The importance of the influence of symmetry in the declensional system in Greek has been noted by many researchers (cf. Dressler 1966, Seiler 1977, Niehoff-Panagiotidis 1994, Iggesen 2005). One might wonder why this development did not take place in other southern 166 areas that do not exhibit either nominative-accusative neutralization or accusative-genitive syncretism. As the syncretism is not found in the Cyclades, the Dodecanese, Crete, Chios, Icaria and Cythera, the presence of the 3PL genitives των(ε) and τως could not trigger such a development in the nominal inflection. As regards areas where the syncretic 3PL τους is found, such as the Peloponnese and the Ionian islands, they bear a significant difference to Cypriot, where the genitive has a much broader distributional potential. As seen in Chapter 3, the Cypriot genitive 164 Nouns ending in -ος, e.g. βοσκός shepherd nom.pl βοσκοί # acc.pl βοσκούς; nouns ending in -ας that stem from the ancient third declension also have this distinction, e.g. γείτονας neighbor nom.pl γειτόνοι # acc.pl γειτόνους. 165 E.g. in the Cyclades and parts of Crete. 166 As has been noted earlier, the term is used conventionally and not in a purely geographical sense. 152

173 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK has not only maintained the functions of the ancient genitive, such as direct objects of verbs (<ancient partitive and ablative genitive), but its use was expanded to marking spatial relations (of allative and perlative meaning) and direct object of dative origin. While the high frequency of the genitive explains why the genitive of feminines and neuters were not lost in Cypriot, the distributional unmarkedness of the case was not on par with its conceptual 167 and structural 168 complexity. This element possibly means that speakers felt the need to reduce the morphological markedness of the genitive by developing a more economical and symmetrical system that was triggered by the already existing syncretic pattern in the 3PL masculine forms through the merger between the genitive and the accusative plural in the masculine gender, whose most prominent paradigms had maintained a three-case distinction, as shown in the previous Table. Although the importance of the syncretic τους on the development of syncretism in the nominal inflection has been clearly demonstrated, it would not be improbable to encounter such phenomena in the dialects where the 3PL genitive των (and its variants) is maintained. Despite the fact that grammatical descriptions of the varieties of Lesbos do not confirm this, according to Ralli (personal communication), the syncretism can also be found in the dialect of Lesbos where the masculine genitive ντουν is distinct from the accusative τς of the third person. Such phenomena might be derived from a different path, i.e. the undeclined use of nominal possessors 169 : (5.38a) στ δράτσ 170 ντ πόρτα [st ðrats d ˈborta] /s.tu(n) ˈðraki tin ˈporta/ in.the:gen dragon:n/a.pl.m the:acc.sg.f door:n/a.sg.f on the door of the dragons 167 The semantic markedness of the Cypriot genitive is best reflected in the highly diverse range of grammatical and semantic roles it could encode: possessors, recipients/ addressees/ benefactives, patient (+contact; <dative), themes of low transitivity (<partitive), causees/ causes (<ablative) and path/ direction. 168 As will be shown in Chapter 6, almost all feminine nouns in Cypriot exhibit maintenance of stress in its original position in the genitive plural, the common suffix -ων of which would result in some instances to identical forms for both masculine and feminine nouns, e.g. των κάττων (<ο κάττος [M]/ η κάττα [F] cat ). 169 Quite interestingly, the use of the syncretic 3PL τ(ου)ς is found in these narratives in parallel with ντουν, e.g. φώναξι τς γτόνσσις τσι τους [3PL:GEN.F] έδουσι μπαμπάκ she called the neighbors (F) and gave them (F) cotton. 170 Note the affrication of /k/ ([c]) before /i/ and also the use of the genitive singular τ (/tu/, [t]) of the definite article for both numbers. 153

174 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE (5.38b) του σπιτ τουν δράκουν [tu spit tun ˈðrakun] /to ˈspiti ton ˈðrakon/ the:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n the:gen.pl dragon:gen.pl.m the house of the dragons Mantamados, Lesbos (Anagnostou 1994: 5 & 43 respectively) 5.5 Accusative-like genitives A final issue that has not been addressed so far is the development of innovative genitive plural forms ending in -ς in many of these dialects. Even though this phenomenon does not constitute case syncretism, it is important to discuss it here, since it is related to the accusative-genitive syncretism and also reflects a different type of influence of accusative on genitive forms. A clear example of this was mentioned in regarding the 3PL genitive clitic form τως. This form acquired final -ς due to analogy from the innovative 1PL and 2PL syncretic accusatives μας/ σας. Quite interestingly, in Southern Italy (Karanastasis 1997: 51) and varieties of Kárpathos (Minás 1970: 85), the influence of pronominal clitics on the forms of the definite article can be seen in the genitive plural of the definite article which also acquired final -ς and became τως, e.g. Italiot τως μαστόρω of the craftsmen (Mergianoú 2000: 145). Following Hock & Joseph (2009: 163), this development can be described as an instance of contamination, namely a non-systematic analogical change that involves lexical or morphological forms that are closely related to each other, e.g. in a synonymous, antonymous or ordinal manner. In this section I will examine these genitive forms that resemble accusatives due to the use of a syncretic accusative plural of the definite article. Apart from the dialects already discussed here, some villages in Corfu also exhibit this phenomenon, as can be seen below (cf. Papageorgiou 1994: 335): 154

175 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 5.18: The plural in the nominal inflection of Corfiot varieties Argyrades (Salvanos 1918) Liapades (Repoulios 2011) nom. οι ανθρώποι οι γυναίκες οι σκύλους τα Βάγια acc. τσ ανθρώπους τσι γυναίκες τσου σκύλους τα Βάγια gen. των/ τσ ανθρώπωνε τω/ τσου γυναικώνε τσου σκύλωνες τσου Βαγιώνες 171 the people (M) the women (F) the dogs (Μ) the Palms (N) Even though these Corfiot varieties do not exhibit nominal syncretic accusative plurals, the accusative-genitive syncretism has taken place in the definite article forms, where τσου (<τους) has replaced των. This syncretism in the definite article is obviously related to the syncretic 3PL masculine accusative τσου (<τους) and resulted in the development of genitives ending in the analogical suffix -ς. In addition, Alexakis (2005: 26) provides the following example: το άφηκε τσου μπαιδιώνες [GEN.PL.N] του he left it to his children. This is an instance of double contamination, since not only is the accusative plural suffix -ς added, but the voicing of initial /p/ is retained due to the co-occurring original structure των παιδιώνε /ton peðiˈone/ [to (m) beˈðʝone] where /p/ would have been voiced because of the preceding final /n/ of the definite article των; in other words, των has been contaminated with τσουν to produce τσουν 172. The development of the accusative plural -ς may be attributed to the use of the syncretic τσου with accusative forms, e.g. τσου σκύλους (acc.pl)/ τσου σκύλωνε (gen.pl) τσου σκύλωνες (gen.pl). As noted earlier, the syncretic accusative plural τσου of the definite article is applied to all genders in Corfiot, as opposed to the Cypriot τους, for two reasons: i) it functioned exactly like the original των which was common for all genders and ii) there is partial overlap between the masculine τσου and the feminine accusative plural of the definite article τσι when the following noun begins with a vowel due to elision, e.g. τσ αδερφούς the brothers / τσ αδερφές the sisters. Quite interestingly, an identical analogical genitive form is also found in Corsican Maniot (Blanken 1951: 95): τους/ τις γυναικώνες. Here, -ς is added due to the influence of the syncretic definite article τους/ τις. 171 Cf. CMG των Βαγιών. 172 Note the 3SG feminine genitive singular clitic τσης, which is produced by της and τση (<της) and is commonly found in Heptanese varieties. 155

176 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE As shown earlier, the suffix -ούνις is found in neuter nouns in Samos, the Sporades and Northern Euboea. This suffix is essentially the same as -ωνες, but exhibits the following changes (Kretschmer 1905: 242; Pángalos 1955: 265): i) των παιδιών ii) των παιδιώνε (addition of -ε to avoid the closed syllable) iii) τουν πιδιούνι (northern vocalism + shift of -ων to -ου analogically to the genitive singular -ου, cf ) iv) *τς πιδιούνι v) τς πιδιούνις (addition of -ς of the masculine and feminine accusative plurals). In the dialect of Alónnisos, the earlier stage of the suffix is maintained: τς πιδιώνις of the children (ILNE 1488: 9). The suffix -ούνις is also used with masculines, e.g. αντρούνις of the men (Dimitriou 1993: 276; cf. 5.34a). It is possible that these forms are relics of an earlier stage of the syncretism, when the innovative genitive suffix -ούνις was used for morphologically distinct genitive forms, as in Corfiot varieties, but in the later stages of the syncretism most masculine nouns acquired the common nominative/accusative/genitive form in the plural. The suffix is also used with nonpersonal pronouns, since their genitive plurals are common for all genders in Greek and their maintenance can also be attributed to their greater functional load than common nouns: κ νούνις of those, ποιανούνις whose (pl), αφνούνις of these, αλλνούνις of others (Zafiriou 1914: 49). The varieties of Kýzikos and Voúrbiani have developed the innovative genitive plural suffix -ους, which is used with neuter nouns and in the latter with feminine and neuter nouns and reflects two main changes: i) loss of final /n/, ii) shift of -ω- to -ου- and iii) the addition of analogical -ς. As regards the first change, Sgouridis (1968) mentions that these innovative genitives are used in parallel with the original forms ending in -ων: τσ ψαριούς/ των ψαριών of the fish. This implies that the shift of -ω- to -ου- did not occur due to analogy to the genitive singular -ου, as was most likely in the case of -ούνις above, but was probably based on the definite article τς which could be used in parallel with τους when the deletion of high vowels was not completed yet in these dialects: των παιδιών *τς/ τους παιδιών *τς/ τους παιδιούς τς παιδιούς. 156

177 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK 5.6 Conclusions This chapter provides an account that unifies the developments of accusative-genitive syncretism in the pronominal and nominal inflection of MG. In spite of its restriction to the pronominal inflection in most MG varieties, the phenomenon found in the personal pronouns is not just a sign of the peculiar nature of pronominal forms (cf. Iggesen 2005) and the differences they show from nominal forms. On the contrary, it is the first attestation of loss of the inflectional potential of the genitive, as it coincides chronologically with the major restriction of the distributional potential of the genitive near the end of the EMedG that marked the relegation of the genitive to the lowest tier of the Greek case hierarchy, which is best shown by its occurrence in almost every MedG and MG variety (at least in 1PL and 2PL forms). This seemingly minor development, which had received relatively little attention by researchers of the history of Greek (cf. Mertyris 2011: 480), essentially constituted a steady source of further reduction of the inflectional potential of the genitive in a few areas of the Med/MG-speaking world. What is more, the development of the syncretism in 3PL clitics in South-Western Greek (Heptanese, Peloponnese, Western Epirus) and a few Northern Greek varieties seems to be related to the decrease in the use of accusative plural indirect objects, as was shown earlier in Table 3.7. This extension of the syncretic pattern of a single oblique plural case to the nominal inflection can be found in a wide range of dialects, the geographical distance of which implies that the syncretism occurred independently in each dialect in a case of Sapir s drift (Sapir 1921), since contact could only occur between Voúrbiani and Sarakatsans in Epirus and between the aforementioned Aegean varieties. Moreover, the analysis proposed here covers the key elements of each of these instances, such as the fact that masculine nouns always exhibit syncretic accusatives and feminine nouns occasionally do, while the phenomenon is never found with neuter nouns. Thus, we could speak of two types of syncretic phenomena, in the first of which the third person masculine accusative plural clitic τους remained distinct from the feminine accusative τις, while in the second the third person genitive τς was common for the masculines and feminines: 157

178 SYNCRETISM WITH THE ACCUSATIVE Table 5.19: The types of nominal case syncretism in modern dialects Type I Type II Masculine Feminine Neuter Masc./Fem. Νeuter third person gen. τους gen. τους gen. τς plural clitics acc/gen. τους acc/gen. τς acc. τις acc. τα acc. τα nominal inflection ACC <GEN GEN # ACC ACC <GEN GEN # ACC The correlation between the syncretisms in the pronominal and the nominal inflection does not only explain the aforementioned dichotomy, but is also reflected in the development of contaminated genitive forms that are based on accusative morphology (cf. 5.5). Regarding the diachrony of the nominal case syncretism, there are no data from earlier periods of these dialects, apart from the Cypriot syncretism. However, other clues might give away the starting point of the developments, such as the fact that in Kýzikos and Sarakatsans the original genitive forms are used interchangeably with syncretic accusatives, which means that the syncretism is not a very old development in these dialects. If the proposed view that Samos was populated during the 16 th c. by settlers from Sporades and Northern Euboea is correct (cf ), it can be inferred that the syncretism in these dialects may have been in development during that time. Finally, the following table summarizes the presence of accusative-genitive syncretism in the Modern Greek-speaking world: 158

179 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Table 5.20: The presence of accusative-genitive syncretism in the Greek-speaking world 1PL/ 2PL 3PL DEF.ART Masculines Feminines Neuters AG - 10 th c. ἡμῶν/ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν τῶν Pontic εμουν/ εσουν ατουν τι/ τ Group I 173 μας/ σας των των GEN GEN GEN Group II 174 μας/ σας τους των Corfiot 175 μας/ σας τσου τσου Type I 176 μας/ σας τους τους ACC=GEN Type II 177 μας/ σας τς τς ACC=GEN ACC=GEN 173 Post 10 th c. In Cappadocia, Phárasa, Mariupol, Bithynia, Lesbos/ Kydoniés, Skyros, Chios, Smyrna, Icaria, Cythera, the Cyclades, Crete, the Dodecanese and Southern Italy. 174 Post 12 th c. In the Peloponnese and the Ionian islands (hence Common Modern Greek), Central Greece, the Northern Aegean islands, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace. 175 The varieties of Argyrades and Liapades. 176 Cyprus and Corsican Maniot. Voúrbiani can also be listed here, even though feminines and neuters have alternative accusative-genitive plural forms ending in -ιους like masculine nouns in that variety. 177 Kýzikos, Sarakatsans, Samos, the Sporades and Northern Euboea. 159

180 6. PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY OF THE GENITIVE IN DIALECTAL AND COMMON MODERN GREEK 6.0 Introduction Similarly to the phenomenon of accusative-genitive syncretism in the personal pronouns, in almost every variety of the MG-speaking world there are nouns that do not have a genitive in certain paradigms of the nominal inflection, although the case occurs in most other paradigms 178. For instance, the ι-neuter diminutive κοριτσάκι little girl does not have genitives in either number and the parisyllabic α-feminine κοπέλα young woman does not have a genitive plural in CMG, while κορίτσι girl and γυναίκα woman from the same paradigms respectively have fully productive genitive forms: (6.1a) n/a.sg γυναίκα gen.sg γυναίκα-ς n/a.pl γυναίκ-ες gen.pl γυναικ-ών (6.1b) n/a.sg κοπέλα gen.sg κοπέλα-ς n/a.pl κοπέλ-ες gen.pl - (6.1c) n/a.sg κορίτσι gen.sg κοριτσι-ού n/a.pl κορίτσι-α gen.pl κοριτσι-ών (6.1d) n/a.sg κοριτσάκι gen.sg - n/a.pl κοριτσάκι-α gen.pl - This phenomenon essentially involves reduction in the morphological productivity of the genitive through the development of missing forms (gaps) of the genitive in certain paradigms. According to Karlsson s (2000: 647) analysis on morphological defectivity, paradigmatic gaps may be related to natural semantic restrictions, but as can be seen from the above examples there is absolutely no semantic incompatibility affecting the genitive plurals of κοπέλα and κοριτσάκι, since they involve human referents and cognates and synonyms are fully productive. Instead, Sims (2006: 3) distinction between semantically driven and inflectional defectivity 178 In this chapter, I will not deal with dialects in which the genitive has undergone major retreat to the point of its near obsolescence in the plural, which can be seen in Northern Greek (Chapter 7) and the dialects in the periphery of the MG-speaking world (Chapter 8).

181 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK clearly shows that nouns like κοπέλα belong to the latter type. In this chapter, gaps of both of these types will be examined, although greater emphasis will be dedicated to gaps of inflectional defectivity, as their development is more challenging to explain. As shown in (6.1b) and (6.1d), the majority of defective nouns in CMG are found with parisyllabic feminine nouns like κοπέλα (+gen.sg/-gen.pl) and ι-neuter diminutives (-gen.sg/ - gen.pl). These paradigms are also frequently defective dialectally, even though in individual varieties other paradigms exhibit defectivity too, e.g. μα-neuters. Thus, in the following sections, I will examine the factors that resulted in the paradigmatic loss of the genitive in dialectal and CMG in the paradigms of: a) ι-neuters, b) barytone 179 feminines and c) various paradigms with less frequently defective nouns. Before examining these specific phenomena, it is important to make a distinction between the productivity of the genitive and the actual use of the genitive. More precisely, the fact that a paradigm does not exhibit genitive gaps does not mean that these genitive forms are in regular use in the language. As Symeonidis (2006: 202) mentions, even though the paradigm of parisyllabic feminines is considerably more productive in Cypriot than other dialects and CMG, it does not mean that these genitives are frequently used in the language. It is noteworthy that this phenomenon is not found in AG, where only a handful of nouns with genitive (and dative) gaps can be found, e.g. ὄναρ dream (only in n/a.sg, third declension neuter), which shows that the phenomenon is an innovation in the morphology of the later periods of the language. 6.1 Defective ι-neuters: genitive singular and plural gaps In CMG, diminutives formed with the suffix -άκι constitute a quite well known example of defective nouns with genitive gaps in both numbers, as shown in (1d). Apart from the suffix -άκι, there are a few other defective nouns formed with derivational suffixes ending in -ι, as the following table shows: 179 Henceforth, I will use this term to refer to nouns that are not stressed on the final syllable. The term is conventionally employed here, as its original usage comes from AG which had a pitch-accent system. 161

182 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Table 6.1: Defective derivatives in -ι 180 -άδι -άκι -άρι -έλι -ίδι -ίκι -λίκι -ούδι -ούλι κοκκινάδι ( red make-up ):?κοκκιναδιού/ -ων (<κόκκινος red ) παιδάκι ( little child ): *παιδακιού/ -ων (<παιδί child ) κατοστάρι ( 100 meters ):?κατοσταριού/ -ων (<εκατό one hundred ) κοκκινέλι ( red wine ):?κοκκινελιού/ -ων (<κόκκινος red ) βρισίδι ( tirade/ swearing ):?βρισιδιού/ -ων (<βρισιά swearword ) αρχονταρίκι ( monastery dorm ):?αρχονταρικιού/ -ων (<αρχοντάρης monk ) αρχηγιλίκι ( chieftainship / pretending to be the chief ): *αρχηγιλικιού/ -ων (<αρχηγός captain/ chief ) αγγελούδι ( little angel ): *αγγελουδιού/ -ων (<άγγελος angel ) μικρούλι ( littlesie ):?μικρουλιού/ -ων (<μικρός little ) In addition to derivatives, there are also defective compound ι-neuters, e.g. σταυροδρόμι crossroad (<σταυρός cross + δρόμος road ) and a limited number of simplex (monomorphemic) nouns, e.g. κολύμπι swimming. However, defective derivatives will be the main focus in this section, given the fact that they constitute the majority of defective ι-neuters. According to the Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek (1998) of the Triantafyllidis Institute, the number of defective nouns within the paradigm of ι-neuters is quite large, as they make up 13.7% (224 out of 1628 lexemes) 181. Quite importantly, all defective ι-neuters are penultstressed, while ι-neuters with productive genitives are stressed either on the penultimate (89.1% of the 1404 productive ι-neuters) or the ultimate syllable (10.9%) 182. Consequently, it can be said that the inflection class of ι-neuters consists of a major subclass, that is ι-neuters with fully productive genitives, and a minor subclass of defective ι-neuters. When a defective ι-neuter needs to be used as a possessor in an utterance, there are two avoidance strategies: first, the preposition από from can be employed as a last resort strategy, even though its use is infrequent, given the fact that some of these nouns are inanimates and are 180 This table does not aim to provide an exhaustive list of ι-suffixes, so rare suffixes of low productivity will not be dealt with, cf. -μάνι παιδομάνι swarm of kids, gen.sg *παιδομανιού. 181 It should always be kept in mind that these two dictionaries do not always agree on the defectivity of some nouns, i.e. a noun listed as defective in the Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek (Triantafyllidis 1998) might be shown with productive genitives in the Dictionary of Modern Greek (Babiniotis 1998). 182 A small number of toponyms of foreign origin are ι-neuters stressed on the antepenult and also have problematic genitive forms, e.g.: Λιόπεσι toponym (<Arvanitic llopës fig ), gen.sg *Λιοπεσι-ού. Speakers occasionally employ the archaistic ending -ίου without synizesis to solve this, e.g. του Λιοπεσί-ου. 162

183 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK not frequently used as possessors, e.g. το λάστιχο από το μηχανάκι the motorbike s wheel (lit. the wheel from the little machine) ; second, suppletion is the commonest way of avoiding the defectivity of άκι-diminutives, as the genitive of the noun from which the diminutive is derived is employed, e.g. το λάστιχο της μηχανής the motorbike s wheel (lit. the machine s wheel). Thus, in order to trace the origins of the defectivity of these nouns, it is important to examine their diachrony, their status in the dialects of the Greek-speaking world and extant analyses in the following sections Diachronic data As shown in Table 2.8, the paradigm of ι-neuters stems from the ancient second declension through the ancient diminutive suffix -ιον (MedG -ιν) which was extended to an extremely large extent to (mostly masculine and feminine) nouns of the ancient third declension, e.g.: ἀστήρ (gen.sg ἀστέρ-ος) star (M) ἀστέρ-ιον (MG αστέρι). This process was reinforced by the marked morphology of the third declension 183, as neuter nouns had simpler morphology (common nominative/ accusative forms), and the fact that many inanimate nouns of the ancient third declension were grammatically masculine or feminine. The diminutive meaning of neuters ending in -ι(ο)ν was eventually lost as the original third declension nouns became obsolete. This element created the need for new derivational suffixes that would be able to mark diminutive and other meanings more explicitly. The formation of these suffixes in MedG took place through reanalysis of diminutives in -ι(ο)ν, loaned suffixes (mostly from Latin) that were often based on the already existing AG diminutive suffixes -άριον and -ίδιον (MG -άρι and -ίδι): σαρκ-ίδιον (<σαρκ-, σάρξ flesh )/ κεραμίδ-ιον (<κεραμιδ-. κεραμίς roof-tile )/ ἀγελάδ-ιον (<αγελαδ-, ἀγελάς cow ) ἀγελ-άδιον. The following table summarizes the diachrony of these suffixes and their early attestations; as can be seen, there is great variation in the origin and the starting point of these suffixes. 183 Cf. the imparisyllabic singular forms of masculine and feminine nouns, e.g. nom.sg φλόξ/ acc.sg φλόγα flame (F). 163

184 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Table 6.2: The origin of defective derivational suffixes in -ι Ancient Greek suffixes -άρι <AG -άριον, e.g. πλοι-άριον skiff <πλοῖον floating vessel -ίδι <AG -ίδιον, e.g. σαρκ-ίδιον bit of flesh <σάρξ flesh Medieval Greek reanalyses of ι-diminutives -άδι <λιβάδ-ιον little spring (later meadow ) [<λιβάς creek (stem λιβάδ-)] e.g. περιβολ-άδιον little yard P.Bon 21, 12 (1 st c. AD) [<περίβολος yard ] -άκι <κοράκ-ιον small crow [<κόραξ crow (stem κορακ-] e.g. στεν-άκιον little strait Const. Porph., De cer. (1.1-92), (10 th c.) [<στενόν strait ] -ίκι <περδίκ-ιον small partridge [<πέρδιξ partridge (stem περδικ-] e.g. δελματ-ίκιν type of tunic P.Οxy VII 1051, 10 (3 rd c. AD) [<δέρμα leather ] -ούδι <βού-διον small ox [<βουίδιον <βούς + -ίδιον] e.g. σακκ-ούδι-α little bags P.Oxy VI 937, 29 (3 rd c. AD) [<σάκκος bag ] Medieval/ Εarly Modern Greek loans -έλ(λ)ι Latin loanwords such as τριβέλλιον (<terebellium drill ) and φραγγέλιον (<flagellum <flagrum whip ) e.g. πανιτσ-έλιν the little clout War of Troy 992 (13 th -14 th c.) <παν-ίτσιν <πανίν -λίκι <Turkish -lik, e.g. bekrilik drunkenness (<bekri drunk ) e.g. πρωτομαστορ-λίκιν profession of master builder Papa-Synadinus, Chronicle of Serres (17 th c.) [<πρωτομάστορας master builder ] -ούλι <Latin -ula, e.g. lunula little moon (<luna) Hell/MedG -ούλα -ούλ-ι(ο)ν e.g. πεζ-ουλί-ῳ stone bench [DAT.SG] Const. Porph, De cer. (1.1 92), It is quite natural at this point to pose the question whether these derivatives had genitive forms in earlier periods of Greek. In order to answer this question, it needs to be mentioned that derivational suffixes of ancient or early medieval origin exhibit two levels of genitive productivity in CMG. Neuters that constituted the basis for the formation of these suffixes and early derivatives (formed during LHellG/ EMedG) have productive genitives in both numbers, like most ι-neuters; in most cases, 164

185 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK these nouns have lost their initial diminutive or other derivative meaning, as they began to denote not the diminutive of an entity, but the entity itself, which is also shown by the fact that the base nouns in the left column in Table 6.3 are not found in the majority of dialectal MG. These contrast with derivative nouns formed in later periods, which are defective: Table 6.3: Productive and defective ι-derivatives SUFFIX EARLY FORMS/ DERIVATIVES LATER DERIVATIVES -άδι σημάδι: σημαδι-ού/ σημαδι-ών sign <AG σῆμα sign μαυρ-άδι 184 :?μαυρ-αδι-ού/?μαυρ-αδι-ών black spot <μαύρος black -άκι λαβράκι: λαβρακι-ού/ λαβρακι-ών sea bass <AG λάβραξ sea bass παιδ-άκι: *παιδ-ακι-ού/ *παιδ-ακι-ών little child <παιδί child -άρι ζευγάρι: ζευγαρι-ού/ ζευγαρι-ών pair <AG ζεῦγος pair τετρακοσ-άρι: *τετρακοσ-αρι-ού/ *-ών 400 meters <τετρακόσια 400 -ίδι παιχνίδι: παιχνιδι-ού/ παιχνιδι-ών game <AG παίγνιον game βρισ-ίδι:?βρισ-ιδι-ού/?βρισ-ιδι-ών swearing <βρισιά swearword -ούδι αρκούδι: αρκουδι-ού/ αρκουδι-ών bear <AG ἄρκ(τ)ος bear μαθητ-ούδι: *μαθητ-ουδι-ού/ * -ών little student <μαθητής student -ούλι πεζούλι: πεζουλι-ού/ πεζουλι-ών stone bench <MedG πέζα instep γατ-ούλι: *γατ-ουλι-ού/ *γατ-ουλι-ών little cat <γάτα cat Quite clearly, this table provides the answer to the previous question: the CMG defective derivatives formed with these suffixes had genitive forms in earlier periods. This is clearly supported by diachronic data, as can be seen in the following examples from medieval documents of Southern Italy and other medieval texts, where there is solid attestation of genitives of derivatives with the suffixes -ούδι(ο)(ν), -άκι(ο)(ν), -έλι(ο)(ν) and the medieval -ίτσι(ο)(ν) 185 : 184 According to Triantafyllidis (1998), this noun is defective, but Babiniotis (1998) mentions genitive forms. 185 This suffix is not found in CMG. The noun κορίτσι girl is a remnant of the use of the suffix in MedG (<κόρη daughter/ girl ). Regarding its origin, there are three main proposals: i) <Latin -icium, ii) <MedG -ίκι(ο)ν with affrication (tsitacism), iii) <-ίτσα (<Slavic -itsa) + -ι(ο)ν (with gender change). 165

186 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.2a) τοῦ καστελλ-ακί-ου <καστέλλι(ο)ν castle of the small castle 1141 AD (Minás 1994: 151) (6.2b) τοῦ καστελλ-ατζί-ου 186 <καστέλλι(ο)ν castle of the small castle 1143 AD (Minás 1994: 151) (6.2c) δέρμα κατ-ουδί-ου <κάτ(τ)ος (<Latin cattus cat ) leather of small cat Bartholomaeus Edessenus, Confutatio Agareni, (8 th c. AD) (6.2d) τοῦ αὐτοῦ στεν-ακί-ου <στενόν strait of the same little strait Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cer. aulae Byz. (lib ), (10 th c.) (6.2e) ἀκροτηρ-ιτζ-(ίου) 187 <ἀκρωτήριον cape of the little cape Acta Mon. Vat., Diploma Nicephori proti de donatione agri mon. Zygi, l. 68 (1018 AD) (6.2f) ποταμ-ιτζι-(ων) <ποταμός river of the small rivers Acta Monasterii Iviron, Actum venditionis, l. 30 (c AD) (6.2g) ἀντὶ πανιτσ-ελί-ου <πανίτσιν <πανίν clout instead of a small clout War of Troy 6522 (13 th - 14 th c. AD) Turning to compounds ending in -ι, their origin goes back to AG, e.g. ὡρ- (ὥρα hour ) + λογ- (λόγος speech/ collection ) ὡρολόγιον clock. In CMG, they are formed in two ways: i) the second element is an ι-neuter in which case if it is stressed on the ultimate, the stress of the compound will be recessive, e.g. βραχο- (<βράχος rock ) + νησι- (νησί island ) βραχο-νήσι rocky island (*βραχο-νησι-ού/ *βραχο-νησι-ών) and ii) the second element is not a ι-neuter, e.g. πρωτο- (πρώτος first ) + βροχ- (βροχή rain ) πρωτο-βρόχι first rain (plurale tantum; *πρωτο-βροχι-ού/ πρωτο-βροχι-ών). Given the fact that compounds of ancient origin have 186 It is possible that this form exhibits affrication ([c] [ts]/ [tʃ]/ [tɕ]) found in Italiot varieties. 187 As /ts/ and /dz/ did not exist in AG, their initial spelling was not consistent in MedG texts, as the digraph τζ was used for both affricates. 166

187 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK productive genitives in CMG, e.g. ρολόι clock (<ὡρολόγιον) ρολογι-ού/ ρολογι-ών, it can also be argued that at earlier periods these nouns were not defective; further evidence comes from MedG texts: (6.3) πρὸς τοῦ μεσο-νησί-ου [<μεσο-νήσι(ν) <μέση middle/ waist + νησί(ν) island ] towards the middle island Kallimachos and Chrysorrhoe 1794 (13 th -14 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) Finally, the vast majority of simplex ι-neuters that are listed as defective by the dictionary of the Triantafyllidis Institute (1998) are loanwords whose introduction to the Greek lexicon is quite recent and in most cases goes back to EMG or CMG, e.g. ντέρτι <Turkish dert worry/ emotional pain. The small number of simplex defective ι-neuters of native origin were formed after LHellG, e.g. μάγι-α (nom/acc.pl)/ *μαγι-ών spell (plurale tantum) <AG μαγεία (nom.sg.f) sorcery. Even though these nouns are rare in MedG texts, the following genitive can be found: (6.4) ὑπὸ μαγί-ων under spell Hygromantia Salomonis (excerptum e cod. Monac. 70, fol. 240r) 8, (unknown date) The fact that many of the defective compound and simplex ι-neuters are pluralia tantum indicates that their missing genitive forms are possibly related to their restricted morphological status overall. According to the diachronic data presented, it has been made clear that the defective ι- neuters of CMG had fully productive genitive forms until a certain point in the diachrony of Greek. Last but not least, it needs to be noted that the genitives of diminutives have nearly never exhibited columnar stress, e.g. παιδάκι/ gen.sg *παιδάκιου. Had this leveling phenomenon taken place, it would cause a major lack of balance with the much broader paradigm of productive ι- neuters, e.g. κεφάλι head / gen.sg *κεφάλιου instead of κεφαλιού. However, we should note that in Achilleis (N) (l. 1241, ms. 15 th c.) the form αθ-ίτσι-ων is attested, instead of *αθ-ιτσι-ών (<αθ-ίτσι <ά(ν)θος flower ), most likely for metrical reasons. 167

188 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Dialectal data The situation in most MG dialects MG is quite similar to the defectivity of ι-derivatives in CMG. As can be seen in the following example, suppletion is a quite common strategy of avoiding the defective genitive *γουρουνακιού little pig and the genitive γουρουνιού pig of the original form of the noun is preferred, even though in the narrative, the diminutive forms are used for the nominative/ accusative case: (6.5) ένα γουρουν-άκι... ουρά του γουρουνι-ού [GEN] a little pig tail of the pig Kythnos, Cyclades (Venetoulias 1995: 213) Apart from suppletion, the preposition από (+ACC) is also employed to mark possessive relations: (6.6) το λουλούδι από [from] το καλογερ-άκι the flower of the little monk (=type of plant) north-eastern Corfu (ILNE 807: 266) Quite interestingly, a number of dialects with defective ι-neuters have employed a different strategy which involves the undeclined use of nominative forms (cf ), as can be seen in the following examples where the genitives *αχλιουπταρελιού and *ριφακιού are avoided (cf. example 2.21): (6.7a) η γυναίκα τ αχλιουπταρ-έλ-ø 188 [i ʝiˈneka t axʎuptaˈreʎ] /i ɣiˈneka tu axlioptareli/ the:nom.sg.f woman:n/a.sg.f the:gen.sg.m/n PN:N/A.sg.n The woman of Achliuptareli Lesbos (Kretschmer 1905: 527) 188 Τhis bizarre diminutive probably comes from the Lesbian surname Αχλιόπτας formed by the diminutive suffix - αρέλ (<-άρι + -έλι). As regards the deletion of unstressed /u/ and /i/, Lesbian belongs to the northern dialect group. 168

189 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.7b) του ριφ-άκι-ø /tu riˈfaki/ the:gen.sg.m/n little.goat:n/a.sg.n of the little goat eastern Rhodes (Papachristodoulou 1958: 38) Given the fact that there are no attested examples of this pattern in the plural 189, e.g. *των [GEN.PL] ριφ-άκι-α [N/A.PL] of the little goats, it is extremely likely that such undeclined uses were restricted to singular forms in these dialects. However, ι-neuter diminutives form the genitive quite regularly in a few Southern Greek varieties, quite possibly due to the broad distributional potential of the genitive in these dialects, as can be seen in some of the following examples, where the genitive of the diminutive is used as an indirect object: (6.8a) είπεν του κοπελλ-ουκι-ού 190 <κοπελλ-ούιν 191 <κοπέλλιν boy /ˈipen tu kopelluðiˈu/ say:3sg.pfv.pst the:gen.sg.m/n litte.boy:gen.sg.n He said to the young boy Cyprus (Symeonidis 2006: 383) (6.8b) μηνά του Γιανν-ακι-ού <Γιανν-άκι <Γιάννης John /miˈna tu ɣianakiˈu/ say:3sg the:gen.sg.m/n little.john:gen.sg.n he says to Johnny northern Syros, Cyclades (Pio 1879: 216) 189 Note that in Italiot the use of the genitive plural of the definite article with indeclinable nominal possessors is found (cf. example [2.22b] and Chapter 8). 190 <κοπελλουθκιού with simplification of the consonant cluster <*κοπελλουδιού. 191 <*κοπελλ-ούδιν with deletion of intervocalic fricatives commonly found in Cyprus and the Dodecanese. 169

190 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.8c) δώννω των κοπελλοδγκιών 192 <κοπελλ-ούδι <κοπέλλα young girl /ˈðonno ton kopelloðiˈon/ give:1sg the:gen.pl little.girl:gen.pl.n I give to the little young girls Kos, Dodecanese (Dieterich 1908: 297) (6.8d) παιδ-ακ-ιούνε [GEN.PL] <παιδ-άκι <παιδί child of the little children Ténaro, Mani, Peloponnese (Koutsilieris 1962: 332) (6.8e) σκυλλ-ακ-ακι-ού <σκυλλ-ακ-άκι 193 <σκυλλ-άκι <σκυλλί dog of the little dog Cythera, south-western Aegean (Kontosópoulos 1981: 132) (6.8f) το σκοινί μια-νού καμπαν-ελι-ού <καμπαν-έλι <καμπάνα bell the rope of a small bell Cephallenia, Heptanese (Skiadaresis 1959: 128) (6.8g) του χωρι-ουλ-ακι-ού <χωρι-ουλ-άκι <χωριό village of the small village Mýkonos, Cyclades (Veroni-Kammí 1992: 97) (6.8h) παι-ακι-ών <*παιδ-άκι <παιδί child of the little children Chalki, Dodecanese (Tsopanakis 1949: 52) (6.8i) μαντηλ-ακι-ού <μαντηλ-άκιν <μαντήλι kerchief of the little kerchief Livisi, south-western Asia Minor (Andriotis 1961: 62) It should be noted that both phenomena might appear in the varieties of a dialect, namely the maintenance or the defectivity of the genitives of diminutives. For instance, Pángalos (1955: 354) mentions that ι-neuter diminutives are defective and the genitives of their noun-bases are normally employed, e.g. ψωμ-άκι little bread (<ψωμί)/ gen.sg ψωμι-ού, but in the following example from Chaniá Prefecture there is a clear use of a diminutive genitive: 192 The cluster [ðɉ] is the result of the dissimilation of the original [ðʝ]. The form is not *κοπελλουδγκιών possibly due to a typographical error. 193 Note the double diminutive suffixes on that noun. 170

191 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.9) στη βάφτιση του εγγον-ακι-ού μου <εγγον-άκι <εγγόνι grandchild at the baptism of my little grandchild Paleóchora, Chaniá, Crete (ILNE 1290: 268) What is more, the genitive singular κατ-ουδι-ού (<κατ-ούδι <κάτα cat ) from Saranda Ekklisiés (Kırklareli) in Eastern Thrace (Psaltis 1905: 63), even though in most of the varieties in the area genitives of diminutives are not often mentioned in grammatical descriptions. The maintenance of genitive forms is also attested with compound ι-neuters in various dialects: (6.10a) του Μονο-δεντρι-ού of Monodendri (toponym) Mani (Kassis 1979) (6.10b) του σταυρο-δρομι-ού of the crossroad folksong (Passow 1860: 355) <Μονο-δέντρι <μονο- single + δέντρο tree <σταυρο-δρόμι <σταυρός cross + δρόμος road Previous analyses Even though the defectivity of the genitive of ι-neuters has not received a lot of attention from previous researchers, there are three prominent approaches on the matter. Triantafyllidis (1926: 281-3) focuses on the semantics of diminutives and claims that the nature of diminution does not create a great need for the use of diminutive forms as possessors. As correct as this point is, it does not provide an explanation for the fact that diminutives of other inflection classes have fully productive genitive forms (mainly in the singular), e.g.: 171

192 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Table 6.4: Diminutive genitives of all genders in Modern Greek -ούλης (Μ) -ούλα -ίτσα (F) -ούλικο (Ν) nom.sg γατ-ούλη-ς γατ-ούλα αγελαδ-ίτσα μικρ-ούλικ-ο gen.sg γατ-ούλη γατ-ούλα-ς αγελαδ-ίτσα-ς μικρ-ούλικ-ου gen.pl γατ-ούληδ-ων μικρ-ούλικ-ων little male cat little female cat little cow littlesie Hatzidakis (1928) emphasizes the overall paradigmatic loss of the genitive case. As he notes, after a certain point in the history of Greek, the genitive plural was only formed for nouns of specific semantic categories 195 (e.g. animates) and morphological paradigms (e.g. masculine nouns in -ος). As the diminutives in -άκι are late developments and do not belong to these semantic categories and inflectional classes, they cannot form the genitive at all. Although this analysis accurately points out that the paradigmatic loss of the genitive is not confined to ι-neuters, it has two main disadvantages: i) it mainly emphasizes the loss of the genitive plural and does not address the fact that defective ι-neuters lack a genitive form in both numbers and ii) it exaggerates the degree of the paradigmatic loss of the genitive in dialectal and CMG as it lists nouns with fully productive genitives as defective, e.g. ποτάμι river / gen.sg ποταμι-ού/ gen.pl ποταμι-ών. According to Karrá s (2006) approach, the matter is viewed under morphological theory, as she argues that there is a conflict between the stress properties of derivational suffixes and the genitive suffixes -ου and -ων. This happens because the former are registered in the lexicon with their stress properties (e.g. -άκι-) and the latter are introduced to the lexicon with the feature [+stress postposing]. This is a very interesting analysis, as it explains the matter from a synchronic point of view, but some matters require further scrutiny, such as the fact that other derivatives can form genitive forms with stress change quite normally, e.g. -ίτης ανατολ-ίτης easterner/ Anatolian (<ανατολή east )/ gen.pl ανατολ-ιτ-ών. 194 The paradigmatic gaps of feminine nouns will be discussed in the following section. 195 According to the author, even toponyms ending in -άκι can form the genitive due to their semantic content: Κολωνάκι/ Κολωνακι-ού. Today, speakers would prefer the archaistic Κολωνακί-ου which lacks synizesis instead of the demotic form due to the awkwardness of genitives ending in -ακιού. 172

193 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK The origins of the gaps According to the data presented thus far, it can be argued that the genitives of these defective ι- neuters were lost at some point of MedG or EMG, while the defective derivatives, compounds and loanwords ending in -ι that were introduced to the lexicon after this point never acquired genitive forms. As noted by the analyses presented earlier, the avoidance of stress shift seems to be the main driving force behind the development of these paradigmatic gaps, given the fact that all defective ι-neuters require the stress shift PEN ULT (cf ). Another element that proves that stress shift is important for these paradigmatic gaps can be seen by neuter diminutive suffixes in dialectal MG that are not defective, as those suffixes do not require stress shift to form their genitives: (6.11a) τσομπαν-όπλο [τσομπάνης shepherd + -όπλο (<-όπουλο <πουλί bird )] το τραγούδ του τσομπανόπλου the young shepherd s song [to traˈɣuð tu tsobaˈnopl-u] the:n/a.sg.n song:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.n little.shepherd-gen.sg.n Heraclia, Eastern Thrace (Stamouli-Sarantí 1941: 162) (6.11b) κ h ουτζ-όκκo [κ h ούτζο(?) dog + -όκκο (<*-όφκο <*-όπλο 196 <-όπουλο) του κ h ουτζόκκου το ĵουφάλι the little dog s head [tu k h uˈdzokk-u to dʒuˈfali] the:gen.sg.n little.dog-gen.sg.n the:n/a.sg.n head:n/a.sg.n Phárasa, Central Asia Minor (Dawkins 1955: 276) Thus, what needs to be examined at this point is why ι-neuter derivatives failed to adjust to the PEN ULT stress pattern like the majority of penult-stressed neuters of the ι-paradigm. More specifically, if speakers avoided the grammaticalization of the genitives of these nouns because of their marked stress position, why does this only apply to this subset of ι-neuters and not the whole paradigm? As regards diminutives, it can be proposed that lexemes formed or introduced after a certain point in the diachrony of the language never had genitive forms. Karlsson (2000) notes that the creation of a form is blocked if an already available lexeme has the same meaning or function; 196 For the shift of the consonant cluster -πλ- to -κκ-, cf. Symeonidis (1967). 173

194 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY according to this researcher, *stealer was never formed from the verb steal and the derivational suffix -er (cf. receive - receiver) because it was blocked by the already available noun thief that covered the need to express that meaning. While this particular example does not apply to the defectivity of ι-neuters due to the key differences between derivational and inflectional morphology, it can be argued that in CMG the genitive of the diminutive παιδ-άκι little child can be replaced through suppletion by the genitive παιδι-ού of the noun παιδί child, therefore the *παιδ-ακι-ού can be avoided and thus remain blocked. Quite clearly, the motivation for this blocking is not the mere availability of the genitives of the base nouns of ι-neuter, but the avoidance of a structurally complex stress pattern, as mentioned earlier. After this pattern was applied to newly formed ι-neuter diminutives, derivational suffixes ending in -ι were listed as having defective genitive forms and were considered to constitute a separate paradigm from most ι-neuters. In contrast, in dialects where these diminutives are not defective, newly formed lexemes were adjusted to the early diminutive genitives and the paradigm of ι-neuters did not split; as many of these dialects belong to the southern group (e.g. Dodecanese, Cypriot etc.) where the genitive has maintained a few of its ancient functions and is frequently used to mark the indirect object, it is understandable why they have genitive forms. This differentiation can be represented in the following way: (6.12) Stage 0 (MedG): παιδί(ν)/ παιδί-ου - παιδ-άκι(ν)/ παιδ-ακί-ου Stage I (dialects without gaps) παιδί(ν)/ παιδι-ού - παιδ-άκι(ν)/ παιδ-ακι-ού Stage II (dialects with gaps): παιδί/ παιδι-ού - παιδ-άκι/ - (BLOCKING <παιδι-ού) Since the genitives of compound and simplex defective ι-neuters were not blocked because of the availability of genitives of synonymous forms, it can be proposed that the split of the paradigm of ι-neuters into a majority of nouns with productive genitives versus the defective diminutives allowed for the classification of more nouns into this new subset. Starting with compound nouns, even though their low possessive functionality cannot justify the defectivity of all of them (cf. the human noun μοναχο-παίδι only child ), the importance of this factor is reflected in the fact that a few nouns from this subset of the ι-paradigm are not frequently used and their usage is quite fixed in their environments of appearance; for instance, the compound 174

195 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK κατα-τόπι-α particular places / gen.pl *κατα-τοπι-ών (κατά down + τόπος place ) is only rarely used in syntactic environments that do not involve the verbs ξέρω know / μαθαίνω learn, e.g. ξέρει τα κατατόπια του σπιτιού s/he knows the places of the house in detail, which makes its possessive use nearly impossible and redundant in the language. Furthermore, the Karrá s proposal (2006) on the correlation between the shift of stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix and the defectivity of these nouns can be applied for compound ι-neuters as well, which means that speakers avoided the shift of stress from the second element to the inflectional suffix. Turning to the small set of simplex ι-neuters that are listed as defective in Triantafyllidis (1998), it can be observed that apart from their extremely low possessive functionality and limited morphological status as pluralia tantum (cf. παρακάλια beggings ), their defectivity may be related to the fact that they are mostly recent loanwords in their vast majority, e.g. αντέτι habit (<Turkish adet, originally Arabic), that were not used frequently or long enough in the language to acquire genitive forms. In contrast, loans of higher frequency were classified as productive, e.g. γκάζι/ γκαζι-ού/ γκαζι-ών gas. To sum up, it is proposed here that the genitives of the base nouns of diminutives were employed by speakers instead of these forms due to their increased structural complexity, as they did not simply require stress shift from the stem of the lexeme to the genitive suffix, like the majority of monomorphemic ι-neuters, but from the derivational to the inflectional stem. While the development of a subparadigm of defective ι-neuters resulted in the classification of compound and a few simplex ι-neuters as defective as well, what remains to be explained is the ability of genitive forms of other derivative nouns to move the stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix. Quite clearly, the crucial difference between ι-neuter diminutives and nouns like ανατολ-ίτη-ς Anatolian / Αρβαν-ίτη-ς Arvanite lies in the fact that for the genitive plurals ανατολ-ιτ-ών/ Αρβαν-ιτ-ών of the latter, the blocking effect cannot take place due to the unavailability of suppletive forms The starting point of the defectivity: the role of synizesis Regarding the process of this development, the defectivity of these nouns cannot be placed before LMedG, as diminutive genitives are found in MedG texts and MG dialects. The phenomenon of synizesis cannot assist the identification of the starting point of the defectivity, 175

196 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY but it can corroborate the aforementioned argument that the avoidance of moving the stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix was the primary motivation for the development of the gaps, as dialects where the vowel sequences /ˈiu/, /ˈio/ are not always affected by synizesis often exhibit maintenance of diminutive genitives, as the stress moves from the antepenult to the penultimate, but remains on the derivational suffix. More precisely, in the dialect of Kymi (Central Euboea) the diminutive suffixes -άγι (<*-άι <*-άδι), -ίγι (<*-ίι <*-ίδι), -ούγι (<*-ούι <*-ούδι) and -άτσι (<*-άκι) have fully productive genitives (Karatzás 1954: 42), e.g. κοσσυφ-άγι (<κοσσύφι blackbird )/ gen.sg κοσσυφ-αγί-ου/ gen.pl κοσσυφ-αγί-ων, αφφαλ-ούγι (<αφφαλός belly button )/ gen.sg αφφαλ-ουγί-ου/ gen.pl αφφαλ-ουγί-ων; this is also confirmed by Triantafyllidis (1963: 157) who mentions the genitive σκαμν-ατʃί-ου (<σκαμν-άτʃι <σκαμνί campstool ) for the village Avlonari near Kymi. Maniot varieties where synizesis is more recent than most other MG dialects also maintain diminutive genitives as can be seen in example (20); also cf. Πυργ-ακι-ούνε of Pyrgakia (toponym) (<Πυργ-άκια <Πύργος tower ; Kassis 1981: 253). Data from Italiot provide indirect evidence as well, since diminutive ι-neuters do have genitive forms, albeit undeclined, which should not surprise because identically realized genitives are found all over the nominal inflection (cf. example [2.20a] and Chapter 8): tu [the:gen.sg.n] muˈnn-atʃi-ø [N/A.sg.n] (<*munn-aˈtʃi-u, n/a.sg muˈnn-atʃi <muˈnni vagina ; Rohlfs 1971: 153). Therefore, it is possible that diminutive genitives were in use until the establishment of the phenomenon of synizesis in most LMedG varieties (c. 13 th -14 th c.), something that is also confirmed by dialectal data in which all come from earlier stages of the language. After this period they did not undergo synizesis, as speakers preferred to avoid their use because of their marked stress position, in favor of morphologically unmarked alternatives (suppletion): Table 6.5: The proposed process of the development -SYNIZESIS (before 13 th c.) +SYNIZESIS (after 13 th c.) n./a.sg παιδί-(ν) παιδ-άκι-(ν) παιδί-ø παιδ-άκι-ø gen.sg παιδί-ου παιδ-ακί-ου παιδι-ού - n./a.pl παιδί-α παιδ-άκι-α παιδι-ά παιδ-άκι-α gen.pl παιδί-ων παιδ-ακί-ων παιδι-ών - 176

197 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK In contrast, as shown in 6.1.2, in a few southern and other dialects that developed synizesis, speakers applied this novel phonological change and grammaticalized diminutive genitives in a few southern and other dialects. Neuter diminutives in Pontic seem to offer a counter-example against the proposal that dialects without the lack of synizesis do not exhibit gaps of diminutive genitives. According to Koutita-Kaimaki s (1984: 121-2) study on Pontic diminutives, the suffixes -ίδι(ν), -oύδι(ν) have productive genitives, while -όπον 197, -άκι(ν) and -ίτσι(ν) are defective and have undergone blocking due to the use of the genitives of base nouns, e.g. αρν-όπον/ gen.sg *? αρν-ί(ου)/ gen.pl *? αρν-ίων (<αρνίν sheep ). Beside the obvious effect of blocking, it was mentioned in that the suffixes genitives of ι-neuters, e.g. πόδιν/ gen.sg ποδί-ου, were reanalyzed (ποδ-ίου) and were, therefore, extended to most paradigms of Pontic. Consequently, even without the effect of synizesis, the genitives of these diminutives would still require the shift of stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix, e.g. παιδ-όπ-ον gen.sg παιδ-οπ-ί(ου)/ gen.pl παιδ-οπ-ίων. Furthermore, it is possible that morphological competition between three genitive singular suffixes rendered the genitive forms of diminutives ending in -όπον unpredictable and reinforced their avoidance and the preference for suppletion; these genitive suffixes are the following: i) -ου: the original suffix of ο-neuters which leads Koutita-Kaimaki (1984: 122) to hypothesize that *παιδ-όπου would be the ungrammatical form of παιδ-όπον little child (<παιδίν). ii) -ί(ου): as mentioned in , the suffixes -ίου/ -ίων were extended to o-neuters in a few dialects and Pontic, e.g. αρχοντόπουλλον 198 offspring of a noble / gen.sg αρχοντοπουλλ-ί(ου), iii) -ος: cf. βασιλόπουλλον/ gen.sg βασιλόπουλλον-ος 199 (Lianidis 1962: 190). To sum up, the dialectal variation in the evolution of ι-neuter diminutives involves four paths: i) maintenance of the genitive in dialects without synizesis: παιδ-άγι little child / gen.sg παιδ-αγί-ου/ gen.pl παιδ-αγί-ων (Kymi); ii) maintenance of the genitive in (mostly) South- Eastern 200 Greek varieties with synizesis: παιδ-άκι/ gen.sg παιδ-ακι-ού/ gen.pl παιδ-ακι-ών; iii) use of undeclined genitive singulars and defectivity in the plural (only sporadically found), e.g. 197 <-*όπλον <-όπουλλον, which is normally used for offsprings or young individuals, e.g. βασιλ-όπουλλον king s son (<βασιλέας). 198 Oeconomides (1958: 195) clarifies that nouns that end in -όπουλλον (<πουλλίν bird ) are not diminutives, but compound nouns that denote a separate entity, namely the offspring of humans or animals, and thus are not defective. 199 Cf. λύκον/ gen.sg λύκον-ος in the dialect and the extension of the 3 rd declension -oς to o-masculines. 200 Namely the Aegean islands, parts of Mani in south-eastern Peloponnese and Cyprus. 177

198 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY n/a.sg το παιδ-άκι/ gen.sg του παιδ-άκι/ gen.pl *παιδ-ακι-ών; and iv) defectivity of the genitive in either number (found in most varieties), e.g. παιδ-άκι/ gen.sg *παιδ-ακι-ού/ gen.pl *παιδ-ακιών (CMG). 6.2 Defective feminines: genitive plural gaps In CMG and the majority of MG dialects, parisyllabic α-/η-feminines are quite frequently defective in the genitive plural 201, as shown earlier in (6.1b). The paradigm of parisyllabic feminines in MG stems from the merger between the ancient 1 st and 3 rd declensions, which has crucial consequences on the position of stress in the genitive plural forms (cf ): μητέρα mother / gen.pl μητέρ-ων (<3 rd declension polysyllabics), γλώσσα tongue / gen.pl γλωσσ-ών (<1 st declension). According to the two major dictionaries of CMG (Babiniotis 1998, Triantafyllidis 1998), the majority of parisyllabic feminines have productive genitive plurals. Given the fact that defective feminines are almost always stressed on the antepenult or the penult 202, a statistical comparison based on the Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek (Triantafyllidis 1998) shows that 24% (1275) of all barytone nouns have genitive plural gaps. However, the percentage of defective feminines is in reality a lot higher if it is kept in mind that a great number of lexemes listed in this inflection class were introduced to the modern language from Katharévousa, which guaranteed the productivity of their genitive plural. As this study aims to focus on the changes that took place in the spoken language as it evolved since antiquity, it is necessary to exclude nouns of archaistic origin, e.g.: ταυτότητα identity / gen.pl ταυτοτήτων <AG ταυτότης/ gen.pl 201 In contrast, the paradigm of imparisyllabic feminines which was developed during EMedG does not exhibit defectivity, e.g. γιαγιά grandmother / nom.pl γιαγιάδες/ gen.pl γιαγιάδων, αλεπού fox"/ nom.pl αλεπούδες/ gen.pl αλεπούδων etc. Dialectal variation needs to be taken into consideration though, as will be shown. 202 The Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek (1998) of the Triantafyllidis Institute lists eight ultima-stressed η- feminines as defective: βοή buzzing noise, ειδή human form, ζωγραφική painting/ drawing, οδοντιατρική dentistry, προσμονή expectation, προσοχή attention, υπακοή obedience, φαρμακευτική pharmaceutics. Quite obviously, these nouns have an abstract meaning and are hardly ever used in the plural, but even if they were, they could form genitive plurals without a problem, e.g. το άκουσμα των βοών the hearing of the buzzing noises. Babiniotis (1998) also lists a very small number of ultima-stressed nouns as defective, e.g. βρομιά dirt, μπογιά paint, ξηρά land (note possible blocking from gen.pl ξηρών of the adjective ξηρ-ός/ -η/ -ό dry ), ροκιά sound of rock music. 178

199 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK ταυτοτήτων or παθογένεια pathogeny / gen.pl παθογενειών <French pathogénie (Neo-Grec <AG πάθος passion + -γένεια <γένος kin ). Strategies of avoidance of these paradigmatic gaps can include prepositional phrases (mainly with από from and less commonly, για for / σε at/ in/ to depending on the type of possessive relation), suppletion through synonyms or nouns of similar meaning or even the genitive singular: (6.13a) τα νύχια από τις κότες /ta ˈnixia apo tis ˈkotes/ the:n/a.pl.n nail:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.f hen:n/a.pl.f the claws of the hens [κότα/ gen.pl *των κοτών] (6.13b) πού είναι το φαγητό των γατιών; /pu ˈine to faɣiˈto ton ɣatiˈon/ where be:3 the:n/a.sg.n nail:n/a.sg.n the:gen.pl cat:gen.pl.n Where is the cats food? [γάτα/ instead of *γατών; use of the genitive plural of the neuter synonym γατί] (6.13c) το κυνήγι της φώκιας /to kiniˈɣi tis ˈfokias/ the:n/a.sg.n hunting:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.f seal:gen.sg.f the hunting of the seal [φώκια/ gen.pl *των φωκιών] As this chapter aims to explain the loss of the genitive in certain paradigmatic environments, the following matters need to be examined for the understanding of the defectivity of a large number of feminine nouns: (6.14a) What differentiates defective from productive feminines? To be more precise, why did some feminine nouns maintain their genitive plurals, while others lost (or never acquired) them? (6.14b) Is there dialectal variation in this phenomenon? 179

200 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.14c) As almost all defective feminines are barytone, what is the role of stress in this matter, especially due to its great importance for the loss of the genitive of defective ι-neuters, as shown earlier? Productive and defective feminine nouns in Common Modern Greek As mentioned in Chapter 2, barytone feminine nouns of CMG with productive genitive plurals inherited the stress patterns of their ancient counterparts: Table 6.6: Archaic stress patterns of α-feminines in Common Modern Greek Ancient Greek 1 st declension Ancient Greek 3 rd declension nom.sg μέλισσ-α ἡμέρ-α νύξ εἰκών πέρδιξ nom.pl μέλισσ-αι ἡμέρ-αι νύκτ-ες εἰκόν-ες πέρδικ-ες gen.pl μελισσ-ῶν ἡμερ-ῶν νυκτ-ῶν εἰκόν-ων περδίκ-ων Modern Greek α-feminines nom.sg μέλισσα (η)μέρα νύχτα εικόνα πέρδικα nom.pl μέλισσ-ες (η)μέ-ρες νύχτ-ες εικό-νες πέρδικ-ες gen.pl μελισσ-ών bee (η)μερ-ών day νυχτ-ών night εικόν-ων image περδίκ-ων partridge STRESS ANT ULT PEN ULT PEN PEN ANT PEN As can be seen, these are two conflicting stress patterns in the genitive plural of penult-stressed nouns. i) movement of the stress from the antepenult or the penultimate to the ultimate syllable and ii) no stress shift. The first pattern applies to nouns that originate from the ancient first declension or monosyllabic stems of the third declension, while the latter applies to polysyllabic stems that come from the ancient third declension: (6.15a) Pattern Ia (PEN ULT): νίκη/ gen.pl νικ-ών victory (6.15b) Pattern Ib (PEN PEN): ελπίδα/ gen.pl ελπίδ-ων hope As antepenult-stressed nouns that derive from the ancient third declension and have not been introduced from Katharévousa are quite rare, the ANT PEN pattern is infrequent in MG. 180

201 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Triantafyllidis (1941: 229) also notes that antepenult-stressed compounds of later origin may allow the maintenance of the stress in the same position, similarly to antepenult-stressed o-masculines. However, these two patterns are quite minor and most productive antepenultstressed nouns follow the pattern of the ancient first declension: (6.16a) Pattern IIa (ANT ULT): θάλασσα/ gen.pl θαλασσ-ών sea (6.16b) [Pattern IIb (ANT PEN): πέρδικα/ gen.pl περδίκ-ων partridge ] (6.16c) [Pattern IIc (ANT ANT): πεπονόφλουδα/ gen.pl πεπονόφλουδ-ων melon peel ] As opposed to nouns with regularly inflected genitive plurals that can be stressed on any of the three final syllables, the vast majority of defective nouns are barytone. Ultima-stressed defective feminines that are stressed on the ultima can also be problematic, but to a much lesser extent, e.g. (nom.sg φακή)/ nom.pl φακές [faˈces] lentils / gen.pl?φακι-ών [faˈcon]. The origin of productive and defective nouns is perhaps the most interesting distinctive characteristic. More precisely, the majority of productive feminines have ancient origin, as only few productive nouns have later origin, cf. πόρτα/ gen.pl πορτ-ών door (<Latin porta) 203. Defective nouns are predominantly of medieval or modern origin and either constitute native formations (cf. the onomatopoeic πάπια/ gen.pl *παπι-ών duck ) or loanwords (cf. γάτα/ gen.pl *γατ-ών cat <Latin catta), even though the productivity of all nouns of ancient origin should not be taken as given, cf. μασχάλη/ gen.pl *μασχαλ-ών armpit. This differentiation in the origin of α-/η-feminines is a clear indication that ancient nouns tended to maintain their genitive plurals, while most nouns that were introduced to the language at a later point failed to acquire genitive plural forms. Hatzidakis (1928: 70) provides a great example of this from the Cretan dialect in which the noun όρνιθα hen (<ὄρνις/ gen.pl ὀρνίθων) has maintained its genitive form ορνίθων, while the innovative όρθα (<όρνιθα with syncope of the unstressed second syllable) is defective. This element is related to Sims (2006: 90) account on the factor of register on the alternation between genitives and prepositional phrases in CMG, as speakers would consider nouns of ancient origin to belong to a higher register than loanwords or native formations of the vernacular. 203 The influence from Katharévousa has reinforced the grammaticalization of the genitives of feminines that have been introduced to the language during the 19 th and the 20 th c., e.g. κάρτα/ καρτών card (<Italian carta), κάμερα/ καμερών camera (<English/ French etc.). 181

202 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY The element of origin is also reflected on derivational suffixes, as a great number of α-derivatives of medieval origin are defective, e.g.: (6.17a) -άρα (augmentative) <MedG -άριν + -α, e.g. ομαδάρα great team (<ομάδα team ) (6.17b) -ίτσα (diminutive): <MedG -ίτσιν + -α 204, e.g. αγελαδίτσα (<αγελάδα cow ) (6.17c) -ούλα (diminutive): <MedG -ούλιν + -α, e.g. φωνούλα (<φωνή voice ) (6.17d) -ούρα: <Latin -ura, e.g. σημαδούρα buoy (<σημάδι spot ) (6.17e) -πούλα (offspring): <MedG -πουλ(λ)ος + -α, e.g. βοσκοπούλα (<βοσκός shepherd ) In contrast, feminines that end in -άδα/ -ίδα/ -ούδα are largely productive with genitive plural forms, as they have inherited the PEN PEN pattern of ancient penult-stressed nouns from the third declension: (6.18a) -άδα: βαρκάδα/ gen.pl βαρκάδων boating (<βάρκα boat ) cf. εβδομάδα/ εβδομάδων [<AG ἑβδομάς/ ἑβδομάδων week ] (6.18b) -ίδα: κουκκίδα/ gen.pl κουκκίδων dot (<κόκκος grain ) cf. ελπίδα/ ελπίδων [<AG ἐλπίς/ ἐλπίδων hope ] (6.18c) -ούδα: πεταλούδα/ gen.pl πεταλούδων butterfly (<πέταλο petal ) [<LHellG -ούδιν + -α, it follows the pattern of άδα-/ίδα-feminines] Again, the criterion of origin should not be overestimated, as suffixes that derive from the ancient first declension (PEN ULT pattern) can also be problematic, e.g. -ίσσα: γειτόνισσα/ gen.pl γειτονισσών (/?γειτόνισσων) neighbor, but μανάβισσα/ gen.pl?*μαναβισσών/?μανάβισσων greengrocer. Animacy seems to be another major element of differentiation between productive and defective feminines, since abstract nouns and inanimates are largely defective, e.g. τύχη/ *τυχών luck or τσουγκράνα/ gen.pl *τσουγκρανών rake. Nevertheless, the importance of this factor 204 Or Slavic -itsa. 182

203 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK is probably not as crucial, given the fact that productive and defective feminines can belong to any semantic category 205 : (6.19a) HUMANS: μάγισσα/ μαγισσών witch vs. κοπέλα/ *κοπελών young woman (6.19b) ANIMATES (non-humans): μέλισσα/ μελισσών bee vs. κότα/ *κοτών hen (6.19c) INANIMATES: τρίχα/ τριχών hair vs. κόλλα/ *κολλών glue (6.19d) ABSTRACT: μοίρα/ μοιρών fate vs. αλήθεια/ *αληθειών [aliˈθçon] truth Finally, even though Sims (2006: 141) has thoroughly demonstrated that paradigmatic gaps and regularly inflected genitive plurals are distinct categories, the two major dictionaries of CMG (Babiniotis 1998 and Triantafyllidis 1998) do not always agree on which feminine nouns have genitive plural gaps. Consequently, apart from most feminine nouns that can be described as definitely productive or defective, the defectivity of some nouns may vary from speaker to speaker (cf. Bauer 2001: 16; Sims 2006: 137): (6.20) PRODUCTIVE? DEFECTIVE γυναίκα/ γυναικών woman σχάρα/?σχαρών grind φώκια/ *φωκιών seal Dialectal variation Even though the data presented earlier on CMG reflect the situation in most of the MG-speaking world, there are a few interesting variation phenomena. As shown in , the archaic stress patterns are not always maintained in MG dialects. More precisely, there are two opposing tendencies: i) extending the pattern of columnar stress (no shift) and ii) extending shift of the stress to the ultima. The most extreme case of the former tendency can be found in Cypriot, where nouns of ancient and later origin have adjusted to the pattern of maintaining stress in its original position 206 (cf. Newton 1972, Symeonidis 2006): κόρη/ gen.pl κόρων daughter, κοπέλλα/ gen.pl κοπέλλων young woman, κοτζιάκαρη/ gen.pl κοτζιάκαρων old woman. It is 205 It should be noted that a large number of abstract and mass nouns have plural forms in Greek, in contrast to English and other languages. 206 Survivals of archaic stress patterns can also be found, e.g. νύχτα/ νυχτών night, όρνιθα/ gen.pl όρνιθων/ ορνίθων (Symeonidis 2006: 201), γεναίκα/ γεναικών woman (Menardos 1896: 440). 183

204 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY no surprise that this pattern is so greatly extended, as it is already established in MedCyp texts such as the Chronicle of Machairas (15 th c.): (6.21a) πραματείων <πραματεία ware [exp. πραματειών] 176, l. 13 (6.21b) κόρων <κόρη daughter [exp. κορών] 249, l. 10 (6.21c) καύχων <καύχα mistress [exp. καυχών] 257, l. 5 As a result of the extension of this pattern to a very large number of nouns, the number of paradigmatic gaps for feminines is quite limited in Cypriot. What is more, even though Symeonidis (2006: 202) mentions a gap for the noun σήκωση carnival season, Menardos (1896: 440) notes the genitive σήκωσων, which is quite remarkable given the fact that nouns that stem from the ancient paradigm of ις-feminines (cf. δύναμις/ ΜG δύναμη power ) are defective almost everywhere in the MG-speaking world, e.g. θύμηση memory / nom.pl θύμησες/ gen.pl *θύμησων/ *θυμησών. The extension of columnar stress is less frequently attested in other dialects and is found with a few nouns of ancient or later origin in dialects of the Aegean: (6.22a) κόρη/ gen.pl κόρουν/ κορούν daughter [<*κορών] Lesbos (Kretschmer 1905: 235-6) (6.22b) χώρα/ gen.pl χώρουν land [<*χωρών] Lesbos (Anagnostou 1996: 15) (6.22c) κοπέλλα/ gen.pl κοπέλλωνε young woman [medieval loanword, defective in CMG] Cythera, south-western Aegean (Kontosópoulos 1981: 132) (6.22d) κοπέλλα/ gen.pl κοπέλλω young woman Crete (Spandonidi 1935: 5) (6.22e) προβατίνα/ gen.pl προβατίνων ewe [derivative, <πρόβατο sheep + -ίνα] Πυργούσαινα/ γεν.πλ Πυργούσαινων woman from Pyrgí (village in Chios) Chios, Eastern Aegean (Vios 1920: 34) (6.22f) nom.pl Χαλκάραινες/ gen.pl Χαλκάραινω (toponym) [<surname Χάλκαρης + -αινα] Syros, Cyclades (Katsouleas 1993: 74) 184

205 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK For some nouns, the avoidance of stress shift is realized through analogy to the imparisyllabic feminine paradigm, e.g. χήρα/ nom.pl χήρες/ gen.pl χηράδω (Chios; Pernot 1946: 102). In contrast, the maintenance of the ANT/PEN ULT stress shift pattern and its extension to feminines of later origin is more commonly found in dialects of most regions: (6.23a) ξανθομάλλα/ gen.pl ξανθομαλλών fair-haired [later formation, defective in CMG] Ithaca, Heptanese (Mousouris 1950: 99) (6.23b) κοπέλλα/ gen.pl κοπελλών young woman δασκάλισσα/ gen.pl δασκαλισσών teacher [later formation] μέλισσα/ gen.pl μελισσών bee [<AG μέλισσα/ μελισσῶν] Chios (Vios 1920: 34) (6.23c) κατσίκα/ gen.pl κατσικών goat [<Albanian kats, defective in CMG] Chios (Pernot 1946: 101) (6.23d) προβατίνα/ gen.pl προβατινώ ewe κασσίκα/ gen.pl κασσικώ goat Kasos, Dodecanese (Sofós 1987: 176) (6.23e) κρις (/ˈkrisi/)/ gen.pl κρισών(ι) decision [<AG κρίσις/ κρίσεων] Phokís, Central Greece (Papadópoulos 1927: 66) (6.23f) αβδέλλα/ gen.pl αβδελλώ leech [<AG βδέλλα/ βδελλῶν] Kea, Cyclades (Kolia 1933: 273) (6.23g) κοπέλα/ gen.pl κοπελώνε young woman μέλιʃα/ gen.pl μελιʃώνε bee Delvino, Epirus (Spyrou 2008: 148) Interestingly, stress shift is occasionally extended to feminines that in most dialects have the columnar stress pattern. As can be seen in example (6.24a), the extension involves an imparisyllabic feminine noun which in almost every dialect maintains the stress of the nominative plural, while example (6.24b) shows extension of stress shift to άδα-/ίδα-feminines which maintain the stress in most dialects: 185

206 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.24a) κυρά/ nom.pl κυράδες/ gen.pl κυραδούνε lady [CMG κυράδες/ κυράδων] Ténaro, Mani, Peloponnese (Koutsilieris 1962: 329) (6.24b) σταφίδα/ gen.pl σταφιδώ raisin [CMG σταφίδα/ σταφίδων] φοράδα/ gen.pl φοραδώ mare [CMG φοράδα/ φοράδων] Apérathos, Naxos, Cyclades (Ikonomidis 1952: 233) Apart from stress patterns, differentiation from CMG occurs in the degree of defectivity. As shown in the above examples, the genitive plurals of nouns that are defective in CMG have been grammaticalized in a few dialects, as best shown in Cypriot. The fact that most of these dialects belong to the southern dialect group where the genitive marks indirect objects and often maintains archaic functions fits with the maintenance of feminine genitive plurals, as can be shown in the examples below: (6.25a) PARTITIVE OBJECT (<ANCIENT GREEK FUNCTION) αν ήκουε ο Χριστός των κουρουνώ(ν) 207 /an ˈikue o xriˈstos ton kuruˈn-o(n)/ if hear:3sg.pst the:nom.sg.m Christ:NOM.sg.m the:gen.pl crow-gen.pl.f if Christ listened to the crows Santorini, Cyclades (Petalás 1876: 91) (6.25b) INDIRECT OBJECT λέει τουν κοπελούνε /ˈlei tun kopeˈl-une/ say:3sg the:gen.pl young.woman-gen.pl.f he says to the girls Mani, Peloponnese (Kassis 1983: 45) In spite of these findings, the frequent defectivity of parisyllabic feminines is explicitly mentioned in a few grammatical descriptions of MG dialects, cf. in Rhodes (Dodecanese; Papachristodoulou 1958: 28-9), Kímolos (Cyclades; Voyatzidis 1925: 123), Τénaro, Mani 207 Triantafyllidis (1998) lists κουρούνα (<AG κορώνη) as productive in CMG (gen.pl κουρουνών), but Babiniotis (1998) considers it defective. 186

207 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (southern Peloponnese; Koutsilieris 1962: 329). Thus, there are often cases where nouns that have maintained genitive plural forms in CMG have become defective in dialects, e.g. Rhodes γλώσσα tongue/ language / gen.pl *γλωσσώ, θάλασσα sea / gen.pl *θαλασσώ vs. CMG γλωσσών/ θαλασσών respectively. A general tendency that can be attempted here is the frequent defectivity of abstract nouns; in fact, even though ultima-stressed nouns are in most cases productive in CMG, abstract nouns tend to be defective dialectally, e.g.: (6.26a) τιμή honor / nom.pl τιμές/ gen.pl *τιμών [# CMG τιμών] Lesbos (Anagnostou 1996: 15) (6.26b) χαρά joy / nom.pl χαρές/ gen.pl *χαρών [# CMG χαρών] Ayía Varvara, Heraklion, Crete (Anagnostópoulos 1926: 167) (6.26c) τιμή honor / nom.pl τιμάς/ gen.pl *τιμίων 208 Pontus (Papadópoulos 1955: 42) Another interesting matter is that even imparisyllabic nouns can be defective in dialects that generally maintain feminine genitive plurals; despite the high productivity of the imparisyllabic paradigm almost everywhere in MG, the following examples show otherwise, even though they come from Aegean dialects where the genitive is largely maintained distributionally and inflectionally: (6.27a) ψωμού bread-maker / nom.pl ψωμούδες/ gen.pl?ψωμούδων Chios, Eastern Aegean (Pernot 1946: 112) (6.27b) καωματού matchmaker / nom.pl καωματούδες/ gen.pl *καωματούδων Kea, Cyclades (Kolia 1933: 273) As regards strategies of avoidance of genitive gaps, the preposition από is employed as a last resort strategy in dialectal MG, as in CMG: 208 Note that this noun is defective even though Pontic has extended the suffix -ίων to all genitive plural forms, thus rendering the case extremely predictable morphologically. 187

208 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.28) τ ονόματ από τ ς βασιλοπούλες [<βασιλοπούλα] /ta oˈnomata apo tis vasiloˈpules/ the:n/a.pl.n name:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.f princess:n/a.pl.f the names of the princesses Skyros, Western Aegean (Perdika 1940: 213) Less commonly, syncretic structures can be found even in dialects where accusative-genitive syncretism is not normally found 209 : (6.29) τα τσέρκια τσι φούστες τους [<φούστα] /ta ˈtserkia tsi ˈfustes tus/ the:n/a.pl.n rim:n/a.pl.n the:acc.pl.f skirt:n/a.pl.f 3pl:GEN.wk the hems of their skirts Ithaca, Heptanese (Mousouris 1950: 45) The following structure is quite characteristic of the avoidance of genitive plurals of feminines with dubious productivity, given the fact that the regularly inflected genitive plural of the imparisyllabic masculine noun παπάς is used on the preceding verse as an indirect object, while the preposition σε is used for κοπέλλα 210 : 209 Note the following verse from the popular song Κέρκυρα, Κέρκυρα Corfu, Corfu (1972): στην πλατεία τσι [ACC.PL.F] Καμάρες [N/A.PL.F] at the square of Kamares (<nom.pl Καμάρες toponym). 210 As these structures come from a metric poem, it is possible that the use of the preposition occurred to avoid the ultima-stressed genitive *κοπελλών. 188

209 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.30) πού λαμπάδες και κεριά να ίννω των παπάδων /pu laˈbaðes ke keriˈa na ˈðinno ton paˈpaðon where candle:n/a.pl and wax:n/a.pl prt give:1sg the:gen.pl priest:gen.pl.m και πού καστανοκάρυδα να ίννω στις κοπέλλες (*των κοπέλλων) /ke pu kastano.ˈkariða na ˈðinn-o s.tis koˈpelles/ and where chestnut.walnut:n/a.pl prt give:1sg in.the:acc.pl.f girl:n/a.pl.f and where shall I give candle and wax to the priests, and where shall I give chestnuts and walnuts to the girls Icaria (Eastern Aegean; Poulianós 1964: 79) Problematic stress position As shown in , it is important to examine the role of stress movement for various reasons. Like defective ι-neuters, almost all defective feminines are barytone, which means that their genitive plurals would require stress shift. Furthermore, Hatzidakis (1928) in his account on the defectivity of ι-neuters has linked the factor of stress shift to the overall retreat of the genitive in MG. Turning to a more recent study, Sims (2006) has dealt with the defectivity of feminine nouns in CMG mainly from a synchronic point of view. According to her analysis, synchronic and diachronic factors need to be distinguished. More precisely, speakers were not able to predict which stress pattern should be used in earlier periods of the language, given the fact that for penult-stressed α-feminines there were two stress patterns available (PEN ULT # PEN PEN), as was also the case for antepenult-stressed α-feminines (ANT PEN # ANT ULT); the low predictability of stress patterns led speakers to avoid the use of the genitive plurals of a few feminine nouns. This element is not as important synchronically, as the gaps are actually lexically-specified defectiveness disguised as morphological competition (Sims 2006: 145). This approach seems to be supported by the dialectal data presented earlier, since the genitive plural of κοπέλα young woman/ girl - perhaps the most characteristic defective feminine noun in CMG due to its medieval origin, frequency and high position in the animacy hierarchy - is treated in three different ways in MG varieties, the first and the third of which are the most common: 189

210 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.31a) MG I: κοπέλα/ κοπελών (e.g. Epirus) like γυναίκα/ γυναικών 211 woman (6.31b) MG II: κοπέλα/ κοπέλων (e.g. Cythera) like θυγατέρα/ θυγατέρων 212 daughter (6.31c) MG III: κοπέλα/ GAP (e.g. [possibly] Icaria or CMG) Therefore, the competition between different stress patterns needs to be corroborated through the examination of data from previous periods of the language Conflicting stress patterns in the diachrony of parisyllabic feminines The presence of four different stress patterns in a single paradigm created a problematic situation in the diachrony of feminine nouns. What is more, feminine nouns of ancient origin are attested in HellG and EMedG texts 213 with stress patterns that belong to other paradigms, which means that the situation was already problematic even before the merger between the ancient first and the third declension: ANT PEN <ANT ULΤ (6.32) θυέλλων <θύελλα hurricane [exp. θυελλῶν] Aristonicus, De signis Odysseae 15, 293, 3 (1 st c. BC - 1 st c. AD) PEN PEN <PEN ULT (6.33a) μασχάλων <μασχάλη armpit [exp. μασχαλῶν] Galenus Med., De venae sectione adversus Erasistratum, 11, 169, 5 (2 nd c. AD) (6.33b) ἀγέλων <ἀγέλη herd [exp. ἀγελῶν] Ephraem Syrus, Interrogationes et responsiones, p. 108, l. 6 (4 th c. AD) (6.33c) παλάμων <παλάμη palm [exp. παλαμῶν] Gregorius Nazianzenus Theol., Liturgia sancti Gregorii [Sp.], 36, 729, 15 (4 th c. AD) (6.33d) ἐκκλησίων <ἐκκλησία assembly [exp. ἐκκλησιῶν] Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica, 4, 2, 19 (4 th -5 th c. AD) 211 <AG γυνή/ gen.sg γυναικός/ nom.pl γυναῖκες/ gen.pl γυναικῶν. 212 <AG θυγάτηρ/ gen.sg θυγατρός/ nom.pl θυγατέρες/ gen.pl θυγατέρων. 213 The placement of accent should always be treated with caution due to frequent errors of scribes. Thus, it is not entirely improbable that some of these examples do not actually reflect innovations or analogical changes in the language of that time. 190

211 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK PEN ULT <PEN PEN (6.34a) ὠδινῶν <ὠδῖνες pangs [exp. ὠδίνων] Theodorus Mopsuestias, Commentarius in xii prophetas minores, Mi 5, 3a, 6 (4 th -5 th c.) (6.34b) ἀκτινῶν <ἀκτίς ray, [exp. ἀκτίνων] Nilus Ancyranus, Commentarii in Canticum Canticorum, 15, 5 (5 th c. AD) (6.34c) Ἀγελαδῶν <ἀγελάς cow [exp. ἀγελάδων] Acta Monasterii Vatopedii, Chrysobullum falsum Andronici II Palaeologi, l. 62 (1292) Moreover, even though feminine nouns ending in -α of later origin (loanwords or native formations) generally followed the movement of the stress to the ultimate syllable, there is extensive attestation of the maintenance of the stress in the penultimate syllable for penultstressed nouns which diverged from the ancient pattern: (6.35a) τοξοβολίστρων <τοξοβολίστρα arbalest [<τοξοβόλος + -ίστρα, later formation] Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cer. aulae Byz. (lib ), 673, 1 (10 th c. AD) (6.35b) ἁρμαδούρων <ἁρμαδούρα armor <Latin armatura Acta Monasterii Lavrae, Epistula monachorum mon. s. Georgii in Scyro, l. 7 (1415 AD) The following example is quite interesting as it shows the coexistence of the two patterns for two disyllabic penult-stressed feminine nouns used in the same utterance: (6.36) βιγλῶν καὶ σκούλκων <βίγλα guard watch <Latin vigilia <σκούλκα group of warriors <Latin sculca Vita et Miracula Sancti Demetrii, Miracula sancti Demetrii, p. 231, l. 27 (p. 7 th c. AD) What is more, there are a few lexemes that are attested with both patterns in medieval texts: 191

212 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.37a) κανδήλων <κανδήλα candle <Latin candela Joannes Malalas, Chronographia, 267, 6 (5 th -6 th c. AD) # κανδηλῶν Joannes Moschus Scr. Eccl., Pratum spirituale, 105, 2964, 13 (6 th -7 th c. AD) (6.37b) βαλλίστρων <βαλλίστρα ballista [<HellG βαλλίζω + -ιστρα, later formation] Pseudo Macarius, Homiliae 7. Homily 52, s. 2, l. 7 (4 th c. AD) # βαλλιστρῶν Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, 53, 151 (10 th c. AD) (6.37c) vol. 1, p. 75, l. 29 κορτίνων <κορτίνα curtain <Medieval Latin cortina # vol. 1, p. 99, l. 18 κορτινῶν Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae (lib ) (10 th c.) These data are extremely useful for the understanding of the development of the genitive gaps under discussion here and support Sims (2006) approach on the uncertainty caused to speakers due to the coexistence of conflicting stress patterns. This element leads to the crucial questions of when the starting point of the defectivity of these nouns was and whether we can find traces of the defectivity of these nouns already during MedG. The following genitives of currently defective nouns in medieval texts indicate that new lexemes were able to form genitive forms with either stress pattern at least up to a certain point in the history of the language: (6.38a) μανδήλων <μανδήλα (CMG μαντήλα) kerchief <Latin mantilium Vitae Sancti Antonii Junioris, page 191, line 5 (9 th c. AD) (6.38b) δίδει κοπελῶν <κοπέλα young woman <Italian coppella waiter give:3sg girl:gen.pl He gives to girls Anonymi Historia Imperatorum, Historia imperatorum liber i, l (p. 11 th c. AD) (6.38c) ἀρχοντοπούλων <αρχοντοπούλα noble girl [<άρχοντας nobleman + -πούλα] Digenes Acritas (Ζ comp. with T & A), 1, 68 (12 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) (6.38d) ματσούκων <ματσούκα stick <Venetian mazzocca Spanos (D), l (14 th c./ ms AD) 192

213 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Proposed analysis According to data discussed so far, it can be concluded that a combination of various factors has resulted in the split of the paradigm of parisyllabic feminines into two subgroups, one of which has regularly inflected genitive plurals, while the other lacks them. Taking the diachronic process of this development into consideration, it can be argued that this split occurred when a large number of new α-/η-feminines entered the Greek lexicon and failed to acquire genitive plural forms; thus, it is no surprise that nouns of ancient origin are clearly more likely to be productive, as noted earlier, despite the fact that not all ancient nouns are productive and not all later nouns are defective. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that for derivative α-feminines the shift of stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix would have been just as problematic as for derivative ι-neuters, as seen earlier in 6.1. Thus, when these penult-stressed ι-neuters were rendered defective, the same pattern must have been followed for many feminines: γατ-ούλα kitty/ little cat / gen.pl *γατ-ουλ-ών 214. This approach can be depicted as follows: 214 Note that derivative suffixes of ancient origin are either stressed on the antepenult and not the actual derivational suffix (cf. γειτόν-ισσα) or adopt the PEN PEN pattern which is morphologically unmarked (cf. βαρκ-άδα/ gen.pl βαρκ-άδων). 193

214 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Stage I: Cl/ EHellG Stage II: LHellG Stage III: EMedG Stage IV: LMedG/ EMG Stage V: EMG/ CMG Table 6.7: The course of the defectivity <AG 1 st declension <AG 3 rd decl. Later lexemes γλῶσσα μασχάλη φλέψ ἐλπίς γλωσσῶν μασχαλῶν φλεβῶν ἐλπίδων γλῶσσα μασχάλη φλέψ ἐλπίς πόρτα γλωσσῶν μασχαλῶν φλεβῶν ἐλπίδων πορτῶν?(μασχάλων) γλῶσσα μασχάλη φλέψ ἐλπίς πόρτα κλεισούρα γλωσσῶν μασχαλῶν φλεβῶν ἐλπίδων πορτῶν κλεισουρῶν (μασχάλων) κλεισούρων γλῶσσα μασχάλη φλέβα ἐλπίδα πόρτα κλεισούρα γατούλα γλωσσῶν (μασχαλῶν) φλεβῶν ἐλπίδων πορτῶν (κλεισουρῶν) - (μασχάλων) (κλεισούρων) - γλῶσσα μασχάλη φλέβα ελπίδα πόρτα κλεισούρα γατούλα γλωσσών - φλεβών ελπίδων πορτών - - tongue armpit vain hope door gorge kitty As this table shows, some nouns that were introduced at a later point in the diachrony of the language never acquired genitive plural forms and this feature may have established the split between defective and non-defective parisyllabic feminines; thus, Stage IV in Table 6 most likely occurred around the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period (14 th -16 th c.). The following structures from a text of this period show a clear avoidance of the genitive plural of a penult-stressed feminine noun through the use of a prepositional phrase with ἀπό 215 : 215 Metric reasons may also be responsible for the difference between the two structures, but the syntactic choices of the writer are important, since an alteration of words would perfectly fit the political verse of the text, e.g. *νὰ ἔχουσιν συμπάθειον εὐτύς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τους. 194

215 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.39a) νὰ ἔχῃ τὴν συμπάθειον εὐτὺς τῶνε φταισμάτων [<φταῖσμα, μα-neuter] /na ˈexi tin siˈmbaθion eˈftis prt have:3sg the:acc.sg.f compassion:acc.sg.f directly tone fteˈsmaton/ the:gen.pl mistake:gen.pl.n may he be forgiven for his mistakes Chronicle of Morea (P), l. 39 (14 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) (6.39b) νὰ ἔχουσιν συμπάθειον ἀπὸ τὶς ἁμαρτίες τους [# τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν <ἁμαρτία] /na ˈexusin siˈmbaθion aˈpo tis amarˈties tus/ prt have:3pl compassion:acc.sg.f from the:acc.pl.f sin:n/a.pl.f 3pl:GEN.wk may they be forgiven for their sins Chronicle of Morea (P), l. 492, (14 th c./ ms. 16 th c.) Again, the fact that stress shift was required for the genitive ἁμαρτιῶν avoided above brings us back to the crucial matter of stress placement. As has been shown, conflicting patterns for penult-stressed - the most frequent type - and antepenult-stressed feminine nouns resulted in the coexistence of two allomorphs for the genitive plural forms of some nouns which rendered the status of the case in the paradigm unpredictable. Even though this uncertainty has been confirmed through diachronic and dialectal data, the way it discouraged speakers from maintaining the genitive plural in this paradigm needs to be discussed in further detail. First, allomorphy certainly could not apply to every noun from this paradigm, since all disyllabic penult-stressed feminines require stress shift 216 : (6.40a) νίκη/ νικών victory [<AG 1 st declension νίκη/ νικῶν] (6.40b) μοίρα/ μοιρών fate [<AG 1 st declension μοῖρα/ μοιρῶν] (6.40c) νύχτα/ νυχτών night [<AG 3 rd declension νύξ/ νυκτῶν (monosyllabic stem)] This implies that the only available option for disyllabic feminines of later origin would be the PEN ULT pattern for the vast majority of the Med/EMG varieties 217. Second, a few antepenult- 216 Cf. Pernot (1946: 100). 217 Apart from a few lexemes in Lesbos and of course Cypriot, the situation in which will be clarified below. 195

216 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY stressed o-masculines and o-neuters also exhibit allomorphy in the forms of the genitive (cf ), but this element did not result in the split of these paradigms into subgroups of productive and defective nouns; instead, the development that took place dealt with the maintenance of the archaic pattern (ANT PEN) with a group of nouns of ancient origin, while nouns of later origin (and few of ancient) adopted the innovative pattern of columnar stress (ANT ANT). The question that arises is why this did not occur for feminines in most dialectal and CMG, especially since a few MG dialects exhibit preference for either stress shift to the ultima (cf. Chios) or columnar stress (cf. Cypriot). In order to understand why the movement of the stress to the ultima was not fixed as the only option for the genitive plural of (especially penult-stressed) feminines that were introduced to the language during MedG or MG, the avoidance of stress shift for the genitives of diminutive ι- neuters that was discussed in the previous segment needs to be taken into consideration. Besides the factor of markedness, stress shift to the ultima would reduce the iconicity of genitive plurals, especially with derivative feminines, as noted earlier, which may have led speakers to avoid this pattern when possible, apart from nouns of ancient origin which are deeply rooted in the inflectional system. Moreover, the maintenance of the stress on the penult for penult-stressed nouns failed to become the established pattern for most dialects due to the fact that the PEN PEN pattern was mostly associated with ο-masculine and ο-neuter nouns, since polysyllabic feminines that stem from the ancient third declension (largely ending on -άδα/ -ίδα) are significantly fewer than those that follow the PEN ULT pattern. Aside from the fact that a large number of genitive plurals without stress shift of penult-stressed feminine nouns could possibly overlap with genitive plural forms of penult-stressed o-masculines 218, there are a few instances in which the PEN PEN pattern would result in homophony with masculine forms, e.g.: (6.41a) χήρα widow (F) gen.pl *χήρ-ων = gen.pl χήρ-ων [<χήρος widower (M)] (6.41b) δούλα servant (F) gen.pl?*δούλ-ων = gen.pl δούλ-ων [<δούλος servant (M)] 218 An extremely characteristic instance of this comes from the discussion on an article about the uncertainty of stress position with a large number of α-/η-feminines from a quite popular Greek blog on (socio)linguistic matters, where one of the participants (all native speakers of CMG) notes that for the noun καρδερίνα yellowbird a genitive plural without stress shift (καρδερίνων, PEN PEN) would remind him of the genitive plural of the (hypothetical) masculine form καρδερίνος of the noun and would, thus, prefer the form to employ stress shift (καρδερινών, PEN ULT) ( comment no 77). 196

217 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.41c) γάτα cat (F) gen.pl *γάτ-ων = gen.pl γάτ-ων [<γάτος cat (M)] This example actually indicates that iconicity does not only involve the ability to predict a genitive plural form from a nominative, but also the ability to predict a nominative form from a genitive plural. Quite interestingly, the fact that Cypriot is the only MG dialect in which this pattern has been so widely extended can be related to the replacement of all masculine genitive plurals by accusative forms (cf and 5.4.4). Consequently, this absence of clash allowed the establishment of an innovative pattern that would be more analogical and iconic for the speakers: (6.42) Stage I: (M) χήρος/ gen.pl χήρ-ων # (F) χήρα/ gen.pl χηρ-ών Stage II: (M) χήρος/ gen.pl χήρ-ους # (F) χήρα/ gen.pl χήρ-ων Columnar stress with antepenult-stressed feminines is more commonly found, possibly due to the smaller number of nouns of this type and limited (if not non-existent) overlap with genitive plurals of antepenult-stressed of o-masculines; compound nouns probably reinforced the need for the iconic maintenance of the stress in the first element, e.g. αυλόπορτα yard door / αυλόπορτων vs. *αυλοπορτών/ *αυλοπόρτων (<αυλο- [αυλή yard ] + πόρτα door ). Apart from stress, it has been shown that the factors of possessive functionality, frequency and register contributed to the defectivity in this paradigm; Sims (2006: 90) has already pointed out that these four factors may impact genitive/prepositional phrase variation in Modern Greek. The low possessive functionality of many inanimate feminines (mostly of later origin) did not offer an opportunity for a stress pattern to be registered and these nouns only acquired morphologically predictable forms. This factor also explains why ultima-stressed feminines (mostly of abstract meaning) can be defective as well, as they never had genitive plural forms; what is more, it can be argued that the split of barytone feminines into productive and defective was further extended to the ultima-stressed type. Furthermore, the ability to employ suppletion due to the existence of a synonymous form from a different paradigm with predictable productivity can explain the lack of genitive plural forms of a few human and other animate nouns with high possessive functionality, similarly to the effect of blocking on the diminutive ι- neuters that was discussed earlier, e.g.: 197

218 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.43) κοπέλα young woman / gen.pl *κοπελών <γυναικών (<γυναίκα woman ) <κοριτσιών (<κορίτσι girl ) <κοπελιών (<κοπελιά young woman ) As regards frequency, nouns that are used in limited contexts and most often occur in the singular are less likely to require genitive plural forms; this explains why Pernot (1946: 112) describes the genitive plural ψωμούδων of a human noun (<ψωμού bread-maker ) as inusité. 6.3 Other instances of defectivity Parisyllabic α-/η-masculines Α small number of masculine nouns that end in -ας and -ης are problematic regarding the formation of their genitive plurals in CMG; as the following examples show, this defective category includes barytone α-masculines and penult-stressed η-masculines: (6.44a) κάβουρας/ nom.pl κάβουρες/ gen.pl?κάβουρων/ *καβούρων crab (6.44b) μάγκας/ nom.pl μάγκες/ gen.pl *μαγκών cunning man (6.44c) λεβέντης/ nom.pl λεβέντες/ gen.pl *λεβέντων/ *λεβεντών/ λεβέντηδων upstanding man As can be observed, η-masculines are not truly defective, as they can form the genitive plural by following the model of imparisyllabic η-masculines 219, while antepenult-stressed α-masculines may have columnar stress; this pattern has not been entirely established, as it is not mentioned in the two major dictionaries (Babiniotis 1998 and Triantafyllidis 1998). In contrast to ι-neuters and α-/η-feminines, the defectivity of α-masculines is quite limited, as according to Sims (2006: 247 & 252) there are 57 defective barytone α-masculines and Cf. μανάβης grocer / nom.pl μανάβηδες/ gen.pl μανάβηδων. This morphemic suppletion can only rarely take place with α-masculines: μάγκας/?μάγκηδων tough/ cunning guy. 198

219 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK defective penult-stressed η-masculines 220. Again, almost all of these nouns were introduced to the language during LMedG or MG, which indicates that they failed to adjust to the morphology of α-/η-masculines of archaic origin. Thus, it is important to examine the diachrony of parisyllabic α-/η-masculines in order to explain why this small number of nouns have lost (or never acquired) genitive plural forms. As the following table shows, the merger of the ancient first and third declension did not inhibit the maintenance of archaic stress patterns in CMG and most dialects, as in the case of parisyllabic feminines: Table 6.8: Archaic stress patterns of α-/η-masculines in Common Modern Greek Ancient Greek 1 st declension Ancient Greek 3 rd declension nom.sg ναύτης ταμίας μήν γείτων κανών nom.pl ναῦται ταμίαι μῆνες γείτονες κανόνες gen.pl ναυτῶν ταμιῶν μηνῶν γειτόνων κανόνων Modern Greek α-/η-masculines nom.sg ναύτης ταμίας μήνας γείτονας κανόνας nom.pl ναύτες ταμίες μήνες γείτονες κανόνες gen.pl ναυτών sailor ταμιών treasurer μηνών month γειτόνων neighbor κανόνων rule STRESS PEN ULT ΑΝΤ PEN PEN PEN As can be seen, stress patterns are in competition only in penult-stressed α-masculines which have genitive plurals with or without stress shift. Diachronic data indicate that the analogical maintenance of stress in the penult is rare with nouns that follow the ancient PEN ULT pattern, but it can still be found in MedG texts: 220 According to Triantafyllidis (1998) there are 777 parisyllabic barytone α-masculines and 778 parisyllabic penultstressed η-masculines which means the number of these defective nouns is quite small. It is worth noting that none of these 12 η-masculine defective nouns mentioned by Babiniotis (1998) are listed as defective by Triantafyllidis (1998), as most of them are able to follow the imparisyllabic paradigm in the genitive plural (and also the nominative plural, e.g. λεβέντης/ λεβέντηδες). As regards the noun γνώστης connoisseur, it is most likely mentioned as defective by Babiniotis (1998) due to the homophony of the form?γνωστών to the genitive plural γνωστ-ών of the adjective γνωστός known. 199

220 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.45a) προφήτων <AG προφήτης prophet (exp. προφητῶν) Cyrillus Alex., De ador. et cultu in spiritu et veritate, vol. 68, p. 949, l. 48 (4 th c. AD) (6.45b) πολίτων <AG πολίτης citizen (exp. πολιτῶν) Meletius Med., De natura hominis, p. 109, l. 16 (7 th -9 th c.) (6.45c) Δούκων <MedG Δούκας (proper name) (exp. Δουκῶν) <Latin dux general Ducas, Historia Turcobyzantina, ch. 5, s. 5, l. 13 (15 th c.) This can also be seen in dialectal MG (cf ), as in most varieties η-masculines maintain the stress in its original position, cf. Χαρτσήτω (expected Χαρτσητώ) <Χαρτσήτης (CMG Χαλκήτης) Chalkiot (Kasos, Dodecanese; Michailidis-Nouaros 1936: 56). Furthermore, antepenult-stressed α-masculines of later origin follow the heteroclitic inflection to the 2 nd declension of α-masculines that stem from ancient 3 rd declension nouns in many dialects; this element allows the formation of ANT PEN genitive plurals, unlike in CMG (6.46b): (6.46a) i. γείτονας/ gen.sg γειτόνου/ nom.pl γειτόνοι/ gen.pl γειτόνων 221 κάβουρας/ gen.sg καβούρου/ nom.pl καβούροι/ gen.pl καβούρων Chios, Eastern Aegean (Pernot 1946: 64) ii. λούμπουνας/ gen.sg λουμπούνου/ nom.pl λουμπούνοι/ gen.pl λουμπούνων mole Κálymnos, Dodecanese (Drakos 1982) (6.46b) # CMG γείτονας/ gen.sg γείτονα/ nom.pl γείτονες/ gen.pl γειτόνων neighbor κάβουρας/ gen.sg κάβουρα/ nom.pl κάβουρες/ gen.pl GAP crab Quite interestingly, antepenult-stressed α-masculines seem to follow the columnar stress pattern in the following genitive plural from Rhodes (Dodecanese; Gneftós 1926: 13), e.g. δράκοντων (exp. δρακόντων, <δράκοντας dragon, <AG δράκων). This analogical development can be attributed to the influence of the extension of the ANT ANT pattern to most o-masculines which explains the possibility of?κάβουρων in CMG. Consequently, it can be argued that the origins of the defectivity of these nouns are extremely similar to the factors that triggered the loss of the genitive plural of parisyllabic feminines. More 221 Cf , example (2.5a). 200

221 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK specifically, barytone α- and penult-stressed η-masculines of later origin did not adjust to the archaic stress patterns in CMG and other varieties: (6.47a) γείτονας/ γειτόνων # κάβουρας/ *καβούρων [<MedG <HellG κάραβος crayfish ] (6.47b) μήνας/ μηνών # μάγκας/ *μαγκών [<Turkish manga group of soldiers ] (6.47c) πολίτης/ πολιτών # λεβέντης/ *λεβεντών [<Turkish levend marine soldier ] Apart from morphological competition that might have taken place for antepenult-stressed α- and penult-stressed η-masculines (e.g.?κάβουρων vs. *καβούρων and possibly *λεβέντων vs. *λεβεντών in dialectal MG), it seems that speakers were not eager to apply a marked stress pattern of ancient origin to a newer lexeme and preferred to avoid these forms, which eventually made them into genitive plural gaps. In addition, the application of a more analogical and innovative pattern cannot take place unless it already exists in the system; for instance, as no η- masculines and no disyllabic α-masculines in CMG follow the PEN PEN pattern, it would be awkward 222 for a speaker to apply this pattern to a new lexeme, which may explain the lack of the hypothetical genitive plural forms *λεβέντων/ *μάγκων and the limited use of?κάβουρων. In contrast, the paradigm of ο-masculines and o-neuters has established the analogical ANT ANT pattern for every new lexeme which guarantees their genitive plural productivity, cf. γκάγκαρος 223 / γκάγκαρων native Athenian Defective third declension neuters in dialectal Modern Greek As mentioned in Chapter 3, the influence of Katharévousa on CMG resulted in the reinforcement of the productivity of the genitive in a number of paradigms in which its status was highly ambiguous. The following paradigms involve neuters that stem from the ancient third declension and can be defective in some MG dialects: 222 Cf. Bauer (2001: 42-3 & 66) on the aesthetic factors of morphological productivity and rule-changing creativity respectively. 223 <Italian ganghero hinge. Pejorative term that was in use during the 19 th and the 20 th c. 201

222 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY μα-/ιμο-neuters (6.48a) κλήμα/ gen.sg κλημάτου/ nom.pl κλήματα/ gen.pl *κλημάτων vine φταίξιμο/ gen.sg φταιξιμάτου/ nom.pl φταιξίματα/ gen.pl *φταιξιμάτων blame Rhodes, Dodecanese (Papachristodoulou 1958: 37) (6.48b) γέννημα/ gen.sg *γεννημάτου/ nom.pl γεννήματα/ gen.pl *γεννημάτων offspring Ténaro, Mani, Peloponnese (Koutsilieris 1962: 331) ας-/α-neuters (6.49) κρέας/ gen.sg κρεάτου/ nom.pl κρέατα/ gen.pl *κρεάτων meat γάλα/ gen.sg γαλάτου/ nom.pl γάλατα/ gen.pl *γαλάτων milk Kythnos, Cyclades (Koukoulés 1923: 297) ος-neuters (6.50a) θάρρος/ gen.sg θάρρου (rare)/ nom.pl θάρρη/ gen.pl *θαρρών courage Crete (Pángalos 1955: 270) (6.50b) στήθο/ gen.sg στήθου/ nom.pl στή ι θα/ gen.pl *στηθών chest χρέο(ς)/ gen.sg *χρέου(ς)/ nom.pl χρέητα/ gen.pl *χρέητων/ *χρεών debt Ténaro, Mani, Peloponnese (Koutsilieris 1962: 331) (6.50c) μίσος/ gen.sg μίσους/ nom.pl μίση/ gen.pl *μισών 224 hatred CMG, Babiniotis (1998) and Triantafyllidis (1998) As can be seen, both the genitive singular and the genitive plural exhibit gaps, while in (6.50) there is variation in the degree of defectivity. The factors that triggered the loss of these genitives seem to be quite straightforward. First, since almost all of the third declension neuters denote inanimate objects and quite frequently abstract entities, it is no surprise that a genitive plural like *θαρρών of courages is lost in the course of the history of the language. Second, the factor of frequency is quite crucial, as the paradigms ας-, α- and ος-neuters involve a quite small number of lexemes. Third, stress shift affects paradigms with genitive gaps once again: i) the pattern ANT PEN applies to μα-/ιμο- /ας-/α-neuters in both numbers and ii) the pattern PEN ULT applies for the genitive plural of 224 Note the homophony with gen.pl μισών of the adjective μισός (M)/ μισή (F)/ μισό (N) half. 202

223 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK ος-neuters. However, the role of stress in this development is most likely not as crucial as in the case of the paradigmatic gaps that were examined earlier, given the fact that these neuter paradigms are quite marked morphologically in comparison to ο- and ι-neuters and semantically in the sense that they almost always do not denote animate nouns Other Despite the fact that the paradigm of o-neuters is undeniably productive in dialectal and CMG, it is useful to examine if defectivity affected this paradigm even to a lesser degree than in the cases previously discussed. More specifically, Hatzidakis (1928: 70) mentions that the noun κλεφτόπουλο offspring of a thief/young thief does not have a genitive plural, unlike the noun from which it is derived (κλέφτης/ gen.pl κλεφτών thief ); also, Ralli et al. (2004: 571) question the productivity of the genitive plural κάρβουνων (<κάρβουνο charcoal ), while Babiniotis (1998/2005) lists eight antepenult- and one penult-stressed ο-neuters as defective in the genitive plural 226. It seems that these concerns are based on the inanimate semantic content of most of these nouns and the availability of two stress patterns for the genitive singular and plural of o- neuters: ANT PEN (πρόσωπο/ προσώπου/ προσώπων face ) vs. ANT ANT (λάχανο/ λάχανου/ λάχανων cabbage ). However, these nouns are listed as productive in Triantafyllidis (1998). As there is a quite clear distinction between ancient (and the few medieval) nouns that follow the archaic ANT PEN pattern and nouns of later origin that exhibit columnar stress, the complete lack of such remarks in grammatical descriptions of dialectal and CMG is quite reasonable. For example, the following o-neuter formed with the derivational suffix -όπουλο follows the expected ANT ANT pattern of nouns of late medieval or modern origin, unlike Hatzidakis remarks 227 : 225 The example of γέννημα offspring is probably one of the very rare instances of μα-neuters denoting an animate entity. The rest of these paradigms never denote human or non-human animate entities. 226 αμπελοχώραφα a farmer s property (plurale tantum), γύναιο hussy (<Katharévousa), κοτόπουλο chicken, μάγουλο cheek, μεσάνυχτα (plurale tantum) midnight, μεσούρανα high part of the sky (plurale tantum), νυχτοκάματο nightshift, παλιόφαγο dirty food, τσούρμο crowd of people. 227 Cf. also ἐκεινῶν τῶν παιδ-όπουλ-ων [GEN.PL.N] of those young boys (<nom.sg.n παιδόπουλo), Chronicle of Morea (H&T), l (14 th c.). 203

224 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY (6.51) κεφαλές τω βασιλιόπουλων /kefaˈles ton vasiliˈopulon/ head:n/a.pl.f the:gen.pl royal.offspring:gen.pl.n the heads of the king s offsprings northern Syros, Cyclades (Pio 1879: 281) In any case, the productivity of the genitive should not be seen from a strict point of view, according to which a certain paradigm cannot contain any nouns with genitive plural gaps in the way we would expect in a traditional grammar. The fact that the productivity of the genitive is much more fluid can be seen in the frequent defectivity of ο-neuters (and also o-masculines) in the Northern Greek dialects, as will be shown in the following chapter. 6.4 Conclusions As has been shown, the development of paradigmatic gaps of genitive forms seems to be the result of a wide range of factors. First, they were possibly related to simply by lack of use, as can be seen in the previously mentioned genitives?ψωμούδων (example 6.27a) in the dialect of Chios and *χαρών (example 6.26b), as the former is ambiguous due to the low frequency of the feminine noun ψωμού bread-maker and the latter is defective due to the low possessive functionality of the abstract feminine noun χαρά joy. Second, it has been demonstrated that the unpredictability of stress (cf. Sims 2006) has been crucial in the development of defectivity across various paradigms. As conflicting stress patterns with polysyllabic barytone α-feminines are widely attested in diachronic and dialectal data, it is possible that this uncertainty led speakers to avoid the grammaticalization of the genitive plurals of the new lexemes that were added to this paradigm. In contrast, paradigms with predictable stress patterns, albeit morphologically marked in some instances, are quite productive crossdialectally, such as (most) monomorphemic ι-neuters (always PEN/ULT ULT), ο- masculines and ο-neuters (clear distinction between the lexemes that follow the ANT PEN and ANT ANT patterns), imparisyllabic α-/η-masculines and feminines (always columnar stress), 204

225 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK άδα-/ίδα-/ούδα-feminines (PEN PEN) and even μα-neuters (always ANT PEN in the plural and in most dialects the singular too). Third, although the unpredictability of stress pattern has definitely played an important role, in many cases defectivity may be related to the hesitance of speakers to apply the archaic and marked stress pattern PEN ULT (and also ANT ULT) - which involves movement of the stress from the stem to the ending and quite crucially in some cases movement of the stress from the derivational suffix to the ending - to recently introduced lexemes (in the case of α-/ηmasculines and feminines) or recently formed types of nouns (cf. derivative and compound ι-neuters after the effect of synizesis); in these cases, the stress pattern PEN PEN was not an option, since it does not appear with any other nouns from these paradigms: παιδ-άκι/ gen.sg *παιδ-άκι-ου/ gen.pl *παιδ-άκι-ων (ι-neuter diminutive), μπάλα/ gen.pl *μπάλ-ων ball (disyllabic feminine)), μάγκας/ gen.pl *μάγκ-ων (disyllabic α-masculine). This reluctance of speakers to apply archaic and marked stress patterns to new lexemes can be compared to a similar phenomenon found in Russian. According to Pertsova (2005), a small number of nouns exhibit genitive plural gaps due to the fact that native speakers, in general, dislike shifting stress to the stem in words that they have never seen stem-stressed before : fat-á veil (F)/ nom.pl fat-í/ gen.pl *fat-ø vs. ruk-á hand (F)/ nom.pl rúk-i/ gen.pl ruk-ø. This analysis complies with Steriade s (1994) account on the notion of Lexical Conservatism, according to which speakers are reluctant about generating new allomorphs if novel phonological variants are created for an existing stem 228. Consequently, it can be argued that during a point in the diachrony of Greek (most likely the period of the end of LMedG and the beginning of EMG), the opposite development to the Russian case occurred to avoid the stress shift to the ending with lexemes that had only existed stressed on the stem; for instance, when the Italian noun carrozza carriage was introduced to the Greek vocabulary as καρότσα (nom/acc.sg), it acquired the morphologically predictable forms καρότσ-ες (nom/acc.pl) and καρότσα-ς (gen.sg), but *καροτσ-ών was never realized due to the hesitance of speakers to generate an allomorph with a previously unattested stress pattern 229. This approach explains why nouns of ancient origin are in 228 Cf. the English démonstrate + -able *démonstrable but demónstrable (<demónstrative) vs. chállenge + -able chállengeble due to the absence of a challénge- allomorph that could be as a model for *challéngeable. 229 As mentioned earlier, the PEN PEN pattern of the form *καρότσων in most dialects would not be transparent enough in terms of the gender of the noun, due to its association with masculine (and neuter) nouns. 205

226 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY most cases productive, as the marked stress patterns of their genitives were deeply rooted and listed in the mental lexicon of speakers. Fourth, most penult-stressed ι-neuters of recent origin managed to adjust to the PEN ULT pattern because of the lack of competing stress patterns in this paradigm 230, but derivatives and compounds ending in -ι failed to do so due to their more complicated morphology (cf. Karrá 2006), as the stress would have to move from the derivational suffix or the second stem to the ending of the genitive: παιδ-άκι/ *παιδ-ακι-ού/ *παιδ-ακι-ών little child, σταυρο-δρόμι/ *σταυρο-δρομι-ού/ *σταυρο-δρομι-ών crossroads. The same development can be considered to have happened with derivative α-feminines, e.g. βοσκ-οπούλα/ gen.pl βοσκ-οπουλ-ών shepherdess. Finally, individual lexemes may have been affected by further phenomena such as homophony and less commonly synonymy. As the development of defectivity due to the avoidance of homophony seems to be a genuine principle (Baerman 2011), the low iconicity of the genitive plural suffix -ων (common for all genders, in contrast to all other case forms in the system, cf ) is reflected in the coincidental overlap of barytone (ANT/PEN PEN) o- masculine (and o-neuter) genitive plurals with the respective forms of α-feminines if the latter did not follow the archaic PEN ULT stress pattern, cf. χήρος/ χήρα gen.pl χήρων mentioned earlier, or in past stages of the language βασιλοπούλα king s daughter / gen.pl βασιλοπούλων = gen.pl βασιλοπούλων (<βοσιλόπουλος [Μ]/ βασιλόπουλο [Ν] king s offspring ) 231. In the following structure (recorded from personal communication with a native speaker of CMG) the genitive?ποδιών of the feminine ποδιά school uniform is possibly avoided due to its homophony with the genitive ποδιών of the neuter noun πόδι foot/ leg : 230 Cf. the 19 th c. lexeme γκάζι/ gen.sg γκαζι-ού/ gen.pl γκαζι-ών gas <French gas. 231 Cf, masc.gen.pl τῶν Τουρκοπούλων (<Τουρκόπουλος Turkish mercenary (lit. Turkish offspring), o-masculine) Georgius Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαὶ ἱστορίαι (libri vii de Andronico Palaeologo), p. 10, l. 16 (13 th -14 th c.) vs. fem.gen.pl τῶν ἀρχοντοπούλων (<αρχοντοπούλα noble girl (lit. noble offspring), α-feminine) Digenes Acritas (Z), l. 68 (12 th c., ms. 16 th c.). 206

227 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (6.52) η κατάργηση απ τις ποδιές the abolition of school uniforms /i kaˈtarɣisi apo tis poðiˈes/ the:nom.sg.f abolition:n/a.sg.f from the:n/a.pl.f school.uniform:n/a.pl.f As regards synonymy, the genitive plural?κάβουρων (<κάβουρας crab ) is most likely not established due to the already available form καβουριών (<καβούρι crab ) The frequent maintenance of genitives in insular varieties seems to be is in accordance with Norde (2001: 243), even though elsewhere they are usually defective: Many authors (Torp 1982, Sandøy 1994, Braunmüller 1995) have observed that languages spoken in isolated, tightlyknit communities tend to allow more morphological irregularity than do languages spoken in large, open communities. Table 6.9: The maintenance of the genitive in (usually) defective paradigms diatopically Cypriot Pontic 232 S-E 233 Italiot S-W 234 Northern 235 ι-neuter diminutives/ comp. [gen.sg/gen.pl] + (+)/- (+) indecl. (rare) - α-/η-feminines (parisyllabic) [gen.pl] + + +/(-) + +/- +/- α-/η-masculines (parisyllabic) [gen.pl] /- +/(-) 3 rd declension neuters +/ + + +/(-) [gen.sg/gen.pl] (indecl.) +/(-) +/- To sum up, the factors that affected the development of defective genitive forms in the inflection system are shown in the following table: 232 Maintenance of feminine genitive plurals is due to the extension of the genitive plural -ίων to all paradigms. Also note that phenomena of genitive loss in some Pontic varieties will be further discussed in Chapter Dodecanese, Icaria, Chios, Cyclades and Crete. 234 Heptanese-Peloponnese (hence CMG), Western Epirus, Old Athenian group (Kymi, Mégara, Mani). 235 Only dialects with genitive plural maintenance (cf. Chapter 7). 207

228 PARADIGMATIC DEFECTIVITY Table 6.10: Factors that are related to genitive gaps in dialectal and Common Modern Greek PARISYLLABIC α-/η-feminines: -GEN.PL i. Uncertainty caused by the coexistence of conflicting stress patterns: MedG κλεισούρα/ κλεισούρων - κλεισουρών ii. Avoidance of the archaic/ marked stress pattern ANT/PEN ULT: [dial. and CMG] a. θάλασσα/ θαλασσών # πέστροφα/ *πεστροφών PARISYLLABIC α-/η-masculines: -GEN.PL [(mostly) CMG] ι-neuters: -GEN.SG /-GEN.PL [dial. and CMG] μα-/ιμο-/oς-neuters: +/-GEN.SG, +/-GEN.PL [dialectal MG] b1. γυναίκα/ γυναικών # κοπέλα/ *κοπελών b2. γλώσσα/ γλωσσών # μπάλα/ *μπαλών iii. Avoidance of the PEN PEN pattern due to its association with o-masculines (apart from feminines that stem from the third declension): χήρα/ *χήρων = χήρων (<χήρος) iv. Low functionality: many nouns denote abstract/ inanimate entities v. Low frequency: some nouns are not frequently used in any case form i. Avoidance of the marked stress pattern PEN ULT: μήνας/ μηνών # μάγκας/ *μαγκών ii. Avoidance of the archaic pattern ANT PEN: γείτονας/ γειτόνων # κάβουρας/ *καβούρων i. Avoidance of stress shift to the ending with derivatives and compounds due to iconicity and markedness ii. Blocking of diminutive genitives and the use of the base forms iii. Low functionality of compounds and the few simplex ι-neuters i. Low possessive functionality ii. Avoidance of marked stress patterns PEN ULT: βάρος/ *βαρών 6.5 Implications The development of genitive singular and plural paradigmatic gaps during LMedG and EMG seems to be the first development in the language that reflects to such a great extent the consequences of structural complexity. More specifically, as the genitive had lost most of its non-possessive functions during MedG, the equilibrium between form and function had 208

229 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK significantly altered for speakers, who had less motivation to maintain genitive forms with such structurally complex stress patterns. The importance of this notion of functional and structural balance can be best shown by the fact that in those dialects of Southern Greek that employ the genitive to mark various archaic functions and the indirect object, defective paradigms are quite limited, while the reduction of morphological markedness of the genitive in Cypriot through its syncretism in masculine paradigms, allowed the formation of feminine genitive plurals with structurally unmarked stress patterns, which promoted the productivity of the case in nearly all non-masculine paradigms. The development of these paradigmatic gaps is strongly indicative of the shifted position of the genitive in the case system of Greek, as in most varieties, speakers tended to abandon difficult to predict synthetic forms, instead of generalizing either archaic or innovative stress patterns. The avoidance of these forms is also related to the rise of periphrastic alternation with από, which was restricted to marking ablative and partitive relations until that point. Consequently, this quite crucial factor combined with the more or less destabilized status of the case in the plural resulted in further loss in the varieties Northern Greek, as the following chapter will show. 209

230 7. COMPLETE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE PLURAL IN NORTHERN GREEK 7.0 Introduction As opposed to CMG and most dialect groups, a large number of Northern Greek varieties have completely lost the genitive plural, while the genitive singular is still in use, albeit restricted. More specifically, in Southern Greek 236 and Eastern Asia Minor Greek dialects, από from is limited to marking source/ origin, partitive relations and is only occasionally found with partwhole relations of inanimate nouns or as a last resort strategy with defective nouns. By contrast, this preposition has been fully grammaticalized as a possessive marker, as can be shown in the following examples where it is used with human referents in both numbers (cf. Mertyris [forthcoming]): (7.1a) στου σπιτ τ πατέρα τ [stu spit t paˈtera t] /s.to ˈspiti tu paˈtera tu/ in.the:acc.sg.n house:acc.sg.n the:gen.sg.m father:g/a.sg.m 3sg:GEN.m at his father s home Kozani, Macedonia (Kouziaki 2008: 58) (7.1b) στουν τόπου π 237 τουν πατέρα τ [stun ˈtopu p tun paˈtera t] /s.ton ˈtopo (a)po ton paˈtera tu/ in.the:acc.sg.m place:acc.sg.m from the:acc.sg.m father:g/a.sg.m 3sg:GEN.m at his father s homeland Kozani, Macedonia (Kouziaki 2008: 62) 236 Again, the term is used conventionally here and refers to dialects with intact unstressed vowels and genitive marking of indirect objects. 237 Note the frequent phonological changes of elision in the use of από. In most cases it involves deletion of /o/ before the forms of the definite article and nouns/ modifiers/ determiners that start with a vowel. In this particular variety, the preposition has also undergone deletion of the initial /a/.

231 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.2) οι κασμάδις που τς αργάτις [i kaˈzmaðis pu ts arˈɣatis] /i kaˈsmaðes (a)po tus arˈɣates/ the:nom.pl.m pick:n/a.pl.m from the:acc.pl.m laborer:n/a.pl.m the picks of the laborers <*οι κασμάδις τουν [GEN.pl] αργατών [GEN.pl] Germas, Kastoriá Prefecture, Macedonia (Georgiou 1962) This phenomenon has received attention from researchers, mostly minor comments in grammatical descriptions of the Northern Greek dialects. In this chapter, I will concentrate on three objectives. First, I will describe the geographical range of the loss of the genitive plural, namely list the dialects where the change has occurred as opposed to those that have maintained genitive plural forms. Second, the course of the development will be presented, including the origins of the possessive grammaticalization of από and the various degrees of the retreat of the genitive. Finally, an analysis will be proposed for the factors that triggered the loss of the genitive plural. However, it is important to refer to the main characteristics of the Northern MG dialects before proceeding to the examination of these matters. The classification of a dialect to the Northern dialect group involves the criterion of northern vocalism, i.e. deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and raising of unstressed /e, o/ to [i, u]. For instance, CMG κορίτσι [koˈritsi] girl appears as κουρίτς [kuˈrits] in the Northern dialects. Not all dialects of this group exhibit both of these phonological changes; such dialects are known as semi-northern and they either involve only deletion of high vowels or only raising of /e, o/: (7.3a) (7.3b) Dialects with intact unstressed vowels 238 : /koˈritsi/ [koˈritsi] (-deletion, -raising) Proper northern dialects 239 : /koˈritsi/ [kuˈrits] (+deletion, +raising) 238 Western Epirus, Heptanese-Peloponnese, Cretan-Cycladic, Eastern Aegean (Dodecanese, Icaria and Chios), Cypriot and Italiot and the area around Smyrna in central-western Asia Minor (Ionia). The dialects of Eastern Asia Minor exhibit deletion of unstressed /i, u/ in final position (in Pontus and Phárasa), while the variety of Silli exhibits occasional raising of /o/ to [u]. 239 Central Greece (apart from Boeotia), Thessaly, varieties of Eastern Epirus, Macedonia, Western Thrace and the western parts of Eastern Thrace and Eastern Rumelia (south-eastern Bulgaria), the islands of Northern Aegean (the Sporades, Lemnos, Lesbos, Samothraki, Imbros, Ténnedos, Thasos), the variety of Kydoniés (Ayvalık) in northwestern Asia Minor. 211

232 NORTHERN GREEK (7.3c) (7.3d) (7.3e) Strict northern dialects 240 : /koˈritsi/ [kˈrits] (+deletion of unstressed raised vowels) Semi-northern dialects I 241 : /koˈritsi/ [koˈrits] (+deletion, -raising) Semi-northern dialects II 242 : /koˈritsi/ [kuˈritsi] (-deletion, +raising) The term northern is largely conventional, since it covers most, but not all northern areas of mainland and insular Greece, cf. the southern phonology (intact unstressed vowels) varieties of Western Epirus and the northern dialect of Samos in Southern Aegean, as has already been mentioned. As will be shown later, another isogloss most of these dialects share is marking indirect objects with the accusative (cf ). For this reason, I will also include varieties with intact unstressed vowels in this chapter that employ the accusative to express the indirect object and are adjacent to the Northern Greek dialects, cf. Bithynian varieties and the variety of Vourlá in Ionia (central-western Asia Minor). In contrast, I will not deal with the insular varieties of parts of Andros and Tenos (+deletion, +raising), Mýkonos (+deletion, -raising), Skyros (+deletion, - raising) and Lefkada (+deletion, -raising) due to the fact that apart from these phonological features they are extremely similar to their neighboring Cycladic (the former four) and Heptanese (the latter) dialects, which are typically southern and do not exhibit loss of the genitive plural. Also, the dialects of Samos, the Sporades, Sarakatsans, Voúrbiani and Kýzikos will not be examined here, as their phenomena of nominal case syncretism were discussed in Chapter Not very common (cf. Symeonidis 1977: 64). 241 Parts of Eastern Epirus (cf. Voúrbiani in 5.2.2), the town of Kastoriá (western Macedonia), parts of Kýzikos (cf ), the eastern part of Eastern Thrace and parts of Bithynia. 242 The town of Náousa (Macedonia) and Livisi in south-western Asia Minor. 212

233 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Map 7.1: The borders of northern vocalism and indirect object marking in the core of the Modern Greek-speaking world at the beginning of the 20 th c Dialectal range of the phenomenon Experts on Modern Greek dialectology have commented on the higher degree of the loss of the genitive in northern dialects in comparison to the rest of the Greek-speaking world. In their grammars of the northern dialects, Kretschmer (1905: 226) and Papadópoulos (1927: 60) mention that only the areas of Epirus, Lesbos and Central Greece have maintained genitive plural forms. According to Kontosópoulos (2008: 100), the use of the genitive has been replaced by a prepositional phrase with από in both numbers in the core of the northern dialect group, such as 243 Quite obviously, this map attempts an approximate representation of the borders of dialectal Greek and not an exhaustive depiction of the Balkan demographics of the early 20 th c. 213

234 NORTHERN GREEK the areas of Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace, e.g. τ ς τέσσιαρς π τουν Μάη # CMG τις τέσσερεις του Μάη on the 4 th of May. In order to verify the remarks from these researchers, it is important to go through the available grammatical descriptions and collections of texts of the northern dialects in each of these regions. Map 7.2: The regions of the Northern Greek dialect group before Central Greece Central Greece consists of the areas of Aetolia and Acarnania, Eurytania, Phokís and Phthiotis, while Boeotia and areas of Attica were mainly inhabited by speakers of Arvanítika (Arbërisht) at the beginning of the 20 th c. 214

235 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Map 7.3: The areas of Central Greece As noted earlier, the genitive is maintained in both numbers in these regions. Aetolia and Phokís are the most cited areas, as according to the nominal paradigms provided by Kretschmer (1905) and Papadópoulos (1927), no gaps of the genitive plural are listed, while the use of the genitive is also frequently used to mark the indirect object (cf. example 5.29b): (7.4a) (7.4b) τα πιραστάρια τουν καρουλιών [ta piraˈstarʝa tu (ŋ) garuˈʎon] the:n/a.pl.n iron.holder:n/a.pl.n the:gen.pl trundle:gen.pl.n the iron holders of the trundles ριξ τουν πραματγιών να φάνι [riks tu (m) bramaˈtʝon na ˈfani] throw:2sg.imp.pfv the:gen.pl thing:gen.pl.n COM eat:3pl.pfv throw food to the sheep (lit. throw [food] to the things to eat) Aráhova, Phokís (ILNE 568: 104 & 115) Variation in the area should be kept in mind though, as in ILNE (693: 120) it is mentioned that genitive plurals of feminine and neuter nouns are not frequently used in the variety of lake 215

236 NORTHERN GREEK Trichonís (mountainous Aetolia) and the nouns κήπους garden (M), γίδα goat (F) and μάχη battle (F) are listed as defective with regard to their genitive plurals. Similarly, according to Karapiperis (1984: 38), the genitive plural forms are used in alternation with prepositional phrases, as can be seen in his representation of the nominal paradigms of Eurytanian varieties: Table 7.1: The genitive plural in Eurytania n./a. κλέφτις ώρις μέλσες πεύκα gen. κλιφτώνι/ απ τς κλέφτις απ τς ώρις μιλσώνι πεύκουν/ πιφκώνι/ απ τα πεύκα thieves (M) hours (F) bees (F) pine trees (N) The data from Phthiotis are more diverse, possibly due to the vicinity of the area with Thessaly. First, in some areas the accusative marks the indirect object, e.g. δεν θα μι [ACC] δώσεις τζιάπι you will not give me a response (Tsitsas 1956: 29), something which is also mentioned by Manolessou & Beis (2006: 229). Second, the genitive plural has been completely lost and the genitive singular faces competition with από in the varieties described by Tsitsas (1956: 7-10). Quite surprisingly, frequent neuter nouns such as νιρό water, δέντρου tree, ματ eye and imparisyllabic nouns ending in -μα/ -ς are listed as defective in both numbers. However, the variety of Ypati (central Phthiotis) shows use of genitive indirect objects and an alternation between the genitive and από in part-whole relations (ILNE 795: 19, 28 and 49 respectively): (7.5a) στου κόψ μου τ ν τριφ λλιών /sto ˈkopsimo ton trifiliˈon/ [s.tu ˈkopsmu tn triˈfʎon] in.the:n/a.sg.n cutting:n/a.sg.n the:gen.pl clover:gen.pl.n during the gathering of the clovers 216

237 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.5b) (7.5c) τ πιδιού τς να μη δίν [t piˈðʝu ts na mi ðin] the:gen.sg.n child:gen.sg.n 3sg:GEN.wk.f SUBJ NEG give:3sg so that she doesn t give to her child του κριάς απ του μανάρ [tu krjas ap tu maˈnar] the:n/a.sg.n meat:n/a.sg.n from the:n/a.sg.n lamb:n/a.sg.n the meat of the lamb Epirus The varieties of Epirus are extremely diverse regarding phonological features; proper northern dialects are found in the vicinity and the town of Ioánnina, while semi-northern varieties are found in the northern part of Ioánnina Prefecture and in a few parts of Préveza. Western Epirus (Thesprotia) and the Greek-speaking areas of Southern Albania (Northern Epirus) do not have deletion and raising of unstressed vowels. It should be noted that the modern Prefectures of Préveza and Thesprotia used to be inhabited by speakers of Aromanian, Arvanítika and (Cham) Albanian as well at the beginning of the 20 th c., which may explain the limited dialectal material from these regions, while large communities of Aromanians can also be found in Métsovo, near the borders of Epirus and Thessaly. 217

238 NORTHERN GREEK Map 7.4: The areas of Epirus Regarding the status of the genitive in the region, the varieties of Epirus seem to be as diverse as those of Central Greece; the genitive is used to mark indirect objects in all areas and the genitive plural has been preserved in a few regions. The southern varieties have largely maintained the genitive, e.g. θυγατέρων (F) of the daughters, περιστεριών (Ν) of the doves (Pio 1879: 16 & 19), προφήτουνε (M) of the prophets, μελιʃώνε (F) of the bees (Spyrou 2008: 148 & 150). The same can be said about the semi-northern dialects of Pogoni and Vissani according to Stoupis (1962: 222 & 298), e.g. τα γκαρίσματα των γαϊδουριών the brays of donkeys. The semi-northern variety of Voúrbiani exhibits accusative-genitive syncretism, as shown in The proper northern varieties from the Ioánnina Prefecture exhibit a lot of variation regarding the maintenance of the genitive. On the one hand, Anagnostópoulos (1921: 182) reports that the varieties of Zagori have preserved the genitive plural, even though a few paradigmatic gaps can be found. More specifically, the author (p. 182) gives genitive plural forms for feminines nouns 218

239 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK that are defective in CMG, e.g. κατσ κώ (<κατσίκα goat ), κουπιλώ (<κουπέλα young woman ), but he mentions that antepenult-stressed and compound o-neuters are defective, while neuters ending in -μα have zero genitive marking: τ [GEN] Άι-Πνέμα [N/A] # CMG του Αγίου Πνεύματος [GEN] of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Bogas (1964) and Kosmás (1997) provide information on the phonologically proper northern varieties of Ioánnina and mention that the genitive has greatly retreated in the plural. Bogas (1964: 13) only mentions the genitive plural τουν λαδιών (<λάδ oil, ι-neuter) and gives gaps for other nouns, while Kosmás does not mention any genitive plural forms at all in his paradigms noting that από is the exclusive possessive marker for the plural paradigms. It should not be overlooked that the variety of Sarakatsans in Pápigo also exhibits the possessive use of από in the singular and (mainly) the plural (Ηøeg 1925: 230-1), apart from the accusative-genitive syncretism (cf ) Thessaly The region of Thessaly covers the modern prefectures of Tríkala, Lárisa, Karditsa and Magnesia. Speakers of Aromanian can be found in the former three areas. Map 7.5: The areas of Thessaly 219

240 NORTHERN GREEK The restriction of the genitive in Thessaly is quite extended, as mentioned earlier. According to Tzártzanos (1909: 222 & 224) description of the varieties of the city of Lárisa and the town of Tírnavos 244, the genitive was not only completely lost in the plural, but its use became extremely restricted in the singular as well, as από is employed to mark human animate possessors in both numbers: (7.6a) (7.6b) η αγγουνιά απ τ ν πεθερά τς Ουρανίας [i a (ŋ) guˈɲa ap d beθeˈra the:nom.sg.f granddaughter:n/a.sg.f from the:acc.sg.f mother.in.law:n/a.sg.f ts uraˈnias] the:gen.sg.f PN:GEN.sg.f the granddaughter of Urania s mother-in-law τα πιδιά απ τς δυχατέρις τς [ta piˈðʝa ap ts ðixaˈteris ts] the:n/a.pl.n child:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.f daughter:n/a.pl.f 3sg:GEN.f her daughters children As can be seen in example (7.6a), the genitive singular is not entirely lost despite its retreat, while the genitive plural has only left relics in set expressions, e.g. δυο διρφούν πιδιά children of two brothers. The data from the village Kraniá in Olympus (Baslís 2010) confirm that the genitive is extremely restricted in the varieties of the modern prefecture of Lárisa, as only the genitive singular πιντιού [piˈdʝu] 245 (<πιδί child ) is listed. The complete loss of the genitive plural is also found in other areas of the region, such as Pelion in Magnesia (Liapis 1994: 34-5) and Ágrafa in Karditsa (Takis 2003: 10). However, variation should always be taken into consideration, as genitive plural forms can be unexpectedly encountered in dialectal texts: 244 As noted in 5.2.4, the researcher also mentions instances of accusative-genitive syncretism. 245 <πιδιού [piˈðʝu] with dissimilation of the voiced fricative consonant cluster. 220

241 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.7) τα κριάρια τουν προυβατάρ νι 246 [ta kriˈarʝa tu bruvaˈtarni] the:n/a.pl.n ram:n/a.pl.n the:gen.pl shepherd:gen.pl.m the shepherds rams Elassona, Lárisa Prefecture (ILNE 925: 339) As regards indirect object marking, Manolessou & Beis (2006) mention that the accusative is used exclusively. Even though this is valid for Magnesia (Liapis 1994) and Lárisa (Tzártzanos 1909, ILNE 925), the situation in Karditsa Prefecture seems to be different, at least for pronominal clitics, possibly due to contact with the neighboring varieties of Central Greece and Epirus, e.g. θα σου [GEN] ζάπσου μίνια I will hit you (lit. I will strike you one [hit]) (Ágrafa; Takis 2003: 46), να σου [GEN] τα φέρου to bring them to you (Nevrópoli; Politis 1965: 366) Macedonia Macedonia differs from most of the regions under examination here, mainly due to the fact that many of its areas were not inhabited by native speakers of Northern Greek before the 1920s, when the exchange of populations between Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey took place. In Map 7.1, it is shown that Northern Greek varieties covered nearly all coastal areas of Macedonia, namely Pieria, Chalkidikí, Serres and Kavala and also the inland areas of Emathia, Kozani and Kastoriá. As the contemporary Greek part of Macedonia was extremely multilingual before the Balkan wars in the 1910s, Aromanian, the varieties of the Bulgaro-Makedonski continuum, Balkan Judeo-Spanish (Ladino; mainly in Thessaloniki) and Turkish were also spoken in these areas, apart from the coastal line and Chalkidikí where Greek was predominant. Consequently, Greek started to be spoken in the modern prefectures of Pella (Édessa; Voden), Flórina (Lerin), Kilkís (Kukuş) and (areas of) Drama only after 1922, when communities of refugees from Asia Minor were established there and when younger generations of speakers of Makedonski began to adopt CMG through primary education. 246 This is an instance of strict northern vocalism, i.e. deletion of unstressed /u/ that comes from a raised */o/, cf. (7.3c): <*προυβατάρουνι <*προβατάρωνε <*προβατάρων of the noun προβατάρης (nom.pl *προβατάροι). Cf. the nom.pl καβαλάροι of καβαλάρης cavalier in MedG and dialectal MG. 221

242 NORTHERN GREEK Map 7.6: The areas of the Greek part of Macedonia (the red line indicates the limits of Greek-speaking areas before the 1910s in approximation) The dialects of these areas belong to the core of northern vocalism exhibiting both deletion and raising of unstressed vowels. The only exceptions are the semi-northern dialects of the town of Kastoriá (+deletion, -raising) and the town of Náousa (Emathia Prefecture; -deletion, +raising). The accusative marks indirect objects exclusively 247. The status of the genitive is similar to that in Thessaly, as the genitive plural is mentioned as obsolete in all varieties that have been described and από has reduced the use of the singular forms as well, as can be shown by the descriptions of the varieties of the region, e.g. in Siátista (Tsopanakis 1953: 299, Chatsioulis 1992: 13), the town of Kozani (Dinas 2005) and Velvendós (Kozani Prefecture; Boudonas 1892). The following structure from Siátista is an explicit example of the replacement of genitive forms by από (Papanaoúm 1968: 68): (7.8) οι τρίχις που του κιφάλι μ the hairs of my head [i ˈtriçis pu tu ciˈfali m] the:nom.pl.f hair:nom.pl.f from the:n/a.sg.n head:n/a.sg.n 1sg:GEN.wk 247 Manolessou & Beis (2006: 230) mention that in Siátista the weak genitives of the personal pronouns are used as indirect objects, but I was not able to find the use of nominal genitives in dialectal texts from this town. 222

243 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK The use of από is expanded to all types of possessive relations, such as ownership and kinship: (7.9a) την πουδιά που του κουρίτσ the girl s apron [ti buˈðʝa pu tu kuˈrits] the:acc.sg.f apron:n/a.sg.f from the:n/a.pl.n girl:n/a.pl.n Deskati, Grevená Prefecture (ILNE 1082: 185) (7.9b) η μάνα απ του κουρίτς the girl s mother [i ˈmana ap tu kuˈrits] the:nom.sg.f mother:n/a.sg.f from the:n/a.sg.n girl:n/a.sg.n Rachi, Pieria Prefecture (Douga-Papadopoulou & Tzitzilís 2006: 619) The development has progressed to such an extent in the semi-northern dialect of the town of Náousa (Emathia Prefecture) that the genitive is only found with proper names in the singular (Apostolou 1989). In the village Germas (Kastoriá Prefecture), forms of the genitive plural are also obsolete (Georgiou 1962: 365): (7.10) τα φκυάρια που τς μαστόρ [ta ˈfcarʝa pu ts maˈstor] the:n/a.pl.n shovel:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.m craftsman:n/a.pl.m the shovels of the craftsmen The retreat of the genitive is also found in varieties of central Macedonia, such as Chalkidikí (Papadópoulos 1923: 140) and Aréthousa (Lialias 1977: 256) and Lagadás (Kosmás 1972: 323) in the Thessaloniki Prefecture. In the two latter varieties, only the genitive plural forms of nonpersonal pronouns are mentioned, while Lialias (1977: 242) provides forms of the genitive singular of the definite article, but not nominal genitive singulars. The loss of the genitive plural is also verified for the dialects of Nigrita and Terpní in the prefecture of Serres (Paschaloudis 2000: 36). Despite these findings on the complete loss of the genitive plural in Macedonia, variation should not been neglected as can be shown in the following example from the village of Chrysí 223

244 NORTHERN GREEK in Kastoriá (Stefópoulos 1978: 269): πήρι του ναφακά τουν πιδιών [GEN] τ he took the right of his children. Finally, Andriotis (1989: 14) mentions that only the genitive plurals of o- masculines were in use in the variety of the village Meléniko (Melnik) that used to be spoken in south-western Bulgaria, e.g. ιρχουμών <ιρχουμός coming Northern Aegean The varieties of Northern Aegean that I will focus on here include Lemnos, Thasos, Imbros, Ténedos, Samothraki and Lesbos. All of these varieties apart from Lesbos exhibit accusative indirect objects and a great degree of retreat of the genitive plural. Map 7.7: The Northern Greek dialects in the Aegean The dialects of Lemnos (Kontonatsiou 1989), Samothraki (Kamaroudis , Katsanis 1996) and Thasos (Tompaídis 1967) have completely lost the genitive plural. The genitive in Samothraki has also retreated in the singular, as according to Kamaroudis (1982-3: 220) its use is extremely isolated and it has only survived with human nouns, e.g. τ άθιιπου of the man, τ κουιτσού of the girl, τς μητέας of the mother. The dialects of Imbros and Ténedos (modern Turkey), whose speakers were excluded from the exchange of populations between the two countries in 1922, present an intermediate stage; Andriotis (1996) and Tzavaras (2008) report that genitive plural forms have been maintained in the dialect of Imbros, albeit in restricted use. The same remark is made by Kerkinéoglou (2009) on Ténedos, as he refers to the genitive plural forms as extremely rare. 224

245 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK The dialect of Lesbos presents a different situation, as Anagnostou (1903/1996) lists genitive plural forms for all nouns, apart from gaps of abstract nouns whose plural forms would be infrequent in general, e.g. τιμή honor, αρχοντιά nobility. Papadópoulos (1927: 60) verifies the maintenance of the case in Lesbos, which is also reflected in narratives (Kretschmer 1905: 525): (7.11) η βασλές του φιδιούν the king of the snakes [i vaˈsles tu fiˈðʝun] the:nom.sg.m king:nom.sg.m the:gen snake:gen.pl.n Nevertheless, as shown in 5.4.4, variation should not be overlooked due to the size of the island. Thus, varieties in Lesbos most likely exhibit nominal case syncretism and undeclined genitives, while the grammatical description of ILNE (715) mentions that the genitive plural is extremely rare. As regards Kydoniés (Ayvalık) and the adjoining Moschonísia islands, located opposite Lesbos, Sákkaris (1940: 99) mentions a few genitive plural forms noting that they were rarely used, e.g. πατιράδουν of the fathers, μιρών of the days, γατιών of the cats, but according to Ralli et al. (2004: 571) the genitive plural had completely been lost due to the use of από (phonetically realized as [am] in the following example): (7.12) το κακό είνι αμ τς αθρώπ [to kaˈko ˈini am ts aˈθrop] the:n/a.sg.n bad:n/a.sg.n be:3sg from the:acc.pl.m human:n/a.pl.m evil belongs to the people (lit. the bad is from the humans) Thrace, Eastern Rumelia and Bithynia The region of Thrace bears a lot of similarities to Macedonia and Thessaly regarding the obsolescence of the genitive plural, the use of από as a possessive marker and the use of accusative for indirect objects. I will not only refer to Western Thrace which belongs to Greece, but also to Eastern Thrace and Eastern Rumelia where Greek was spoken before the transfer of Greek-speaking populations to Greece from Bulgaria and Turkey during the 1910s and 1920s 225

246 NORTHERN GREEK respectively. As can be inferred, Greek was spoken alongside Bulgarian and Turkish in these areas. The presence of spoken Greek covered the coasts of Western (Greek) Thrace, but also the mainland of Eastern Thrace (modern Turkey), a part of south-eastern Bulgaria and the Bulgarian coast of the Black Sea. Map 7.8: The areas of Thrace (western=greece, eastern=turkey) and Eastern Rumelia (=Bulgaria) According to Andriotis (1943-4: 11), proper northern dialects could be found in the modern prefectures of Greek Thrace and the western half of the European part of Turkey; the varieties on the east of Rhaedestós (Tekirdağ), Arcadioupolis (Lüleburgaz) and Saranda Ekklisiés (Kırklareli) were semi-northern and are frequently mentioned as the borders between proper and seminorthern varieties (cf. Map 7.1) 248. Unfortunately, the dialects of Western Thrace have not been examined in full detail, as researchers focused on the dialects of Eastern Thrace and Rumelia due to the fact that the latter were under threat as their speakers were relocated to Greece and their 248 The dialect of Constantinopolitan Greeks will not be discussed here, since it does not exhibit either northern vocalism or loss of the genitive plural. 226

247 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK speech was vulnerable to assimilation by CMG. As regards the status of the genitive in the region, Kretschmer (1905) and Papadópoulos (1927) note that the plural forms were lost in most Thracian dialects, but this is not always the case. The ILNE manuscripts (714), (743) from the area of Souflí (Evros Prefecture) and (742) from the village Kósmio (Rhodope) mention genitive plural forms. ILNE (714) lists genitive plural forms, e.g. μελισσών/ μελισσιών (<μέλισσα bee ), but comments that they are not very common, ILNE (742: 18) refers that the genitive plural forms are not very frequent and are often replaced by από, e.g. ντουν λύκουδων/ απ τσι λύκουδις (<λύκους wolf ), while 743 (p. 2-5) does not list genitive plural gaps, but gives forms for all genders, e.g. αθρουπών (<άθρουπος human ), γατών (<γάτα cat ), γιουματιών (<γιώμα blood ); this could either reflect the maintenance of the case in this variety or the fieldworker s exaggeration due to influence from traditional grammars of AG, Katharévousa and CMG where tables with declensional paradigms are full with case forms. Turning to the dialects that used to be spoken outside the modern Greek borders, in a collection of narratives from Adrianople (Edirne) the use of genitive plural is attested in the following examples (Konstantinidis 1970: 98 & 99): (7.13a) τις πόρτες τουν δυο αχουριών [tis ˈportes tun ðʝo axurˈʝon] the:acc.pl.f door:n/a.pl.f the:gen.pl two barn:gen.pl.n the doors of the two barns (7.13b) τα κλουτσήματα τουν αλλωνών [ta kluˈtsimata tun aluˈnon] the:n/a.pl.n kicking:n/a.pl.n the:gen.pl other:gen.pl the other people s kicking Albanoudis (2009) presents a completely different situation in his grammatical description of the dialect that used to be spoken in the town Megalo Monastiri (Golyam Manastir) in southern Bulgaria where a small number of Greek speakers is still found; no genitive plurals are mentioned and only few masculine and feminine nouns have maintained genitive singular forms, e.g. τ κλέφτ (<κλέφτς thief ), ς (<τ ς <*της) αουπούς (<αουπού fox ). A similar situation is found in the semi-northern variety of Saranda Ekklisiés (Psaltis 1905: 65-6), as the genitive 227

248 NORTHERN GREEK plural has completely been lost apart from a few relics that denoted measure, age and quantity: τέσσερω μηνώ four months old, τρίω μετρώ three meters long. The varieties of the villages Tsendo (Apostolidis 1942) and Tsakili (Chourmouziadis 1941) of eastern Thrace lie in the same category, as they had completely lost the genitive plural which was replaced by juxtapositions, linking pronouns and the use of από, e.g. ο γιακάς απ τα πκάμ σα the collar of the shirts (Chourmouziadis 1941: 269). The loss of the genitive plural is also found in the varieties of eastern Thrace where the deletion of high vowels was not as widespread, as is the case with the dialect of Sozopolis (modern Sozopol) on the southern Bulgarian coast of Black Sea (Vafiadou 1976: 124). Since the varieties of the peninsula of Kýzikos were already discussed in Chapter 5, I will merely refer to the varieties of coastal and mainland Bithynia in this section. Map 7.9: The varieties of Kýzikos and Bithynia As regards northern vocalism, the Bithynian towns of Bursa (Konstantinidou 2005) and Triglia (Papadopoulou 2010) alongside with Vourlá (Milioris 1972) had intact unstressed vowels, while the Bithynian towns of Kouvouklia (Deliyannis 2002) and Demirdesi (Danguitsis 1943) had deletion of unstressed high vowels. The maintenance of the genitive plural in Bithynia presents an intermediate situation. The coastal variety of Triglia maintained genitive plural forms for most nouns according to Papadopoulou (2010), although adjectives, a few feminine nouns - frequently defective in most dialect groups, e.g. ώρα hour, χαρά joy, κάμαρη bedroom, κόρη daughter ) - and μα- 228

249 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK /ιμο-neuters (e.g. πράμα thing, φέρσιμο behavior ) lost their genitive plural forms through the use of από as a possessive marker. Konstantinidou (2005: 344) mentions genitive plural forms for the dialect of the city of Bursa: άντρωπω of humans, αλλωνώ of others. In contrast, Deliyannis (2002) and Danguitsis (1943) do not mention any genitive plural forms in the paradigms of the nominal inflection of the dialects of the villages Kouvouklia and Demirdesi respectively. Finally, Papadopoulou (2010: 265) notes that the variety of Palladari completely lost the genitive plural, while the dialect of Kios maintained genitive plural forms South-western Asia Minor The Greek dialects that used to be spoken in western parts of Asia Minor before 1922, included Smyrna (İzmir) and its surrounding towns, e.g. Alátsata (Alaçati), Vourlá (Urla) and Tsesmé (Çeşme). Greek was also spoken on the southern Aegean coast of Asia Minor in Halicarnassus (Bodrum) and the neighboring villages Livisi and Makri. Out of these dialects only Vourlá and Livisi (with Makri) employed accusative indirect objects; therefore, I will not deal with the dialects of Smyrna, Alátsata, Tsesmé and Halicarnassus here due to their shared features with the south-eastern dialect group that includes Chios, Icaria and the Dodecanese Islands, as they employ genitive indirect objects and largely maintain the genitive in both numbers. 229

250 NORTHERN GREEK Map 7.10: The varieties of the southern Aegean coast of Asia Minor The villages Livisi and Makri in south-western Asia Minor had raising of unstressed /e, o/, but not deletion of unstressed /i, u/, while the dialect of Vourlá had intact unstressed vowels, similarly to the rest of the dialects of the region of Smyrna. According to Andriotis (1961), the dialect of Livisi maintained the genitive more than any of these dialects, as even the neuter diminutives ending in -άκι were not defective and genitive plural forms are found in all paradigms. This is confirmed in narratives (cf. Mouseou- Bouyoukou (1976) where the genitive is not replaced by other strategies despite its low frequency, cf With regard to Vourlá in Ionia, Milioris (1972: 232) mentions genitive plural forms for human nouns, e.g. αργατώ <αργάτης laborer, γυναικώ <γυναίκα woman, but Kontosópoulos (2008: 120) mentions that the genitive plural was often replaced by από, e.g. τα φτερά απ τσι πετεινοί the wings of the roosters. 230

251 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Summary In the following tables, I attempt a classification of the dialects of the northern dialect group based on the criteria of deletion and raising of unstressed vowels, the marking of the indirect object and the status of the genitive in the singular and the plural 249 : Table 7.2: The status of the genitive in Central Greece and Epirus Central Greece Epirus Aetolia/ Phokís Eurytania/ other Pogoni Zagori Ioánnina GS + +/(-) + +/(-) + GP +/(-) +/- + +/(-) (+)/- D R IO GEN GEN GEN GEN GEN Table 7.3: The status of the genitive in the Northern dialects of the Aegean Thasos/ Lemnos Samothraki Imbros/ Ténedos Lesbos Kydoniés GS + (+)/ GP - - +/- +/(-) (+)/- D R IO ACC ACC ACC GEN ACC 249 GS=genitive singular, GP=genitive plural, D=deletion of unstressed /i, u/, R=raising of unstressed /e, o/, IO=marking of the indirect object. Varieties with accusative-genitive syncretism are not included (cf. Chapter 5). Regarding symbols, + denotes that the genitive is regularly used apart from minor paradigmatic gaps, - means that it has been completely lost apart from a few relics and set expressions. (+)/- means that the genitive plural is still present in the dialect, even though it has mostly been lost, +/(-) means that there are signs of retreat of the genitive, but it is still in use. 231

252 NORTHERN GREEK Table 7.4: The status of the genitive in Macedonia and Thessaly Macedonia Thessaly I/ Thessaly II Melnik Náousa Siátista rest (+Phthiotis 250 ) (Karditsa) GS + (+)/- +/- +/- +/- +/- GP (+)/ D (+)/ R IO ACC ACC (GEN)/ACC 251 ACC ACC (GEN)/ACC Table 7.5: The status of the genitive in Thrace and Eastern Rumelia Western Thrace Eastern Rumelia Eastern Thrace GS + +/- + GP +/- - - D R (west part)/- (east part) IO ACC ACC ACC Table 7.6: The status of the genitive in Western Asia Minor (Vourlá, Livisi and Bithynia) Vourlá Livisi Bithynia Bursa Triglia Kios Demirdesi Kouvouklia Palladari GS GP +/- + +/- +/- +/ D (+)/ R IO ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC It should be kept in mind that these tables are a summary of the available data and cannot present these phenomena exhaustively due to the fact that not every single variety of these regions has received an adequate grammatical description. Also, variation should not be 250 A part of the Phthiotis Prefecture. 251 The genitive forms are only used for the personal pronominal clitics. This holds true for Karditsa as well. 232

253 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK overlooked, as genitive plural forms are occasionally found in collections of texts from the varieties of Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace. 7.2 The continuum of genitive loss The preceding section shows that the retreat of the genitive can be viewed as a continuum between two extreme types of maintenance and loss, e.g. on the one end of the spectrum the conservative varieties of Aetolia (Central Greece) and on the other the variety of Náousa (Emathia, Macedonia). Thus, it is important to examine which strategies were employed for the expression of possessive relations that either caused or followed the loss of the genitive plurals Maintenance and loss of the genitive singular As opposed to its plural counterpart, it was shown earlier that no northern dialect has completely lost the genitive singular 252. As noted in (4.1a)-(4.1c), the universal unmarkedness of the singular number reflected in the lower structural complexity and significantly higher frequency of the genitive singular 253 illustrates a very clear picture of the situation. The synthetic/ analytic dichotomy of the marking of singular and plural possessors found in most Northern Greek varieties can also be found in Balkan Slavic varieties with decaying case systems, as can be seen in the southern Serbian variety of the village Svinitsa where in the paradigm of žena wife (Sobolev 2009: 723) the lost synthetic dative plural is lost and replaced by the preposition na: (7.14) SG: nom. žena acc. ženu dat. ženi # PL: nom. žene acc. žene dat. na žene However, the degree of the maintenance of the genitive singular varies greatly, as there are varieties where the genitive singular survives with only a certain group of nouns; hence, it would 252 Which can also be held for every variety of MG. 253 Out of the 2247 nominal heads from samples of narratives from Livisi (Mouseou-Bouyoukou 1976: 12-20, 24-38, 110, ) there are 65 genitive singulars and 8 genitive plural forms. 233

254 NORTHERN GREEK be interesting to examine which paradigms and semantic classes are more vulnerable to being replaced by the preposition από 254. The role of animacy seems to be the most prominent criterion for the replacement of nouns by a prepositional phrase with από, followed by the criterion of structural complexity of declensional paradigms. For instance, the dialects of Deskati in Thessaly (ILNE 1124) and Monastiri in Eastern Rumelia (Albanoudis 2009) have completely lost the genitive singulars of all neuter nouns. Furthermore, the predominantly inanimate and declensionally marked neuter nouns from the ancient 3 rd declension are quite often defective in the northern dialects. According to Papadópoulos (1927: 57), the deverbal neuters ending in -ιμο do not normally have genitive forms in the northern dialects. This is verified by many grammatical descriptions, such as in Epivates (Eastern Thrace), e.g. γράψιμο writing (Veikou-Serameti 1961: 247), in Sarakatsans, e.g. φέρσμου behavior (Høeg 1925: 234) and Chalkidikí, e.g. γράψμου writing (ILNE 970: 178). Quite obviously, the morphological variation of ιμο-neuter genitives in dialectal MG (e.g. gen.sg γράψιμ-ου/ γραψίματ-ος/ γραψιμάτ-ου/ γραψιματ-ιού of writing ) and the fact that these refer to abstract entities and have low possessive functionality have played a role in their early loss. The same can be said about neuters ending in -μα, as they are defective in Eurytania, e.g. μνήμα tomb, μπάλωμα patch (Karapiperis 1984: 53-4), Tsendo of E. Thrace, e.g. κλάδεμα pruning (Apostolidis 1942: 26), Pelion of Thessaly (Liapis 1996: 34), Kouvouklia of Bithynia, e.g. κέντημα embroidery (Deliyannis 1999: 97) and Chalkidikí, e.g. χώμα ground (ILNE 970: 178). Apart from grammatical descriptions, collections of dialectal texts show the preference for the periphrastic possessive construction: (7.15) τα φύλλα απ του κλήμα the leaves of the vine [ta ˈfila ap tu ˈklima] the:n/a.pl.n leave:n/a.pl.n from the:n/a.sg.n vine:n/a.sg.n Maronía, Rhodope (ILNE 605: 61) Other imparisyllabic neuters such as κρέας meat, φως light and γάλα milk are quite frequently defective, e.g. in Phthiotis (Tsitsas 1956: 10). The same can be said about the 254 Neuter diminutives will not be discussed here, as they do not have genitive forms in most southern dialects either. 234

255 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK inanimate ος-neuters, e.g. φάρδους width in Samos (Papadópoulos 1927: 70), βάρους weight in Kydoniés (Papadópoulos 1927: 70), πάθους passion in Sarakatsans (Høeg 1925: 234). Neuter paradigms seem to be more vulnerable to replacement by από overall. As regards ι-neuters, animacy plays an essential role, as only the noun πιδί child has maintained the genitive in the varieties of Olympus (Lárisa Prefecture; gen.sg πιντι-ού; Baslís 2010) and Phthiotis (gen.sg πιδι-ού; Tsitsas 1956: 9). A similar situation can be found in Germas (Kastoriá Prefecture; Georgiou 1962) where only the genitives πιδι-ού (<πιδί) and κουρτσι-ού (<κουρίτς girl ) have survived. The restriction of the genitive singular of ι-neuters was noticed by Tzártzanos (1909: 224), who notes that in Lárisa and Tírnavos only βουδι-ού (<βόδ ox ), σπιτιού (<σπιτ house ), πιδ-ιού, κουρτσι-ού are in use. The defectivity of ι-neuters can be attributed to the already-discussed problematic nature of genitive forms that require change of stress position. Nevertheless, shift of the stress position is not the only factor affecting defectivity, as frequently used inanimate nouns such as νιρό water and δέντρου tree are defective in Phthiotis (Tsitsas 1956: 9). Similar findings are provided about Kouvouklia (Deliyannis 1999: 97) and Chalkidikí (ILNE 970: 178) regarding the noun μήλο apple whose genitive would not require shift of the stress position. In contrast, the genitives of masculine and feminine nouns are maintained to a much greater extent. The morphological unmarkedness of the α-/η-masculine and α-/η-feminine genitives also facilitated their maintenance, e.g. παπά-ø <παπάς priest (M), μάνα-ς <μάνα mother (F). It is noteworthy that the majority of the last remaining genitive singulars of the Thessalian varieties of Lárisa and Tírnavos belong to the aforementioned paradigms (Tzártzanos 1909: 222): (7.16a) του φάντασμα τς νύχτας the ghost of the night [tu ˈfa (n) dazma ts ˈnixtas] the:n/a.sg.n ghost:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.f night:gen.sg.f (7.16b) τ βασιλιά τ άτ ι the king s horse [d vasiˈʎa t at j ] the:gen.sg.m king:gen.sg.m the:n/a.sg.n horse:n/a.sg.n It should not be overlooked, however, that despite their lack of structural complexity masculine and feminine genitives are also replaced by από: 235

256 NORTHERN GREEK (7.17) τς μήνις π του χειμώνα during the months of the winter [ts minis p tu çiˈmona] the:acc.pl.m month:n/a.pl.m from the:acc.sg.m winter:g/a.sg.m Kozani, Macedonia (Kouziaki 2008: 71) In the example above, the avoidance of the genitive singular by use of the prepositional phrase does not serve the economy of the utterance, since the expected genitive τ χειμώνα-ø would be phonologically shorter and would not overload case marking, as α-/η-masculines have common genitive and accusative singular forms. Undoubtedly, inanimate nouns of masculine and feminine gender are more likely to lose their genitive forms. The importance of the animacy hierarchy is proved by the fact that genitive singulars of the most unmarked human nouns are the last to be lost, as can be seen in the dialect of Samothraki where only the following forms have survived (Kamaroudis : 220 & 225): άθιιπου-ø (<άθιιπους person ), πατέα-ø (<πατέας father ), μητέα-ς (<μητέα mother ), θυγατία-ς (<θυγατία daughter ), πδι-ού (<πδί child ), κουιτσι-ού (<κουρίτς girl ). However, even genitive singulars of human nouns are frequently replaced by από. According to Tzártzanos (1909: 223), the genitive ανθρώπ of the extremely frequent noun άνθρωπος human is described as either extremely rare or obsolete in the dialects of Lárisa and Tírnavos. Data from dialectal texts confirm this situation (see also 7.1b): (7.18) του σπίτ ι απ του κουρίτσ ι the girl s house [tu spit j ap tu kuˈrits j ] the:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n from the:n/a.sg.n girl:n/a.sg.n Elatochori, Pieria (Macedonia; Douga-Papadopoulou & Tzitzilís 2006: 613) The dialect of Náousa (Emathia, Macedonia) presents the most extreme case regarding the elimination of genitive singulars, whose last frontier is proper nouns (Apostolou 1989: 40-1): 236

257 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.19) του ουρουλόγι του Ντώνη Anthony s clock [tu uruˈloʝi tu ˈdoni] the:n/a.sg.n clock:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.m PN:G/A.sg.m Also, genitive singulars of non-personal pronouns are maintained even in dialects where their nominal counterparts have been almost completely lost, e.g. in Aréthousa (Thessaloniki Prefecture) αυτ-νού (M/N)/ αυτ-νής (F) <αυτός this. According to the above data, the continuum of the loss of the genitive singular forms in the majority of the northern dialects fits to the animacy hierarchy, as described by Croft (2003: 130) - with the exclusion of pronominal forms: Table 7.7: The continuum of the loss of the genitive singular in the northern dialects Náousa Samothraki Germas Phthiotis Lárisa Sarakatsans Thasos proper nouns humans (M/F/N) /- + + animates (M/F/N) (+)/- + + inanimates (M/F) (+)/- + + inanimates (N) Ι (+)/- + + inanimates (N) II Maintenance and loss of the genitive plural The data on the process of the loss of the genitive plural are similar to its singular counterpart. The first paradigms that lost the genitive plural would have been the same as in Southern Greek or other dialect groups, namely barytone feminine nouns, ι-neuter diminutives and neuters that stem from the ancient third declension (cf. Chapter 6). This can be best shown in northern dialects where the genitive plural has not been lost and its status resembles the southern dialect groups, as can be best viewed in the example below from the variety of Parnassís (Phokís, Central Greece) which clearly depicts this (ILNE 803: 147): 255 This refers to the o- and ι-paradigms. 256 Paradigms that stem from the ancient third declension. 237

258 NORTHERN GREEK (7.20) τα προικιά απ τις τσούπις the trousseau of the girls [ta priˈca ap tis ˈtsupis] the:n/a.pl.n trousseau:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.f lass:n/a.pl.f In contrast, the paradigms of o-masculines and ι-neuters were maintained to a greater extent. As shown in 7.1, when there are unexpected uses of genitive plural forms in areas with complete loss of the genitive plural, as in Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace, these tend to belong to the aforementioned paradigms (cf. examples 7.7 and 7.13a). Another supporting element is the status of the case in the dialect of Meléniko (south-western Bulgaria) where only genitive plurals of o-masculines have survived. The maintenance of the genitive plurals of these paradigms was most likely motivated by the fact that human nouns of extremely high frequency and functionality belong to these paradigms, such as άνθρωπος human and παιδί child. Quite interestingly, Kretschmer (1905: 228) mentions that he noticed the genitive ανθρώπ-ουν in Thessaly, despite the obsolete status of the case. What is more, the following examples confirm the importance of the animacy hierarchy on the maintenance of genitive forms, as the nouns άντρας man and γυναίκα woman unexpectedly appear in the genitive plural: (7.21a) τα μαντήλια τουν γυνικών [ta ma (n) diˈʎa tu(n) ʝiniˈkon] the:n/a.pl.n scarf:n/a.pl.n the:gen.pl woman:gen.pl.f the women s scarves (7.21b) τουν αντρών τις πιρικιφαλαίις [tun aˈ(n) dron tis piricifaˈleis] the:gen.pl man:gen.pl.m the:acc.pl.f helmet:n/a.pl.f the men s helmets Karagoúnides 257 (Politis 1965: 6) Genitive plural forms are often maintained in set expressions or relics that denote duration, age and measure and constitute remnants of the ancient non-anchoring possessive functions of 257 Lowland population of Thessaly. 238

259 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK the genitive, such as genitives of age, which can be found in all northern dialects, e.g. χρονώ/ χρουνώ years old, (η)μερώ/ μιρώ days old and μηνώ months old. Psaltis (1905: 65-6) mentions the forms μέτρω/ μετριώ meters long and οκαδιώ (<οκά unit of weight ) for Saranda Ekklisiés. It seems that genitive plural forms of non-personal pronouns were the last frontier in the continuum of the loss of the case. Genitive plural forms in pronouns with the extended suffix -νών (cf ) can be found in the majority of the dialects that have otherwise completely lost the genitive plural in nominals. This may be related to their greater functional load than that of nominal genitives. For example, Lialias (1977: 246-7) mentions the forms αυτ -νών of these (<αυτός) and κ ν-ών of those (<εκείνος) for the variety of Aréthousa (Thessaloniki Prefecture) despite the fact that he does not include genitive singulars in his paradigms. However, the ILNE manuscripts from Chalkidikí (528: 62-5 from the village Arnea; 970: 178 from northern Chalkidikí) present a different situation, as no such forms are mentioned. These data can be summarized in the following table: Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV Stage V Table 7.8: The stages of the loss of the genitive plural 258 Inanimates with problematic stress position and neuters from the AG 3 rd declension e.g. παλαμ-ών palms, στρωμάτ-ων mattress Animals and human nouns with problematic stress position e.g. κοπελ-ών young women Non-human o-masculines, o-neuters and ι-neuters e.g. λύκ-ων wolves, δεντρ-ών/ δέντρ-ων trees, σπιτι-ών houses etc Human nouns of high frequency e.g. ανθρώπ-ων, αντρ-ών, γυναικ-ών, παιδι-ών etc Non-personal pronouns and relics of time and measure e.g. εκειν-ών of these, αυτ-ωνών of those, ποι-ανών of whose etc 258 The examples will not be given with raising or deletion of unstressed vowels, in order to present the former stages of the dialects and to avoid multiple possible forms due to the differences between proper northern and seminorthern varieties. 239

260 NORTHERN GREEK 7.3 Competing strategies The grammaticalization of από as a possessive marker Given the fact that the preposition από is the most common strategy for adnominal possession for Northern Greek, unlike most other dialect groups, in this section I will discuss its relation to the loss of the genitive and present its diachrony and the internal factors that resulted in its grammaticalization as a possessive marker. As shown in Chapter 6, it is quite likely that the possessive use of από essentially began as a last resort strategy for the avoidance of genitive forms with unpredictable or problematic stress position (cf. example 6.39b). As Lehmann (1991: 501) points out on the mutual character of the replacement of cases by adpositions, when the possessive από was extended beyond its initial last resort state, its use triggered the loss of genitive plurals that were fairly productive and non-problematic (cf. Norde 2001: 246). The origin of the preposition can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European, as its cognates can be found in Sanskrit, Latin, Germanic and Albanian: ápa, ab, off/of (English) and pa respectively. Even though it probably used to be an adverb, it does not function as an adverb in the Homeric epics according to Luraghi (2003: 118), while Bortone (2010: 134) thinks its use in utterances like the following could be interpreted in three different ways: (7.22) βλεφάρων ἄπο δάκρυα πίπτει Odyssey 14, 129 (8 th c. BC) [blep h árɔ:n ápo dákrua piptei] eyelid:gen.pl.n from tear:n/a.pl.n fall:3sg from [her] eyes away tears fall (adverb) away-from [her] eyes tears fall (synsemantic with case) from [her] eyes tears fall-off (preverb) From [her] eyes tears fall Regardless of its exact origin, its initial meaning must have been purely ablative. Therefore, its functions were distinct from other prepositions with similar meanings during Homeric and Classical Greek, such as the elative ἐκ out of, the agentive ὑπό under/ by and παρά from (human source). During the later periods of the language, the functions of the ἀπό increased 240

261 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK significantly for a number of reasons. First, the preference for analytic structures resulted in the shift of the adverbial prepositions to governing a prepositional phrase with από instead of a bare genitive, e.g. ὀπίσω τῆς οἰκίας [GEN] ὀπίσω ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας [GEN] ὀπίσω ἀπὸ τὴν οἰκίαν 259 [ACC] behind the house. Second, as the ablative and partitive functions of the genitive retreated, από began to be used adnominally, e.g. ξίφος σιδήρου [GEN] ξίφος ἀπὸ σιδήρου [GEN] ξίφος από σίδηρον [ACC] sword (made) of iron. Third, από replaced all prepositions that governed the genitive in Ancient Greek and had similar functions, e.g. λαμβάνει παρὰ τῆς μητρός λαμβάνει ἀπὸ τῆς μητρός s/he takes from the mother. Bortone (2010: 213) attributes this development to semantic and phonological mergers: (7.23a) ὑπό under ἀπό (phonological merger) (7.23b) πρός towards ἐκ out of (semantic merger) ἀπό (semantic merger) (7.23c) περί about παρά by (phonological merger) ἀπό (semantic merger) On a similar note, the semantic network of ἀπό is portrayed by Luraghi (2003: 130) in the following way: Figure 7.1: The semantic extensions of AG ἀπό Time Source Cause Origin Agent The use of cases or adpositions of ablative meaning for the marking has been shown to be one of the most common cognitive schemas used for the expression of attributive possession (cf. Heine 1997: 64). The possessive use of ablative prepositions is highly widespread in Europe, as it can be found with most Romance languages (with the exception of Romanian), a great number of Germanic languages (English, German, Dutch, Frisian and varieties of Norwegian and Swedish (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003: 685-7). The process of the possessive use of από quite 259 When the accusative became the exclusive prepositional case during MedG (cf ). 241

262 NORTHERN GREEK possibly followed three main paths 260 : i) reanalysis of body-part/ whole-part relations as partitive relations, ii) merger of marking of subjects and agents of action nominal constructions and iii) reanalysis of origin-originating element relations as possessor and possessum. Starting with the former, the term body-part relations not only refers to humans and animates, but also to inanimate beings, e.g. the branches of the tree, the wheel of the car etc. It is quite clear that there is a strong semantic affinity between body-part and partitive relations; as Nikiforidou (1991: 173) shows, the expression of part-whole relations by ablative markers takes place through the metaphor scheme WHOLES ARE ORIGINS: Figure 7.2: The cognitive transition from body-part relations to ablative marking Whole (abstract) Origin Origin Whole Parts Originating element (abstract) Parts Originating Even though marking of partitive relations shifted from the genitive to ἀπό or ἐκ quite early during HellG, the use of these prepositions for body-part relations can mainly be found in later periods of the language. This pattern can be attested in the vernacular texts of LMedG and EMG, when the accusative had become the exclusive prepositional case, as can be seen in the following example from Damascenus Studites (born in Thessaloniki): (7.24) κατώφλια ἀπὸ ταῖς θύραις doorsteps of the gates [kaˈtofʎa apo tes ˈθires] doorstep:n/a.pl.n from the:acc.pl.f door:n/a.pl.f Thesaurus, Oration 3, l. 628 (16 th c.) 260 Quite interestingly, the first and the third process seem to have been followed in the grammaticalization of Latin de as a possessive marker in Romance languages and specifically in Old and Middle French as shown by Carlier et al. (2013: 157 & 168). 242

263 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK As regards subjects of action nominal constructions, Greek belongs to the ergative-possessive type according to the classification made by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2003), which means that the subject of intransitive constructions and the patient of transitive constructions are treated as possessors, and agents are marked differently, e.g. το γράψιμο της επιστολής (PATIENT=GEN) από τον υπάλληλο (AGENT=PREP.PHRASE) the writing of the letter by the employee vs. το γράψιμο του υπαλλήλου (SUBJECT=GEN) the employee s writing. The semantic affinity between subjects and agents could have provided another path for the possessive functions of από, given the fact that it acquired the agentive functions of the AG ὑπό under/ by. As can be seen in the following examples from LMedG and EMG texts, it is possible to find subjects of action nominal constructions marked by από: (7.25a) εὐχὴ ἀπὸ φίλου τινὸς γέροντος 261 [eˈfçi apo ˈfilu tinos ˈʝerondos] wish:nom.sg.f from friend:gen.sg.m some:gen.sg.m old.man:gen.sg.m wish of a friend, some old man Eustathius Thessalonicensis, Com. ad Homeri Odysseam, Vol. 2, p. 188, l. 4 (12 th c.) (7.25b) ς ἀπώλειαν ἀπὸ τοὺς λογισμούς τους [s aˈpolian apo tus loʝiˈzmus tus] to loss:acc.sg.f from the:acc.pl.m thinking:acc.pl.m 3pl:ACC/GEN.wk to the loss of their mind Chronicle of Morea (H & T), l (14 th c.) Quite interestingly, a narrative from Artaki (Kýzikos) shows the following interesting alternation between the genitive and the preposition (ILNE 767: 63 & 65): ευκή και χαρά πε [from] το προφήτη τς wish and joy of their prophet vs. ευκή του [GEN] προφήτη μας wish of our prophet. The reanalysis of origin as possessor and of the originating element as possessum has been proposed by Tzártzanos (1909: 230), i.e. with structures that indicate extraction or partition of an element from an entity (cf. Carlier et al. 2013: 153). The following scheme shows how an 261 This text employs highly archaistic language, therefore the prepositional use of the genitive does not reflect a structure of the spoken language of the time, but this use of από possibly does. 243

264 NORTHERN GREEK adverbial adjunct could be reanalyzed as a complement of the noun phrase and then replace a genitive form: (7.26) το νερό από τη βρύση κυλάει NP adjunct VP [to neˈro] [apo ti ˈvrisi [ciˈlaj]] NP NP-compl VP [[to neˈro] apo ti ˈvrisi] ciˈlaj]] the water flows from the tap το νερό από τη βρύση είναι κρύο # το νερό της βρύσης είναι κρύο [[to neˈro] apo ti ˈvrisi] [ine] [ˈkrio] [[to neˈro] tis ˈvrisis] [ine] [ˈkrio] the water from the tap is cold the water of the tap is cold The following examples from LHellG demonstrate the first signs of the fluctuation between a plain genitive and an ablative/ elative preposition: (7.27a) θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται [t h riks ek tis kep h aˈlis yˈmon hair:nom.sg.f out.of the:gen.sg.f head:gen.sg.f 2pl:GEN u mi aˈpolite] NEG NEG.MOD perish:3sg Not a hair of your head will perish New Testament, Luke 21: 18 (1 st c. AD) (7.27b) οὐδενὸς ὑμῶν θρὶξ τῆς κεφαλῆς πεσεῖται [uðeˈnos yˈmon θriks tis cefaˈlis peˈsite] noone:gen.sg.m 2pl:GEN hair:nom.sg.f the:gen.sg.f head:gen.sg.f fall:3sg.mid.fut Not a single hair of your head will fall John Chrysostom, In Acta apost. (homiliae 1-55), Vol. 60, p. 369, l (4 th -5 th c. AD) Similar structures can be found in texts of later periods, as the following example shows: 244

265 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.28) δὲν παύει τὸ δάκρυον ἀπὸ τὰ ʼμμάτια μου [ðem ˈbavi to ˈðakrjon apo ta ˈmatça mu NEG finish:3sg the tear from the:n/a.pl.n eye:n/a.pl.n 1sg:GEN.wk The tear from my eyes doesn t stop Papa-Synadinus, Chronicle of Serres, Chapter 1, par. 31, l. 88 (17 th c.) As noted earlier, the possessive use of από can also be found in CMG and other dialect groups that have maintained the genitive in both numbers; however, the difference between these dialects and the northern dialect group lies in the fact that in the former από is mainly used with defective nouns as a last resort strategy, while in the latter it has been fully grammaticalized and can be used with all nouns and in all possessive functions, such as ownership, authorship, kinship etc. Consequently, the expansion of the use of από to marking prototypical possessive relations developed through the initial use of από as a last resort strategy that covered the genitive plural gaps of defective nouns. As the following example from Bortone (2010: 64) shows, από is used instead of the ungrammatical genitive plural *των κοτών: τα αυγά από τις [ACC.PL.F] κότες [N/A.PL.F] the eggs of the hens. At a later point, the possessive use of από was further extended to defective human nouns, as shown in example (7.20). The fact that από began to be used with such defective human nouns shows that it was then extended to use with nouns with fully productive genitive plurals. The paths of the possessive use of από can be summarized as follows: Table 7.9: The process of the possessive grammaticalization of από body-part relations origin vs. originating element subject of action nominal constructions use with defective nouns <partitive από e.g. τα κλαδιά από το δέντρο the branches of the tree <ablative από e.g. τα δάκρυα από τα μάτια the tears of the eyes <agentive από e.g. η ευχή από τον προφήτη the prophet s wish <use of από as last resort e.g. τα ονόματα από τις βασιλοπούλες the names of the princesses primarily inanimate and animate nouns human and animate nouns 245

266 NORTHERN GREEK The chronology of the possessive use of από in the northern dialects can be placed during the late centuries of LMedG and mainly EMG (14 th -18 th c.). As Tzártzanos (1909: 231) notes, the presence of the case in proverbs of Lárisa and Tírnavos, where the case has almost been completely lost in both numbers, shows that the development is not very old. This seems to be true if it is kept in mind that a similar process has run only partially in many areas such as Epirus, Central Greece, Imbros, Ténedos and to a lesser extent Thrace and Bithynia Other possessive strategies Even though the possessive use of από can be found almost everywhere in the northern dialects, dialectal variation shows that there are a few different strategies of adnominal possession. First, according to Chourmouziadis (1939) and Apostolidis (1942), the varieties of Tsakili and Tsendo in Eastern Thrace exhibited the possessive use of accusative plurals. Given the fact that these researchers only provide examples with neuter nouns, the phenomenon might not reflect accusative-genitive syncretism (cf. Chapter 5), but possessive juxtapositional structures. As can be seen in (7.30d), such uses can also be found in the northern variety of Adrianople (northwestern part of Eastern Thrace), which implies that it must have been an areal phenomenon: (7.30a) η λαγήνα είναι τα παιδιά [i laˈʝina ˈine ta peˈðʝa] the:nom.sg.f jug:n/a.sg.f be:3 the:n/a.pl.n child:n/a.pl.n The jug belongs to the children (lit. the jug is [of] the children) Tsakili, Eastern Thrace (Chourmouziadis 1939: 269) (7.30b) o τενεκές τα φύλλα [o teneˈces ta ˈfila] the:nom.sg.m bin:nom.sg.m the:n/a.pl.n leaf:n/a.pl.n The bin of the leaves 246

267 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.30c) το συρτάρι τα βιβλία [to sirˈtari ta viˈvlia] the:n/a.sg.n drawer:n/a.sg.n the:n/a.pl.n book:n/a.pl.n the drawer of the books Tsendo, Eastern Thrace (Apostolidis 1942: 16) (7.30d) στου σπίτ τ αγρίμια [stu spit taˈɣrimɲa] /s.to ˈspiti ta aˈɣrimia/ the:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n the:n/a.pl.n beast:n/a.pl.n at the house of the beasts Adrianople (Edirne), Eastern Thrace (Konstantinidis 1970: 117) Second, Andriotis (1996: 22) mentions that in the dialect of Imbros structures with linking pronouns are used instead of the genitive plural: (7.31) οιj άντoιρ 262 τα ρούχα τʃ [iʝ ˈadir ta ˈruxa tʃ] the:nom.pl.m man:nom.pl the:n/a.pl.n clothing:n/a.pl.n 3pl:GEN.pl.n the men s clothes (lit. the men their clothes) Linking pronouns are also mentioned by Apostolidis (1942: 16) for the eastern Thracian village Tsakili as another way of marking possession: (7.32) τα βόδια είναι γυριστά τα κέρατά τς [ta ˈvoðʝa ˈine ʝiriˈsta ta ˈceraˌta ts] the:pl.n ox:n/a.pl.n be:3pl curved:n/a.pl.n the:pl.n horn:n/a.pl.n 3pl:GEN.pl the horns of oxen are curved (lit. the oxen their horns are curved ) Third, in the dialect of Kydoniés relative clauses are used as a periphrastic strategy to avoid the genitive *τουν γουνιών (Sákkaris 1940: 99): 262 <*άντροι <*άντρες with extension of the -οι nominative plural morpheme of ο-masculines. 247

268 NORTHERN GREEK (7.33) τα σπίτια πό χιν 263 οι γουνοί [ta ˈspitça ˈpoçin i ɣuˈɲi] /ta ˈspitia pu ˈexun i ɣuniˈi] the:n/a.pl.n house:n/a.pl.n REL have:3pl the:nom.pl.m parent:nom.pl.m the parents houses (lit. the houses that the parents have) Fourth, the preposition σε in/ to can occasionally be found in dialectal texts, as in the following example where instead of a genitive form the speaker employs a structure with double locative marking (ILNE 976: 103): (7.34) ʃτην άκρ ʃτη Θισσαλία [ʃ.tin akr ʃ.ti θisaˈʎia] in.the:acc.sg.f edge:n/a.sg.f in.the:acc.sg.f Thessaly:N/A.sg.f in the borders of Thessaly (lit. in the borders in Thessaly) Merkás, Phthiotis, Central Greece Although such uses of σε are infrequent, language contact has played an important role in the use of the preposition by bilingual Sarakatsans of Bulgaria according to Tzitzilís (1999: 74), since Bulgarian employs the locative/dative preposition na to mark possession: (7.35) η μάνα στα γκζάνια [i ˈmana s.ta ˈgzaɲa] the:nom.sg.f mother:n/a.sg.f in.the:n/a.pl.n child:n/a.pl.n the mother of the children Finally, it was shown in Chapter 5 that semi-northern and northern dialects that mark indirect objects with the genitive are very prone to developing accusative-genitive syncretism in the masculine and feminine paradigms, while in the dialect of Lesbos the use of undeclined possessors with neuter diminutives and other nouns is also attested. 263 <*πό χινι <*που έχ νι < *που έχουνε <*που έχουν with development of epenthetic /i/, contraction of the vowel sequence, northern vocalism and avoidance of the closed syllable with -ε. 248

269 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK These findings show that speakers turn to various strategies to deal with the problematic status of genitive plurals in the nominal inflection of the northern dialects. Since these findings come from the periphery of the northern dialect group, it can be inferred that από had not been completely grammaticalized as a possessive marker in all areas and that there was competition with alternative structures, especially since Chourmouziadis (1939) and Apostolidis (1942) confirm the variation between από and juxtapositions or linking pronouns for Tsendo and Tsakili respectively. Another element that can be drawn from these data is the fact that the low functionality of genitive plural forms in the northern dialects indicates that από was employed as a possessive marker for two reasons: i) the aforementioned paths of its possessive grammaticalization led to its competition with synthetic genitives and the ultimate loss of the latter and ii) the infrequency of genitive plural forms in certain paradigms and lexemes resulted in the use of από and other constructions as last resort strategies due to the speakers uncertainty of how plural possessors should be marked. 7.4 The origin of the loss Given the fact that the phenomenon occurs quite consistently in the varieties of Northern Greek and seems to fade away in dialects located in the fringes of the Northern Greek continuum, in the following sections I will examine the relation between the loss of the genitive and the most prototypical features of the northern dialects, such as: i) the deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and/or raising of unstressed /e, o/, ii) accusative vs. genitive indirect object marking and iii) contact with the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund due to the extremely high degree of multilingualism in Northern Greece before the beginning of the 20 th c Northern vocalism As the northern dialect group is defined by the phonological feature of northern vocalism, it is essential to examine whether the loss of the genitive plural is related to phonological factors, since the development is only rarely found in dialects with intact unstressed vowels, cf. Vourlá in Ionia or Palladari in Bithynia. As mentioned earlier, the phonological feature of northern vocalism is found in two different types, namely in the proper northern dialects (+D, +R) and the 249

270 NORTHERN GREEK semi-northern (+D, -R or -D, +R). Even though this phonological feature has been extensively studied by researchers, its course of development and origins are not yet determined; the main question on whether deletion of /i, u/ preceded raising of /e, o/ or vice versa remains without a definitive answer. The importance of examining the process of the development lies in the way it could have affected the restriction of genitive forms. There are two prominent views on the matter. First, Hatzidakis (1907: 258) and Andriotis (1933: 340-1) propose that raising of mid vowels preceded deletion of high vowels. These two researchers claim that the dialect of Livisi was brought to south-western Asia Minor by Northern Greek settlers and the fact that it only exhibits raising of mid vowels indicates that it has preserved an older stage of northern vocalism. Andriotis (1933) bases this analysis on the earlier attestation of raised mid vowels in medieval documents of the 11 th c. as opposed to the first signs of deleted high vowels in the 13 th c. The main problem with this analysis is that we would expect forms like *κριτς 264 (<*κουρίτσι <κορίτσι girl ) if raising preceded deletion. Hatzidakis treats this problem by proposing that even though raising of /e, o/ occurred first, the process of deletion of /i, u/ was completed before the former development. A different view on the matter is provided by Symeonidis (1977) who believes that raising and deletion took place simultaneously as a single process: κουρίτς <κορίτσι (with no intermediate stages). The manner of the influence of these phonological changes on the use of genitive forms needs to be examined. Since the matter of the process of the development is still open, all three possible courses will be considered: i) deletion before raising (as also applies for the seminorthern varieties of the type [+D, -R], ii) simultaneous raising and deletion and iii) raising before deletion (as also applies for the semi-northern varieties of the type [-D, +R]). Starting with the former two possible courses, since they cover both proper and semi-northern varieties [+D, -R], Tzártzanos (1909: ) proposes that genitive singulars of α-/η-/o-masculines and o-neuters became phonologically weakened due to the deletion of unstressed /i, u/ masculine: (7.36) ζευγίτης plowman, gen.sg ζευγίτη-ø [zeˈvʝiti] ζιβγιτ [ziˈvʝit] (η-masculine) άρρωστος sick, gen.sg αρρώστ-ου [aˈrostu] αρρώστ [aˈrost] (o-masculine) 264 Such forms are only found in a small group of varieties with strict northern vocalism, i.e. the deletion of /i, u/ and comes from raised /e, o/. 250

271 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Apart from the reduced iconicity of these genitive singulars for the speakers, the deletion of /u/ of the genitive of the definite article would also create phonetically complex clusters: τ δρομ [tðrom] <δρόμος road. A clear example of this comes from Anagnostópoulos (1921: 182), who mentions that in the variety of Zagori (northern part of Ioánnina Prefecture, Epirus), even though the genitive has been largely maintained (cf ), antepenult-stressed and compound o- neuters are often defective; this can be reflected in the defectivity of the o-neuter παλιόσκλου old/ bad dog (/paliˈoskilo/, [paˈʎosklu]), which he offers as an example, as its genitive would have to end in a triple consonant cluster: *τ παλιόσκλ [tpaˈʎoskl] of the old/ bad dog. Genitive singular forms could have been more affected if the earlier development of raising of /e, o/ constitutes the actual process of the development. More precisely, genitive singular forms of o-masculines with initial fricative, nasal and tap consonants and of ο-neuters would coincide with accusative singulars 265 : (7.36) acc.sg /to 266 ˈðromo/ [tu ˈðromu] (+R) = gen.sg [tu ˈðromu] (<δρόμος road ) n/a.sg /to ˈðendro/ [tu ˈðendru] (+R) = gen.sg [tu ˈðendru] (<δέντρο tree ) This development seems to be the decisive factor for the almost complete loss of the genitive in both numbers in the semi-northern dialect of Náousa. In contrast, the overlap did not take place in Livisi, the only other dialect of the type [-D, +R], due to the maintenance of final /n/ 267 of nominal accusatives and assimilation of the final -ν of the accusatives of the definite article by the following consonant of the noun (Andriotis 1961: 62): gen.sg του δρόμου [tu ˈðromu] # acc.sg τουδ δρόμουν [tuð ˈðromun] (<*τον δρόμον). Nevertheless, it is clear that deletion of unstressed /i, u/ could not affect the genitive plural forms which were lost to a much greater extent and constitute our main focus of study. Given the fact that in some northern varieties the final -ν of genitive plurals was lost, e.g. in Zagori πατεράδου <*πατεράδουν <*πατεράδων (πατέρας father ; Papadópoulos 1927: 62) and Imbros δρουμιώ <*δρουμιών (<δρόμος road ; Papadópoulos 1927: 68), it is possible that genitive singulars could have coincided with genitive plural forms, thus forming a triple homophony: tu 265 Due to the loss of final /n/ of the masculine accusative singular of the definite article: τον δρόμο=[toˈðromo]. 266 Even though not pronounced before fricatives, nasals and liquids, -ν of τον is orthographically depicted to avoid confusion with the neuter nominative/ accusative singular το. 267 Cf. Zachariou-Mamaliga (2003) on the phonetic isoglosses between Livisi and the Dodecanese varieties. 251

272 NORTHERN GREEK ˈðromu= acc.sg/ gen.sg/ gen.pl. However, the final -ν of genitive plurals is largely maintained within the borders of Northern Greek (cf. Kretschmer 1905 and Papadópoulos 1927) and overlap between genitive singular and plural forms could not have taken place in most proper northern dialects and most definitely in the semi-northern dialects of type [+D, -R]. In a concluding remark, it is clear that the phonological features of proper and semi-northern varieties could not have been the main factor behind the loss of the genitive plural forms. However, northern vocalism could have affected genitive plural loss indirectly, since the replacement of phonologically weakened or overlapping (thus non-iconic in either case) genitive singulars from the preposition από could have increased the use of periphrastic possessive constructions in the plural, especially given that synthetic constructions are expected to be lost first in the marked number Indirect object marking Apart from northern vocalism, the varieties of northern Greece and western Asia Minor are largely defined by employing the accusative to mark indirect objects. As seen in 7.1, the only exceptions are Lesbos in the Northern Aegean, Epirus and Central Greece. Consequently, it is worth examining the impact of this feature on the loss of the genitive plural and the restriction of its singular counterpart on northern dialects with genitive indirect objects (GEN=IO henceforth) and those with accusative indirect objects (ACC=IO henceforth). As can be seen in 7.1.8, the genitive plural has been mostly maintained in GEN=IO northern dialects 268. To be more precise, Lesbos, Central Greece and most areas of Epirus exhibit strong use of the case, although the varieties of and around Ioánnina in Epirus have almost completely lost the genitive, and in Eurytanian (Central Greece) there is alternation between από and the genitive plural forms. Furthermore, in the northern dialects with accusative-genitive syncretism (Sarakatsans, Voúrbiani, Kýzikos, Samos, the Sporades and Northern Euboea), the genitive survives as a grammatical category despite the loss of its inflectional potential. In contrast, the dialect of Livisi is the only one that shows a robust maintenance of genitive forms, while all other ACC=IO northern dialects exhibit loss of the genitive plural. Even though 268 I will not take Karditsa (Thessaly) and Siátista (Macedonia) into consideration, as they only exhibit use of genitive pronominal clitics as indirect objects, cf. πε τς [3sg:GEN.f] tell her vs. να πει τσέτσοια λόγια του [the:n/a.sg.n] πιδί [child:n/a.sg.n] to tell such words to the kid (Siátista; Papanaoúm 1968: 47). 252

273 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK the process was not completed in parts of Western Thrace, Imbros and Ténedos in the Northern Aegean, Meléniko in south-western Bulgaria and the Bithynian varieties of Kios, Triglia and Bursa, there are some interesting contrastive pairs of adjacent GEN=IO and ACC=IO dialects that intensify the correlation of indirect object marking and genitive loss: Lesbos [GEN=IO]: +GS, +/(-)GP Southern Phthiotis [GEN=IO]: +GS, +/(-)GP Epirus [GEN=IO]: +GS, +/(-)GP Tsesmé, Alátsata [GEN=IO]: +GS, +GP vs. Kydoniés [ACC=IO] +GS, (+)/-GP vs. Northern Phthiotis [ACC=IO] +/-GS, -GP vs. Macedonia [ACC=IO] +/-GS, -GP vs. Vourlá [ACC=IO] +GS, +/-GP (<από) The way indirect object marking affected the loss of the genitive, especially in the plural, can be shown by the higher frequency of the genitive in GEN=IO dialects due to its greater distributional potential, as shown earlier in 4.3. Speakers of GEN=IO dialects would hear and use more genitive forms and this could render the process of their loss much slower than in ACC=IO dialects. This can be best shown by the use of genitive plurals as indirect objects in Zagori (Anagnostópoulos 1921) and Central Greece (cf. example 5.29b). Even though σε at/in/to has severely restricted the use of genitive plurals as indirect objects in some GEN=IO dialects, as can be seen in narratives from Lesbos collected by Anagnostou (1994) where genitive plurals are never used as indirect objects instead of σε, their higher frequency in earlier periods of these dialects established a strong presence of the forms, something that could not be found in the adjoining variety of Kydoniés, for instance. Even though indirect object marking has most likely played a decisive role in the maintenance of the genitive case, two issues need to be clarified; on the one hand, not all GEN=IO dialects have maintained the genitive plural, as mentioned earlier; on the other hand, dialects with accusative indirect objects do not necessarily lose the genitive plural, as can be seen in the case of Livisi or other dialect groups such as Pontic 269. The former case can be explained by the effects of northern vocalism, as shown in 7.4.1, and by the diffusion of the possessive use of από through dialect contact. For instance, varieties of Eurytania are adjacent to Thessaly, where the genitive has greatly retreated in both numbers, while the same can be said about Ioánnina where contact with Thessalian and Macedonian varieties may have triggered the restriction of genitive 269 The dialects of Eastern Asia Minor will be discussed in Chapter

274 NORTHERN GREEK plural forms. The role of dialect contact in the diffusion of linguistic features in Epirus can be shown by the expansion of northern vocalism which is found in Zagori, Pápigo and Ioánnina, while the rest of Epirot varieties are either semi-northern [+D, -R], e.g. Pogoni and Kónitsa, or have intact unstressed vowels (Western Epirus and Southern Albania). Turning to the dialects with accusative indirect objects that do not lose the genitive plural, the strong presence of the genitive plural in Livisi should not be surprising if we keep in mind that it shares a few common features with its adjoining Dodecanese dialects where the genitive is largely maintained, as noted earlier in As regards Pontic and other dialect groups where the genitive is largely maintained, it should not be forgotten that apart from the lack of northern vocalism 270 Pontic exhibits a great number of archaisms and peculiar features, such as the maintenance of 1PL and 2PL genitives (cf ). Given all that, it can be safely concluded that the use of the accusative to mark indirect objects in the majority of the northern dialects has played a decisive role in the restriction of genitive forms. This means that the initial paradigmatic loss of genitive plurals of a small number of nouns (e.g. inanimates, abstract nouns, feminines with unstable stress position etc.), which is found in almost all other dialect groups, would expand even further to the point of complete loss of the genitive in these dialects (cf. the continuum proposed in 7.2.1) due to the more infrequent use of the case, and this might have led speakers to employ alternative grammatical structures to mark plural possessors, such as the preposition από. Also, even though in GEN=IO dialects the case is better maintained, the pattern was expanded to areas such as Epirus and the northern parts of Central Greece that were in the vicinity of the core of the development, which can be approximately placed in Macedonia and Thessaly, Language Contact As was previously mentioned, the regions of Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace lie at the heart of language contact in the Balkans due to the presence of seven distinct linguistic groups until the beginning of the 20 th c.: i) Greek, ii) Balkan Slavic (Bulgarian and Makedonski), iii) Balkan Romance (Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian 271 ), iv) (Tosk) Albanian, v) Turkish, vi) Balkan 270 Pontic does display the loss of unstressed /u/ in final position, but the effects of this are not substantial, since the distinctive gen.sg suffix -ί(oυ) has replaced -(oυ) in most masculine and neuter paradigms (cf ). 271 Given the fact that Megleno-Romanian is quite limited geographically and there are not enough sources on its morphological features, it will not be dealt with here. 254

275 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Romani and vii) Balkan Judeo-Spanish (Ladino). Therefore, it would be extremely interesting to examine the structural types of adnominal possession in these languages in order to determine their relevance to the possessive use οf από and restriction of genitives in the northern Greek dialects: (7.37a) i. ˈkasa a ˈmblarili house:n/a.sg.f POSS.N/A.sg.f woman:def.dat.sg.f ii. ˈkasa di ˈmblarea house:n/a.sg.f from woman:def.n/a.sg.f the woman s house Aromanian (Beis ) (7.37b) studentët i shkollës student:def.nom.sg.m POSS:NOM.sg.m school:def.dat.sg.f the student of the school Albanian (Spencer 2007) (7.37c) i. kniga-ta na Ana book-def.sg.f on/to Ann Bulgarian/ Makedonski (Mitkovska 2009) ii. kniga-ta od Ana book-def.sg.f from Ann Ann s book western varieties of Makedonski (Mitkovska 2009) (7.37d) kadın-ın kitab-i the woman s book woman-gen book-poss.3 Turkish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2008) (7.37e) chaveskoro the son s/ boy s boy:gen.sg Balkan Romani (Friedman 2000) 255

276 NORTHERN GREEK (7.37g) el ayre del norte the north wind the:sg.m air from.the:sg.m north Istanbul Judeo-Spanish (Hualde & Şaul 2011) According to these data, only Aromanian and the western varieties of Makedonski resemble the situation in northern Greek, since they also employ the ablative prepositions ot and di to mark possession. Balkan Judeo-Spanish does use the ablative de, but it is only natural that it should not be dealt with here, since its geographical and temporal range was limited in the Balkans, as Jews from the Iberian Peninsula were relocated to the Balkans at the end of the 15 th c. In contrast, Albanian uses possessive markers that agree in gender, number and case with the possessed noun, Turkish exhibits double-marking of the possessor and the possessum and Balkan Romani has a rich system of morphologically distinct oblique cases, including the genitive. Consequently, it is important to examine the characteristics of the use of ablative prepositions as possessive markers in Balkan Romance and Balkan Slavic in order to examine their relation to the status of από in the northern Greek dialects. The following map shows the presence of Aromanian/ Megleno-Romanian and Bulgarian/ Makedonski in regions of Greece after the Balkan wars of the 1910 s, which essentially indicates that contact with these languages might have been more extended before the exchange of populations between Greece and Bulgaria and the shift of speakers of Makedonski to CMG: 256

277 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Map 7.11: Romance and Slavic in Northern Greece Possessive use of de in Aromanian Contact between Greek and Balkan Romance is the oldest among the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund, due to the presence of the Romans in the Balkans since the 2 nd c. BC and most importantly due to the subsequent adoption of vulgar Latin by native populations that were mostly of Dacian and Thracian stock. According to many researchers, there is a clear distinction between Romance-influenced and Greek-influenced areas before the Slavic invasion in the Balkans (6 th -7 th c. AD) that is known as the Jireček line: 257

278 NORTHERN GREEK Map 7.12: Areas of Greek and Latin influence in the Balkans based on archaeological evidence Contact between Balkan Romance and Greek significantly increased between the 8 th and 10 th c., when it is believed that Aromanians descended to the areas of Macedonia, Thessaly and Epirus (Andriotis 1933: 349). At this point it would be interesting to examine marking of possessive relations in Balkan Romance from a wider point of view. Despite the fact that the nominal case system of Balkan Romance collapsed as in every other Romance language, determiners maintained a two-case system, i.e. the common nominative/accusative form and the dative which inherited the functions of the lost genitive of eastern Proto-Romance. This can be seen in the following example where the postposed definite article of Romanian exhibits a distinction between nominative/ accusative and dative forms (Dobrovie-Sorin 2005: 120): (7.38) casa vecinu-lui the neighbor s house house:def.n/a.sg.f neighbor-def.dat.sg.m When the possessed noun is not used with a postposed definite article, but with a preceding indefinite article, a possessive marker is used that agrees with the possessed noun in gender, number and case: 258

279 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (7.39) o casa a vecinului IND:N/A.sg.f house: DEF.N/A.sg.f POSS:N/A.sg.f neighbor:def.dat.sg.m the house of a neighbor Dobrovie-Sorin (2005: 120) Nevertheless, possessive relations can also be marked by de in Romanian. This use is not just a recent innovation, since it is found in texts of the 16 th c. (Mardale 2012); this should not be surprising at all, as in every other Romance language the Latin preposition de came to be used to mark adnominal possession. However, the variation between analytic and synthetic possessive structures in Romanian is not free, but is defined by the following criteria according to Mardale (2008: 157): Table 7.10: The alternation between possessive de and the possessive dative in Romanian genitive-marked constituents adnominal de-marked constituents can have a determiner yes no can denote properties no yes can appear in predicate no yes position can alternate with no yes modifiers can alternate with yes no pronouns can be antecedents for relative pronouns yes no The situation is different in Aromanian, according to the grammatical description of the varieties of Métsovo (Epirus) by Beis (2000). As can be seen in the following example, the use of di (<*de) has expanded, since it can be used with determiners (Beis 2000: 367-8): 259

280 NORTHERN GREEK (7.40a) ˈkartea a ˈftʃoru-lui book:def.n/a.sg.f POSS:N/A.sg.f boy-def.dat.sg.m (7.40b) ˈkartea di ˈftʃoru-lu book:def.n/a.sg.f from boy-def.n/a.sg.m the boy s book Beis ( ) believes that this development in Aromanian is an innovation that is not found in Romanian which represents the older stage of the structure in Balkan Romance. However, Mardale (2008: 155) mentions that Old Romanian and modern dialectal Romanian both exhibit use of de with indefinite articles, e.g.: (7.41) urma d-o căprioară track:def.n/a.sg.f from-ind.n/a.sg.f deer:sg.f a deer s track Possessive use of ot in western Makedonski Unlike the western branch of Balkan Slavic which consists of Slovenian and the Serbo-Croatian continuum, the case system of eastern Balkan Slavic has collapsed, apart from a few varieties that have maintained vestiges of a nominative vs. oblique case distinction of definite masculine forms. This development is related to the use of prepositions in the functions of the lost cases. As can be seen in (7.37c.i), the preposition na, whose original meaning was on/ onto, is employed to mark indirect objects and possessive relations in the majority of the varieties of the Bulgaro- Makedonski continuum, thus exhibiting the usual merger of possessives and recipients in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. However, as the western dialects of Makedonski use od from to mark possession, it is interesting to examine the nature of this development. The Makedonski od and the Bulgarian ot stem from the Old Church Slavonic otь that used to take the genitive. Since the robust case system of Old Church Slavonic included a wide range of oblique cases (genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental and locative), otь is only rarely attested with a possessive function in Old Church Slavonic texts, even though it is possible to trace the paths of this grammaticalization in non-anchoring possessive constructions as sъpletošę věnьcь 260

281 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK otъ [from] trьnьja they weaved a wreath of thorn (Halla-aho 2006: 108). Therefore, the possessive use of ot becomes established in later periods, when the case system of eastern Balkan Slavic had retreated and ot began to take the accusative; according to Qvonje (1980: 342), these uses can be found in Middle Bulgarian texts of the 13 th c. This is verified by Mirchev (1978) and Asenova (2002), who mention that na and ot competed for the expression of possessive functions during the earlier periods of Bulgarian (10 th -15 th c.) Given the fact that the possessive use of ot is also found in Montenegrin dialects (Serbo-Croatian continuum; Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2003: 686), where it still governs the genitive, the path of the possessive grammaticalization of ot in Balkan Slavic seems to be different than the situation in Northern Greek where από was grammaticalized as a possessive marker well after its shift to the accusative. According to Mitkovska (2009: ), na and od in western Makedonski are used in free variation, while in the rest of the dialects the adnominal use of od has retained its ablative nuance. Standard Makedonski favors na, but Mitkovska claims that influence from western varieties has resulted in the alternative use of od as a possessive marker. Turning to Bulgarian, na is the exclusive possessive marker, as ot purely functions as an ablative and agentive preposition. However, ot is used for the expression of peripheral possessive relations such as attributes or properties, e.g. billet ot [from] vetera kasa second-class ticket, produkt ot [from] parka neobxodinost first need products Lampsidis (1968: 314) Discussion Based on the aforementioned data, it is likely that language contact has played an important role in the possessive use of ablative prepositions as an areal phenomenon of the region of Macedonia where Aromanian, Makedonski and Northern Greek are spoken. This view perfectly fits with the fact that the northern dialects of Macedonia and Thessaly, where Aromanian is also spoken, constitute the core of the development, as they exhibit the most advanced loss of genitive forms (cf ). The varieties of Thrace also exhibit possessive use of από, even though in the varieties of Eastern Thrace, juxtapositional structures with plural possessors are found instead of the genitive as well, which could possibly reflect the lack of reinforcement from language contact, since the preposition ot from has not been grammaticalized as a possessive marker in Bulgarian with which Greek used to be in contact until the beginning of the 20 th c. in the region. However, the Northern Aegean islands with advanced genitive loss (Thasos, Samothraki, 261

282 NORTHERN GREEK Lemnos, Imbros and Ténedos) constitute a strong counter-argument against the role of language contact in the restriction of the genitive, as Greek was exclusively spoken in these islands. Even though the diffusion of the analytic possessive structures to the northern Aegean could occur due to dialect contact with Macedonia and Thrace, it is undoubted that language contact could not have been the only driving force behind this development, as shown in Consequently, it can be proposed that contact with Aromanian and Makedonski could have reinforced the possessive use of από in Macedonia (and Thessaly), but cannot be regarded to have played a primary role in the retreat of the case in Northern Greek Conclusions The increasing restriction of the genitive in Northern Greek, which involved its complete loss in the plural in most varieties of the dialect group, reveals two main aspects of language change: i) the characteristics of the genitive itself and its position in the case system and ii) the dialectspecific features of the Northern Greek group. The former aspect is related to the structural complexity and the distributional potential of the genitive. The complete loss of the genitive plural in Northern Greek varieties is essentially an extreme extension of the phenomenon of defectivity encountered in Chapter 6, which was primarily based on the morphological markedness of the case; more specifically, the use of από as a possessive marker was based on the existence of genitive (singular and) plural gaps, found in (nearly) every other dialect group, while its grammaticalization as a possessive marker occurred through the paths of body-part relations, subjects/ agents of deverbal nouns and relations of extraction/ partition (cf ). The extension of genitive loss to the other extreme end of the continuum of loss of inflectional potential is related to the low distributional potential of the genitive in the majority of Northern Greek dialects, as is best shown by the higher degree of maintenance of the case in dialects with genitive indirect objects. The restriction of the genitive to marking only possessive relations resulted in its quite low degree of frequency (cf. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 in Chapter 4). In dialects with genitive indirect objects, the case is maintained to a much greater extent, although tendencies to lose its inflectional potential largely remain. While the syncretic 3PL 262

283 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK accusative-genitive τ(ου)ς found in almost all northern varieties and marking indirect objects with the genitive provided a source for accusative-genitive syncretism in masculine and feminine paradigms, as seen in Chapter 5, the possessive use of από in other areas may reflect the potential role of northern vocalism (see below), but also possible diffusion, through dialect contact, into northern varieties (Eurytania and Phthiotis) of Central Greece from Thessaly and into eastern parts of Epirus (such as Ioánnina) from Thessaly and Macedonia. The second aspect of the greater loss of the genitive in Northern Greek involves mainly exclusive 272 features of this dialect group, such as the phenomenon of northern vocalism and contact with Balkan Romance and Slavic. These features have played a more peripheral role in the loss of the genitive. As seen earlier, the possessive use of από could have been favored by the reduced iconicity of genitive singular forms of most masculine and neuter nouns, caused by deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and their probable overlap with accusative singular forms. Turning to language contact, the fact that the Greek varieties of Thessaly and Macedonia exhibit a very high degree of genitive loss could also be related to the role of language contact in the development of analytic possessive constructions. Nevertheless, the ablative prepositions di and od of Aromanian and Western Makedonski respectively cannot explain the extended retreat of the genitive in monolingual areas, such as the Northern Aegean islands, which implies that their influence on the possessive use of από must have only been regional. Given the fact that the available data from the northern dialects are very limited before the 19 th c. and the 20 th c., the estimation of the starting point of the development is not an easy task. However, it can be stated that the possessive use of από is a relatively recent innovation and was probably established during the EMG period (16 th -18 th c.). Some strong evidence which indicates the state of the loss of the genitive plural in Northern Greek during that period is the complete lack of attestation of genitive plural forms 273 in twelve letters from late 17th c. Thessaloniki (Katsanis 2012). 272 Accusative indirect objects are not an exclusive feature of Northern Greek dialects, as they can also be found in Eastern Asia Minor and Mariupol, where different phenomena are encountered (cf. Chapter 8). 273 Apart from relics that denote age and value, e.g. gen.pl γροσιών (<γρόσια piastres ), exactly as can be found in grammatical descriptions of modern Northern Greek dialects (cf. Psaltis 1905: 65-6). 263

284 8. THE PERIPHERY OF THE GREEK-SPEAKING WORLD: CONTACT-INDUCED DEFLEXION 8.0 Introduction This chapter examines the evolution of the genitive in dialects that do not belong to the core of the Greek-speaking world and are - or used to be - spoken in areas where Greek communities were the minority and, thus, their varieties were heavily influenced by the dominant language(s) of that region. These dialects include three groups: the Italiot varieties in the peninsulas of Calabria and Salento in Southern Italy, the dialects that used be spoken in Central Asia Minor until 1922 (alongside with Pontic varieties that exhibit genitive loss) and the varieties of the Sea of Azov in Southern Ukraine that are collectively called Mariupolitan after the major city of the area, Mariupol. Given the fact that sociolinguistic factors are more relevant for these dialects than any of the previously analyzed due to their exposure to contact with other languages, it is essential to present a brief outline of their history. The Greek presence in Southern Italy began as early as the 8 th c. BC through the colonization of the southern part of Italy and Sicily by mostly Doric cities. Despite the Roman conquest and the subsequent expansion of vernacular Latin, the presence of Greek communities remained strong, especially since Southern Italy was often controlled by the Byzantines (6 th -11 th c. AD); in fact, this has led some scholars to consider that the origin of Italiot is medieval. While it is true that the core of Italiot is very similar to most MG dialects, a few archaisms imply the presence of a Doric substratum, such as the (occasional) maintenance of /a:/ (as opposed to the Attic-Ionic /ε:/ MG /i/), e.g. κυσπάλα /kiˈspala/ hive (<Doric κυψέλα /kypséla:/) vs. CMG κυψέλη /kiˈpseli/ (<Attic κυψέλη /kypsélε:/), cf. Karanastasis (1984). As regards the synchrony of the dialect, it has greatly retreated in southern Calabria (where it is known as Grecanico), but is still established in Salento (Apulia/Puglia, where it is known as Grico); according to Manolessou (2005), 20,000 speakers can be found in the region of Salento and the dialect is spoken in nine villages: Calimera, Castrignano dei Greci, Corigliano d Otranto, Martano, Martignano,

285 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Melpignano, Soleto, Sternatia and Zollino. Although 11,000 speakers could be found in 1935 in nine Calabrian villages (Amendolea, Bova Superiore, Bova Marina, Gallicianò, Condofurri, Roccaforte, Roghudi, Chorio di Roccaforte and Chorio di Roghudi), recent studies show that only a few hundred speakers are left in the area (Katsoyannou 1995). Map 8.1: Italiot communities in Calabria and Salento (Apulia) Sociolinguistic factors explain this decline, as the Italiot communities, which were mostly rural, not only had to compete with the regional Romance dialects Salentino and Calabrese, but also with Standard Italian and its local varieties during the 20 th c. Turning to the dialects that used to be spoken in Central Asia Minor until the exchange of Christian and Muslim populations between Greece and Turkey in , they seem to belong to a larger dialect group of Eastern Asia Minor Greek, as they share a lot of isoglosses with Pontic; however, their main difference from the latter dialect and the varieties of western Asia Minor lies in the much greater degree of influence from Turkish. The effect of this extreme language contact had an impact on vocabulary, phonology and even syntax. As the following map shows, three main groups can be identified (Dawkins 1910 & 1916): the dialect of the village Silli (near the present-day city of Konya), the Cappadocian dialect which was spoken in twenty villages (Anakú, Arabisón, Araván, Axó, Delmesó, Díla, Ferték, Floitá, Ghúrzono, Jeklék, Malakopí, Mistí, Potámia, Semenderé, Sílata, Sinasós, Trokhó, Tsharakly, Ulagátsh and 265

286 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Zaléla); and the Pharasiot dialect which is named after the main village of the region (Phárasa), but was also spoken in nearby villages (Afshar-Köy, Çukuri, Giaur-Köy, Kiska and Satí). Map 8.2: The main varieties of Pontus and Central Asia Minor until the early 20 th c. As can be seen, these three groups were isolated enclaves surrounded by Turkish communities, which explains the great degree of exposure to Turkish. After the relocation of their speakers to Greece, the shift to CMG essentially caused the obsolescence of these dialects 274. The origin of these dialects goes back to the Hellenization of inner Asia Minor after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the area of Cappadocia was a religious centre of great significance in the time of the Eastern Roman Empire. After the advance of Turks in Anatolia, Turkish was adopted by the majority of Asia Minor, which shows that the survival of these Greek enclaves was an exception that could possibly be attributed to the inaccessible nature of their location. 274 Surprisingly, the last remaining speakers of the Cappadocian variety of Mistí can be found in villages of Macedonia. 266

287 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Even though Pontic was mainly grouped in this thesis with dialects that exhibit paradigmatic gaps in the genitive and not greater phenomena of deflexion, it will be shown that in a few Pontic varieties such developments can be encountered. As can be seen on Map 8.2, Pontic was spoken in contiguous areas, unlike the varieties of Central Asia Minor, which allowed for a better preservation of its features that quite often involve archaisms, despite the fact that it also exhibits influence from Turkish, albeit to a lesser degree. The main varieties of Pontic include Oenuntiac in the west (Sinope, Inepolis [Inebolu], Samsun [Amisós], Oenoë), intermediate Kotýora, Trapezuntiac in the east (Kerasunta, Trebizond, Súrmena, Ophis), Chaldiot south of Trapezuntiac (Stavrin, Argyroúpolis, Santa, Kromni) and Kars on the Turkish side of the Turco-Armenian border (cf. Nicholas 1998: 487). Pontic is a sui generis dialect in the sense that it exhibits distinct developments from most dialects of insular and mainland Greece, which can be attributed to its isolation from the core of the Greek-speaking world due to the conquest of most of Asia Minor by Turkish tribes after the 11 th c. As regards the Greek presence in the area, it goes back to the 8 th c. BC when the Ionians established communities. The Greek varieties of Southern Ukraine are still spoken around the city of Mariupol (hence the name of the dialect) and approximately 35 towns and villages (Sartaná, Malyy Yanisol, Urzuf etc.). Pappou-Zhuravliova (2009: 90) mentions that there are more than 90,000 Greeks 275 in the area, but the actual number of active speakers is probably significantly lower. The origin of these speakers is quite interesting; they were relocated in 1778 from the peninsula of Crimea to the northern shore of the Sea of Azov, which was then ruled by the Russian Tsarina Catherine the Great, in order to avoid oppression from Tatars. Similarly to the previous two groups, this dialect also seems to have ancient origin, as the Greek presence in Crimea dates back to the 6 th c. BC when Ionian and Doric settlers colonized the region. During the Middle Ages, Crimea was often controlled by the Byzantines, which explains the continuation of the Greek presence. 275 They refer to themselves as Ρουμαίοι (/ruˈmei/), namely Romans, which (in its various forms) was the endonym for nearly all Greek speakers until the beginning of the 19 th c. 267

288 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Map 8.3: Crimeo-Azov Greek Mariupolitan shares many features with Pontic and other Eastern Asia Minor dialects, which shows that contact between these regions must have continued during the medieval period. Furthermore, most varieties exhibit deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and raising of unstressed /e, o/, although not as consistently as Northern Greek dialects. Regarding its sociolinguistic situation, the dialect exhibits a great number of loanwords from Crimean Tatar 276 and has also been exposed to contact with Russian during the Tsarist and Soviet period, as many speakers are bilingual in Greek and Russian. As will be shown, these three dialect groups exhibit different degrees of genitive loss; although the case is generally preserved in Italiot and to a lesser extent in central Asia Minor, the synthetic genitive is often replaced by innovative strategies, while in Mariupolitan the genitive plural has almost been entirely lost. Quite clearly, a great deal of attention will be paid to this factor, as language contact seems to have been highly important for the development of these phenomena. 276 The great degree of contact between Crimean Greeks and Tatars resulted in the adoption of Tatar by a few ethnic Greek communities. These speakers call themselves Urum (<Ρουμαίοι Romans ), which shows that despite their linguistic assimilation they maintained their ethnic identity and were also relocated from Crimea to Mariupol in

289 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK 8.1 Southern Italy The genitive is largely maintained in the varieties of Southern Italy, according to the most prominent grammatical description of the dialect which was conducted by the German linguist Gerhard Rohlfs (1977: 182-3), who disputes earlier claims that it had been lost (cf. Morosi 1870). This should not be surprising, as Italiot marks indirect objects with the genitive, which is the unmarked strategy used for recipients, addressees, benefactives and experiencers, and its alternation with the preposition εις(ε) to is not as extensive as in CMG and other southern dialects 277 : (8.1) ˈipe tos 278 ˈaɖɖo ˈmoneko He said to the other monks say:3sg.pst the:gen.pl other:gen.pl.m monk:gen.pl.m Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 288) The strong presence of the genitive is also explained by the maintenance of a few archaic functions. (8.2a) (8.2b) ADVERBIAL PREPOSITIONAL COMPLEMENT aˈpissu ton anˈdrone behind the:gen.pl men:gen.pl.m behind the men Chorío di Roghudi, Calabria (Minuto et al. 1988: 32) ADVERBAL COMPLEMENT (<ablative function, AG origin) eʃiˈadzondo ton anˈdro fear:3pl.pst.imf the:gen.pl men:gen.pl.m They were afraid of the men Calabria (Nucera 1993: 112) 277 As Calabrian and Apulian Italiot are almost exclusively written in the Latin alphabet with Italian orthography, I will not use the Greek alphabet for Italiot examples, but phonetic (and where needed phonemic) transcriptions. 278 Note the influence of the contaminated third person genitive plural τως [<τω(ν) + -ς <acc.pl μας (1PL)/ σας (2PL)/ τους (3PL)] on the genitive plural of the definite article, cf Note also the deletion of final /n/ in the genitive plural suffix /-on/. 269

290 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.2c) ADVERBAL COMPLEMENT (<dative function, MedG origin) ˈtui ˈian devoˈrusi tu Kriˈstu this:nom.pl.m have:3pl.pst devote:inf the:gen.sg.m Christ:GEN.sg.m They were devoted to Christ Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 288) However, we should note that the unmarked strategies used in the majority of the MG-speaking world for such functions are also employed in Italiot and are more frequently used than the genitive; the following examples show that there is alternation between the genitive and a prepositional phrase or the accusative as adverbial complements: (8.3a) aˈpissu tu denˈdr-u behind the tree behind the:gen.sg tree-gen.sg.n (8.3b) aˈpissu ʃ ˈena denˈdro behind a tree behind from one:n/a.sg.n tree:n/a.sg.n Chorío di Roghudi, Calabria (Minuto et al. 1988: 56) (8.4a) ˈdoppu misimeˈri-u after midday after midday-gen.sg.n Calabria (Nucera 1993: 86) (8.4b) ˈdopu to mesaˈnikti after the midnight after the:n/a.sg.n midnight:n/a.sg.n Calabria (Nucera 1993: 126) The higher distributional potential of the genitive in Italiot helps the preservation of its morphological productivity in paradigms where it is not affected by accidental phonological changes (loss of final /s/) or analogical developments (see below). Most grammatical descriptions (cf. Rohlfs 1977, Karanastasis 1997) provide full paradigms without genitive gaps. Katsoyannou s (1995) study on the variety of the village Gallicianò of Calabria reports that the heteroclitic nouns paˈppu grandfather and singeˈni relative with masculine singulars and neuter plurals (paˈpuðia and singeˈnaðia) do not have genitive plural forms; these gaps are 270

291 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK probably related to their resemblance to ι-neuter diminutives which require stress change, although in Nucera (1993: 8; Calabria) the genitive plural paˈppudi-on is mentioned with the maintenance of the stress (cf ) and Rohlfs (1977: 72) mentions the genitive plural singeˈnað-o. Despite the fact that patterns with stress change have survived with nouns of ancient origin (cf. ˈandra man / nom.pl ˈandre/ gen.pl anˈdro), innovative patterns with stress maintenance are quite common and arguably ease the paradigmatic productivity of the case, e.g. giˈneka woman gen.pl gineˈk-o/ giˈnek-o (Sternatía, Salento; Lambroyorgu 2001: 46) with variation, and ˈmaskara mask (<Italian mascara) gen.pl ˈmaskar-o (Chorío di Roghudi, Calabria; Minuto et al. 1988: 190) without stress shift. In spite of the high functionality of the genitive and its relative paradigmatic productivity, there are three major phenomena that have reduced its inflectional potential; keeping in mind that the dialect has faced language shift for many centuries, these phenomena may result in further retreat of the case. The first of these developments is phonological and deals with the loss of final /s/ which has reduced the morphological autonomy of the genitive and also affected other areas of the nominal morphology (cf ): α-η-masculines Table 8.1: Singular nominal morphology in Italiot FEMININES nom.sg o ˈklefti (<*κλέφτης) i ˈxora i ˈega acc.sg ton ˈklefti tix ˈxora (<*την χώρα) tin ˈega gen.sg tu ˈklefti ti ˈxora (<*της χώρας) tis 279 ˈega (<*αίγας) the thief the land the goat ο-masculines o-neuters ι-neuters nom.sg o ˈfil-o (<*φίλος) to denˈdr-o to ˈspiti acc.sg tof ˈfil-o (<*τον φίλο) to denˈdr-o to ˈspiti gen.sg tu ˈfil-u tu denˈdru tu spiˈti-u the friend the tree the house As can be observed, the loss of final /s/ has increased the morphological similarity between o- masculines and o-neuters and between η-masculines and ι-neuters, while α-/η-masculines and 279 Note the retention of final /s/ in intervocalic position 271

292 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS feminines have a single form for all cases 280. This reduction of case and gender distinctions has triggered further phenomena that can be occasionally found; as can be seen in the following example, the pattern of a single case form in the singular is extended to o-masculines 281 : (8.5) tu meˈgalu ˈfilo mu Plaˈtokalo the:gen.sg.m big:gen.sg.m friend:n/a.sg.m 1sg:GEN PN:N/A.sg.m of my big friend Platócalo Calabria (Nucera 1993: 108) Quite interestingly, the following example shows the use of an original nominative with the final /s/ instead of the expected graˈmb-u: (8.6) ˈena leˈɖɖe tu fuˈturu one:n/a.sg.m brother:n/a/g.sg.m the:gen.sg.m future:gen.sg.m graˈmbos tu groom:nom.sg.m 3sg:GEN.m a brother of this future brother-in-law: Calabria (Nucera 1993: 112) In some varieties a merger between the nominative forms of the masculine and the neuter article has taken place through the loss of initial /t/ of the latter, e.g. o singeˈni (<*o συγγενής) the relative (Μ)/ to peˈti the child (Ν) ο peˈti. This merger has an impact on the loss of the morphological autonomy of the genitive forms of ι-neuters, as can be seen in the example below where zero marking of η-masculines is preferred to the expected ι-neuter genitive peˈti-u: (8.7) o ˈtʃiuri-Ø tu peˈti-ø the father s child the:nom.sg.m master-n/a.sg.m the:gen.sg.n child-n/g/a.sg.n Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 120) 280 However a few nouns of archaic inflection maintain the distinction between the common nominative/ accusative form, e.g. ο/ ton ˈtʃuri master/ father (<*o κύρις/ *τον κύρι) vs. tu tʃuˈriu/ tʃuˈru (*<του κυρίου) or i/ tin ˈega vs. tis eˈgo (*της αιγός, nom.sg αίγα goat, <ancient 3 rd declension; Gallicianò, Calabria; Rohlfs 1977: 75). 281 Also reinforced by ο-masculines that stem from the third declension (cf. ex and 2.18). 272

293 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Imparisyllabic neuters have also undergone the same process 282 (cf ), even though the original and morphologically distinct forms are also found (cf. Rohlfs 1977: 79), e.g.: (8.8a) apiˈkatte tu xuˈmat-u [GEN] below the dirt Calabria; Rossi-Taibbi & Caracausi 1959: 36). (8.8b) tu ˈgala [N/A/G] (# *του γαλάτ-ου) of the milk Calabria; (Nucera 1993: 60) (8.8c) tu aˈpandima [GEN] (# *του απαντημάτ-ου) of the meeting Calabria (Nucera 1993: 154) The loss of final /s/ may be related to influence from Italian and its local dialects in Salento and Calabria, cf. nom.sg.m φίλος friend vs. amico or n/a.pl.f φίλες friends vs. amiche. Nevertheless, it needs to be taken into consideration that this impact of Italian nominal morphology allowed for the easier integration of the large number of Romance loanwords to the Italiot inflectional system and the formation of their genitives, e.g. Italian fascista/ pl. fascisti Italiot faˈʃista (n/a/g.sg)/ faˈʃisti (nom.pl)/ faˈʃistu (acc.pl)/ faˈʃisto (gen.pl), cf. dialectal MG nom.sg γείτονας neighbor / nom.pl γειτόνοι/ acc.pl γειτόνους/ gen.pl γειτόνων. Second, while the development of single case forms in the singular of a few paradigms is mostly accidental due to the loss of final /s/, it possibly triggered the use of undeclined genitives in the plural of the nominal inflection, especially if we take into consideration the higher markedness of the plural forms in comparison to the singular: (8.9a) tos ˈtʃur-o / tos ˈtʃur-i the:gen.pl master-gen.pl.m the:gen.pl master-nom.pl.m Salento & Calabria (Melissaropoulou 2013: 316) (8.9b) tos ˈornit-e (# *τως όρνιτ-ω) the:gen.pl hen-n/a.pl.f Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 64) 282 Indeclinable genitives of μα-neuters can be found in other MG dialects as well, cf

294 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.9c) tos aˈttrefi-a (# *τως αττρεφί-ω) the:gen.pl sibling-n/a.pl.n Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 248) Such structures with undeclined genitive plurals, which are not frequently found in dialectal MG (cf ), could be modelled after the possessive structures of Italian Romance in which the prepositional articles dei/ degli (M) and delle (F) are used with a nominal form that is not inflected for case (cf. Melissaropoulou 2013: 319): (8.10) i ˈfili / gli amici i ˈfili / gli amici the friends tos ˈfilo / degli amici tos ˈfili / degli amici of the friends In these structures, the definite article essentially functions as a possessive marker, thus rendering the genitive marking less necessary, as it is accompanied by the unmarked plural form of the noun. The following examples demonstrate quite accurately how this takes place, as the speaker in this collection of conversations from the village Chorío di Roghudi of Calabria regularly employs a genitive plural, but at a later point of the discussion when he is not sure of what noun to use, he treats the genitive of the definite article as a possessive marker similarly to the Italian di 283 : (8.11a) to ˈfatto ton anaˈrado the:n/a.sg.n event:n/a.sg.n the:gen.pl fairy:gen.pl.f the tale of the fairies Minuto et al. (1988: 82) 283 It is noteworthy that the translation provided of the utterance in Italian corroborates this analysis: per raccontare un fatto di delle anarade (Minuto et al. 1988: 101). 274

295 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (8.11b) na ˈlegete ˈena ˈfatto tu prt say:2pl one:n/a.sg.n event:n/a.sg.n the:gen.sg.m/n tu anaˈrade the:gen.sg.m/n fairy:n/a.pl.f tell a tale of... of the fairies Minuto et al. (1988: 100) Apart from transferring structures from Italian Romance, the language shift that the dialect has undergone shapes different levels of competence which influence the status of the genitive in the dialect. From the same collection of conversations, the speaker Salvino Nucera from Chorío di Roghudi regularly employs the genitive with a local adverb, while Beatrice Dieni from Bova struggles with this syntax and either uses an undeclined genitive or the accusative (Minuto et al. 1988: 214): (8.12) -Beatrice: amˈbro tu ˈspiti... in.front the:gen.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n -Salvino:...amˈbro tu spiˈtiu... in.front the:gen.sg.n house:gen.sg.n -Beatrice:...amˈbro to ˈspiti... in.front the:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n -Salvino:...amˈbro tu spiˈtiu... in.front the:gen.sg.n house:gen.sg.n in front of the house Third, the importance of language contact on the changes of the case system of Italiot can be further seen in the possessive use of the ablative preposition ˈatse/ ˈaʃe from (<AG ἐξ out of 284 ), which has been replaced by από in most MG dialects. Karanastasis (1997: 53) does not accept the effect of Italian influence, as opposed to Rohlfs (1977: 69), and claims that the possessive use of this preposition was an internal development in the dialect that was triggered 284 ἐξ ἐξε (avoidance of closed syllable, cf. εἰς εἰσέ) *ἀξε (analogically to ἀπό) ˈatse (/ks/ /ts/) or ˈaʃe (/tʃ/ /ʃ/) depending on the variety of Italiot. Other variant forms of the preposition can also be found, e.g. as. 275

296 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS by body-part relations similarly to the case of από in Northern Greek (cf. Chapter 7). However, this approach is undoubtedly misguided, since the high functionality of the genitive and its paradigmatic productivity do not justify the need for the grammaticalization of an alternative possessive strategy as a purely language-internal development. On the contrary, the influence of the partitive/ possessive di and the ablative da (and their local variants, te in Salento and da in Calabria) is best demonstrated by Profili (1985), who shows that in the variety of the village Corigliano d Otranto in Salento the preposition ˈatse has not only acquired possessive functions, but also marks pseudo-partitive relations which are expressed by juxtapositions in MG and a few other functions, e.g. as an adverbal complement in structures that are found nowhere in the MGspeaking world, but which do occur in Italian Romance: (8.13a) PSEUDO-PARTITIVE RELATIONS na ˈmmatso ˈatse ˈfiuru one:n/a.sg.n bunch:n/a.sg.n from flower:acc.pl.m <local Romance nu mazzu te fiuri & Standard Italian mazzo di fiori # dialectal & CMG ένα μάτσο λουλούδια a bunch of flowers (8.13b) ADVERBIAL ADJUNCT OF TIME ˈirte ˈatse ˈnitta come:3sg.pst.pfv from night:n/a.sg.f <local Romance vinne te notte & Standard Italian venne di notte # dialectal & CMG ήρθε τη νύχτα [adverbial accusative of time] he came at night (8.13c) ADVERBAL COMPLEMENT anamuˈretti ˈatse tui kiaˈtera fall.in.love:3sg.pass.pst.pfv from this:n/a/g.sg.f daughter:n/a/g.sg.f <Standard Italian s innamorò di questa ragazza # dialectal & CMG ερωτεύτηκε αυτό το κορίτσι [bare accusative] he fell in love with this girl 276

297 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (8.13d) PREPOSITION OF SIMILARITY ˈtrome ˈatse siˈɲuru eat:1pl from lord:acc.pl.m <Standard Italian mangiamo da signori # dialectal & CMG τρώμε σαν κύριοι [particle + juxtaposition] we eat like gentlemen (8.13e) POSSESSION o ˈijo ˈatse ˈMarti the:nom.sg.m sun:n/a.sg.m from March:N/A.sg.m <local Romance lu sole te Marzu & Standard Italian il sole di Marzo # CMG ο ήλιος του Μαρτίου [genitive] the sun of March Moreover, ˈatse does not have semantic limitations when used with a possessive function, as it can be found with human and non-human animates (unlike από in most MG dialects), although its occurrence with part-whole relations and plural possessors is more frequent. (8.14a) mian tʃiofaˈli ˈaʃe giˈneka one:acc.sg.f head:n/a.sg.f from woman:n/a.sg.f a head of a woman Chorío di Righudi, Calabria (Minuto et al. 1988: 98) (8.14b) i ˈmana aˈttes alipuˈneɖɖe the:nom.sg.f mother:n/a.sg.f from.the:acc.pl.f little.fox:n/a.pl.f the mother of the little foxes Sternatía, Salento (Stomeo 1980: 120) Another factor that facilitated the possessive use of ˈatse can be sought in definiteness, since its use is more frequently attested with the indefinite article or without a determiner, as in example (14a). The importance of this factor has also been noticed by Tzártzanos (1909: 223) for the Thessalian variety of Lárisa, cf. μαλλί απού λύκουν fur of (a) wolf (# *μαλλί λύκ ), and is based on the fact that the presence of the definite article guarantees the explicit marking of the 277

298 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS genitive, while a bare genitive in a structure without a determiner would have lower explicit morphological marking. For instance, in the following structures that come from a Calabrian narrative (Nucera 1993: 132), the different degree of definiteness has a clear impact on what possessive strategy will be used: (8.15a) ˈxeri aʃe ˈaθropo (# *xeri aˈθropu) human hand (lit. hand from human) (8.15b) i ˈmusika tu aˈθropu the music of the people (lit. the music of the human) This association of the use of ˈatse with indefiniteness further affected structures with the indefinite article, as in a few grammatical descriptions it is mentioned that its genitive forms are quite rare (Rohlfs 1977: 69), e.g. eˈnu aˈɖɖu ˈriga of another king (lit. of one other king) (Bova, Calabria). As the provided examples indicate, the three phenomena that involve genitive singular neutralization (due to phonological causes and analogical developments), zero marking of the genitive plural and the possessive use of the ablative preposition ˈatse are found in both groups of Italiot, in Salento and Calabria. Due to the fact that the influence from the surrounding Italian varieties has arguably played a great role in the development of these changes, it could be proposed that their starting point should be placed at a time when pressure from Romance heavily increased. As the Greek-speaking areas decreased in number of speakers and size during the last three centuries, it would be logical to claim that these analytic phenomena are related to such sociolinguistic factors and that these phenomena are not older than that Eastern Asia Minor The dialects of Central Asia Minor (Silli, Phárasa and Cappadocian) form alongside with Pontic a distinct dialect group that shares a few isoglosses regarding their nominal inflection 286 : 285 In Minás (1994) grammatical description of medieval documents from Southern Italy (dated up to the 15 th c.), such structures are not attested. 286 The term Eastern Asia Minor refers to both Pontic and the dialects of Central Asia Minor. 278

299 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK i. The indirect object is marked exclusively by the accusative, similarly to most varieties of Northern Greek. Dative alternation with the preposition (ει)ς to, at (CMG σε) is only rarely found (mainly with addressees). ii. The word order of possessive phrases is predominantly DEPENDENT-HEAD as opposed to mainland and insular MG, in which the default order is HEAD-DEPENDENT and the former order is only used to denote emphasis, e.g. του Γιάννη [GEN] το σπίτι, όχι του Μάρκου [GEN] John s house, not Mark s. iii. As noted in , the suffixes -ίου and -ίων (and their variants) replace the original genitive morphemes in most masculine and neuter paradigms (and also in most genitive plurals of feminine nouns in Pontic). iv. In Central Asia Minor and some Pontic varieties, there is frequent overlap of the genitive plural with its singular counterpart: gen.pl *-(ί)ων -(ί)ουν -(ί)ου = gen.sg -(ί)ου. v. The genitive forms of the definite article are identical for either number: τι/ τ (before vowels in Pontic; also του) 287 and του for the varieties of Central Asia Minor. vi. Ablative prepositions are only rarely employed to mark adnominal possession. vii. There is frequent deletion of unstressed /i, u/ in final position, cf. nom.sg λύκ-ος vs. nom.pl λυκ-ø (<*λύκ-οι) wolf. viii. Gender agreement has greatly retreated, cf. the use of neuter determiners and modifiers with inanimate masculine and feminine nouns: έναν (DET.N) στράταν (NOUN.F) στενόν (MOD.N) a narrow road (Kerasunta, Pontus; Lianidis 1962: 156) Cappadocian varieties As noted earlier, the Cappadocian dialect is comprised of about twenty varieties. Even though there is a good deal of variation among the various villages, a general remark is that genitive singulars are largely maintained 288, while the status of the genitive plural is more complicated. According to Dawkins (1916: 90), its use is rare, which explains its constant absence from the 287 The frequent elision of /u/ of the gen.sg του due to hiatus when the following noun had an initial vowel seems to be the starting point of this development: gen.sg *του ανθρώπου τ ανθρώπ(ου). This shortened gen.sg form was further used even before nouns with initial consonants, where it received an epenthetic /i/ to avoid complex clusters and was also extended to the plural: gen.sg *τ χωρέτ τι χωρέτ of the peasant, gen.pl *των ανθρωπίων τ ανθρωπίων of the people. 288 Note the difference between animate and inanimate masculine genitive singulars in the village Delmesó in Table

300 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS paradigms he provides, similarly to Kesísoglou s (1951: 33) description of the dialect of the village Ulagátsh: Table 8.2: The nominal inflection in varieties of Cappadocian MASCULINES Potamia nom/acc.sg (ind) 289 λύκ-ος wolf acc.sg (def) 290 λυκ-ο gen.sg λυκ-ιού nom.pl λυκ-ø (< *λύκ-οι) acc.pl λυκ-ους gen.pl - Delmesó πάλ-ος peg πάλ-ο - πάλ-ους - FEMININES Delmesó nom/acc.sg ναίκα woman gen.sg ναίκα-ς nom/acc.pl ναίκ-ες gen.pl - NEUTERS Ferték nom/acc.sg φτι ear gen.sg φτι-ου nom/acc.pl φτι-α gen.pl - Ulagátsh σπιτ σπιτι-ού σπίτι-α - As regards the strategies of replacing the genitive plural, Dawkins (1916: 109) mentions that in the variety of Delmesó the genitive of the definite article (common form for both numbers) can be used with the unmarked plural form of masculine nouns: (8.16) του παπάδες τα σπίτʃια [# *του παπαδιού(ν)] /tu paˈpaðes ta ˈspitʃia/ the:gen priest:n/a.pl.m the:n/a.pl.n house:n/a.pl.n the houses of the priests What is more, the following structures show that the phenomenon also occurs in the singular: 289 Note that the morphologically distinct masculine nominative singulars can be used to mark indefinite objects in Cappadocian, which is a clear influence from Turkish (cf. Karatsareas 2011: 126). 290 Definite accusative singulars. 280

301 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (8.17a) i. πατιʃαχιού το παιγί [<nom.sg πατιʃάχ 291 <Turkish padişah] /patiʃax-iˈu to peˈi/ king-gen the:n/a.sg.n child:n/a.sg.n Ulagátsh (Dawkins 1916: 360) ii. πατιʃάχ το παιί /patiˈʃax-ø to peˈi/ king-n/a.sg the:n/a.sg.n child:n/a.sg.n the king s son Ulagátsh (Dawkins 1916: 360 & 362 respectively) (8.17b) i. σο βουνιού σο φκαλ [so vuˈɲu so fkal] /s.to vuni-ˈu s.to fkal/ in.the:n/a.sg.n mountain-gen in.the:n/a.sg.n head:n/a.sg ii. σο βουνί σο φκαλ [so vuˈni so fkal] /s.to vuˈni-ø s.to fkal/ in.the:n/a.sg.n mountain-n/a.sg.n in.the:n/a.sg.n head:n/a.sg on the top of the mountain Delmesó (Dawkins 1916: 318, both examples) (8.17c) σ άλογο τ το κουϊρούχα [# *σ αλόγ(ου)] /se ˈaloɣo tu to kuiˈruxa/ in horse:n/a.sg.n 3sg:GEN.m the:n/a.sg.n tail:n/a.sg.f to his horse s tail Floitá (Dawkins 1916: 436) However, the retreat of the genitive overall and especially in the plural is not as simple as it seems to be in the aforementioned grammatical descriptions. More specifically, the previous structures with undeclined genitives and juxtapositions are not frequently found in the corpora of Cappadocian texts. On the contrary, the vast majority of possessive structures are marked by the 291 In other Cappadocian varieties this noun appears as πατιʃάχος which shows that it was adapted to the ending of o- masculines, but not in Ulagátsh, whose variety was more heavily exposed to Turkish influence, cf. ιτό πατιʃάχ σάλσε ντ ασκέρια τ the king sent his soldiers. 281

302 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS synthetic genitive, which is sometimes employed even with non-anchoring possessive, pseudopartitive and indefinite part-whole relations, which are absent from most MG dialects 292 : (8.18a) COLLECTIONS [PSEUDO-PARTITIVE FUNCTION] ένα χτην-ιού [GEN] αγέλ a herd of cows (Potamia; Dawkins 1916: 456) # CMG ένα κοπάδι βόδια [juxtaposition] (8.18b) FRACTIONS/ PARTS [PSEUDO-PARTITIVE FUNCTION] ένα μαρμερ-ιού [GEN] χτερ a block of marble (Floitá; Dawkins 1916: 414) # CMG ένα κομμάτι [Ν/Α] μάρμαρο [Ν/Α] [juxtaposition] (8.18c) VALUE [NON-ANCHORING POSSESSION] δέκα παραδ-ιού [GEN] ψωμί bread worth ten paras 293 (Delmesó; Dawkins 1916: 324) # CMG δέκα δραχμές [Ν/Α] ψωμί [Ν/Α] [juxtaposition] bread worth ten drachmas (8.18d) PART-WHOLE RELATIONS [ANCHORING POSSESSION] καμπηλ-ιού κιριάς [GEN] camel meat (Floitá; Dawkins 1916: 424) # CMG κρέας καμήλας/ κρέας από καμήλα [preposition από + accusative] (8.18e) ADVERBIAL COMPLEMENT δυο σκολ-ιού [GEN] ταραλə χ 294 between two schools (Floitá; Dawkins 1916: 424) # CMG ανάμεσα σε δυο σχολεία [adverb + preposition σε + accusative] Moreover, structures with consecutive possessors are not problematic at all for the use of the synthetic genitive: Τουρκ-ού [GEN.SG/PL] σκολι-ού [GEN.SG] τα φʃάχα the children of the school of the Turks, χριστιαν-ώ [GEN.PL] σχολι-ού [GEN.SG] τα φʃάχα the children of the school of the Christians (Floitá; Dawkins 1916: 426). The paradigms provided by Dawkins (1916) are not based on which forms can be produced from a certain inflectional class, but they refer strictly to attested forms in his collections of narratives, which does not prove in any way that genitive plurals were entirely obsolete or morphologically unproductive in the dialect. On the contrary, genitive plurals are not absent at 292 These structures do not reflect Turkish influence, where juxtapositions mark pseudo-partitive relations (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009: 335) and the ablative marks non-anchoring relations (Lewis 1967: 38). 293 Ottoman currency. 294 <Turkish ortalık. 282

303 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK all in Dawkins and other narratives in spite of the indeclinability of modifiers in (8.19a) and (8.19b), which is most likely a Turkish influence: (8.19a) σα τρία γκϋζελιού σο χəʃίμ [sa ˈtria gyzeˈʎu so xɯˈʃim] /s.ta ˈtria gyzel-iˈu s.to xɯˈʃim/ in.the:n/a.pl.n three: N/A.pl.n beautiful-gen in.the:n/a.sg.n desire into infatuated desire of the three beautiful ones Delmesó (Dawkins 1916: 304) (8.19b) έκοψε τα κεφάλια όλα προβατιούν /ˈekopse ta keˈfalia ˈola provat-iˈun/ cut:3sg.pst.pfv the:n/a.pl.n head:n/a.pl.n all:n/a.pl.n sheep-gen.pl he cut the heads of all the sheep Araván (Dawkins 1916: 332) (8.19c) γιαβριγιού το μάνα [ʝavriˈʝu to mana] /javri-iˈu to mana/ chick-gen the:n/a.sg.n mother the mother of the chicks Ulagátsh (Dawkins 1916: 372) (8.19d) προβατιού αφέντος /provat-iˈu aˈfendos/ sheep-gen master:nom.sg.m the owner of the sheep (pl) Mistí (Dawkins 1916: 398) (8.19e) το διν ζαπτιαδιού τα χέρα /to ˈðini zaptiað-iˈu ta ˈxera/ 3sg:ACC give:3sg policeman-gen the:n/a.pl.n hands:n/a.pl.n she gives him to the hands of the policemen Floitá (Dawkins 1916: 416) 283

304 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.19f) εφτά εγελφιού ανέψα [eˈfta eʝelˈfçu aˈnepʃa] /eˈfta ejelf-iˈu aˈnepsia/ seven sibling-gen nephew:n/a.pl.n nephews of seven brothers Axó (Mavrochalyvidis & Kesísoglou 1960: 214) (8.19g) χριστιανού χωριά /xristian-ˈu xoriˈa/ christian-gen village:n/a.pl.n villages of the Christians Anakú (Costakis 1964: 82) As can be seen in most of these examples, the neutralization 295 between the genitive singular and the genitive plural guarantees the paradigmatic productivity of the latter, as speakers simply employed -ού and -ιού to form the genitives of Turkish loanwords (cf. ζαπτιάδε policemen <zabıta) and native nouns. Another element that involved identical genitive forms for both numbers was the development of innovative forms in the nominal inflection in the following Cappadocian varieties: Araván, Axó, Ferték, Floitá, Ghúrzono, Malakopí, Mistí, Semenderé, Sílata and Ulagátsh (cf. Karatsareas 2011: 255). These forms involve the attachment of the suffixes -ια (nom/acc.pl) and -ιου (gen.sg/pl) not to bound stems, but to inflected nominative singular and plural forms which were treated as free bases: (8.20a) nom.sg αφέντης gen.sg/pl αφέντηζ-ιου - nom/acc.pl αφέντηζ-ια master (M) Axó (Mavrochalyvidis & Kesísoglou s 1960: 40) (8.20b) nom/acc.sg ναίκα gen.sg ναίκα-γιου woman (F) nοm/acc.pl ναίκ-ες gen.pl ναίκ-εζ-ιου Ferték (Dawkins 1916: 114) (8.20c) nom/acc.sg όγρο gen.sg όγρο-γιου work (N) Ulagátsh (Kesísoglou 1951: 34) 295 Note that this merger occasionally results in the use of singular forms instead of plural ones and vice versa: ούλανος [GEN.SG] τα βαβάγια the fathers of all, εκεινιαρώ [GEN.PL] ντο ʃαμdάν her candlestick (Ulagátsh; Dawkins 1916: 356 & 374). 284

305 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK The development of these forms is attributed to the agglutinative morphology of Turkish by Dawkins (1916: 114): (8.21) nom.sg kız girl nom.pl kız-lar ναίκα ναίκ-ες gen.sg kız-ın gen.pl kız-lar-ın ναίκα-γιου /ˈnekaiu/ [ˈnekaʝu] ναίκ-εζ-ιου /ˈnekesiu/ [ˈnecezʝu] Karatsareas (2011) claims that these forms simply reflect inflectional class shift to the paradigm of ι-neuters due to deletion of final unstressed /i/, e.g. ζωνάρι-ø belt / nom.pl ζωνάρι-α (N), μύλ-ος mill / nom.pl μύλ-οι (Μ), ρέχη-ø back / nom.pl ρέχ-ες (F) ζωνάρ-ø/ nom.pl ζωνάρι-α, μύλ-ος/ nom.pl μυλ-ø, ρεχ-ø/ nom.pl ρέχ-ες ζώναρ-ø/ nom.pl ζωνάρ-ια, μύλος-ø/ nom.pl μύλοζ-ια, ρεχ-ø/ nom.pl ρέχ-ια. This change is most likely related to the loss of the grammatical gender in Central Asia Minor, as it involves a wider process that had already initiated the use of the neuter forms of determiners and modifiers 296 with inanimate masculine and feminine nouns (Dawkins 1916: 88). As shown by Karatsareas (2011), the loss of grammatical gender and the neuterization of the nominal inflection were defined by the complete absence of gender distinction in Turkish, which most Cappadocian Greeks were able to speak. Consequently, as the factor of language contact is central to the very beginning of this change, it is only natural to suspect that the extension of the use of the suffix -ιου as the (almost) exclusive marker of the genitive (like the Turkish -ın) and its attachment to nominative singulars and plurals was reinforced by the Turkish pattern and that the two phenomena are not unrelated Phárasa Although there are a few similarities with the adjacent Cappadocian varieties (cf. differential object marking), Pharasiot in general exhibits a more conservative stage of the nominal inflection of Greek in Central Asia Minor, as gender distinctions are better maintained and there are no 296 Cf. the use of the neuter nominative/accusative plural τα with inanimate feminines in Pontic: τα λύρας the lyres vs. οι μανάδες the mothers (Oeconomides 1958: 171). 285

306 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS agglutinative constructions. However, there are a few innovations and a great degree of allomorphic variation, as will be shown, despite the small size of the villages where the dialect was spoken. More specifically, the original genitive plural suffix *-ίων appears in the available data in four variant forms: i) -ίουν (Andriotis 1948), ii) -ιούν (Lagarde 1886), iii) -ού (Dawkins 1916) and iv) -(ι)ούς (Lagarde 1886; Gregoire 1909). Starting with -ού which exhibits loss of the glide /-j-/, in the case of masculine and neuter nouns it is homophonous with the genitive singular just like in Cappadocian due to the loss of final /n/: (8.21a) του παλαζού η μάνα [<*παλαζιού(ν) <*παλαζίουν <*παλαζίων] /tu palaˈz-u i ˈ mana/ the:gen chick-gen the:nom.sg.f mother:n/a.sg.f the mother of the chicks Dawkins (1916: 470) (8.21b) είκοσι καμηλού γομάρε αλτούνε /ˈikosi kamiˈl-u ɣoˈmare alˈtune twenty camel-gen load:n/a.pl.n gold:n/a.pl.n golden loads of twenty camels or loads of gold of twenty camels Dawkins (1916: 472) In Andriotis (1948) grammatical description and Theodoridis ( & ) collections of narratives, genitive forms are attested without synizesis and retention of final /n/: του γαλαδ-ίουν τα θάλε the stones of the castles (Theodoridis : 224), ιδί-ουν στε bones of goats (Theodoridis : 332). However, it is unknown how frequent these older forms were, since they are not found in other studies of the dialect; it is quite possible that Andriotis (1948) description of the nominal inflection, which does not mention any paradigmatic gaps, was quite prescriptive and heavily influenced by traditional grammars of Modern Greek. In the Pharasiot translation of the Gospel, the allomorph -ιούν with synizesis is found (Lagarde 1886: 12): ωτι-ούν of ears. As regards -(ι)ούς, the following forms are found in the Pharasiot translation of the Gospel (Lagarde 1886: 8 & 13 respectively): 286

307 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (8.22a) του νοματούς του υιού [tu nomaˈt-us tu iˈu] the:gen man-gen.pl the:gen son:gen.sg.m of the son of the people (8.22b) σ Γιοδαιούς το φόβε [s ʝoðe-ˈus to ˈfove] from Jew-GEN.pl the:acc.pl.n fear from the fear of Jews As Dawkins (1932: 547) has shown, these forms do not exhibit accusative-genitive syncretism, since the accusatives of these nouns would be νομάτοι and Γιοδαίοι respectively due to the merger between masculine nominative and accusative plurals. Consequently, the addition of -ς should be viewed as an attempt to differentiate the homonymous genitive singular and genitive plural forms: νοματού (gen.sg/pl) νοματού (gen.sg)/ νοματού-ς (gen.pl). In Gregoire (1909: 156), the extension of -ς also occurs with the feminine ναίκα woman despite the lack of homonymy (gen.sg ναίκας): (8.23) ς ναιτζιούς 297 τα ρούχα the clothes of the women [s neˈdʒ-ʝus ta ˈruxa] the:gen.sg.f woman-gen.pl the:n/a.pl.n clothing:n/a.pl Another surprising feature is the use of the feminine genitive singular of the definite article ς (<τς <της) with a plural feminine noun. This use should be attributed to analogy, since the genitive of the masculine definite article is common for both numbers: (8.24) F M ς ναίκα-ς - του ναιdʒ-ιoύ(ν) / του νοματ-ού - του νοματ-ού(ν) ς ναίκας - ς ναιdʒ-ιού(ς) / του νοματ-ού - του νοματ-ού(ς) 297 <*ναιτζ-ιού (deletion of final /n/) <*ναιτζ-ιούν (affrication) <*ναικιούν (shift of /o/ to /u/ by analogy to the gen.sg suffix -ου) <*ναικ-ιών (deletion of unstressed first syllable, possibly began in the nom.sg η ναίκα <η γυναίκα [ijˈneka]) <*γυναικ-ών (nom.sg γυναίκα). 287

308 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Alternatively, it could be the result of the fact that the genitive plural ναιdʒ-ιούς ended in -ς just like the genitive singular form. Obviously, the addition of -ς to the genitive plural ναιdʒιού did not distinguish between the genitives of the two numbers, but was apparently an analogical process either triggered by the use of the genitive singular of the definite article or by masculine genitive plurals such as νοματούς. Apart from morphologically distinct genitive forms, Pharasiot also exhibits phenomena of zero marking. The following structure involves the usual structure of a genitive of the definite article preceding a nominative plural form (Dawkins 1916: 516): (8.25) έφαγε τα περτσέματα του Τʃερκέζοι he ate the leavings of the Circassians [ˈefaʝe ta perˈtsemata tu tʃerˈcez-i] eat:3sg.pst.pfv the: N/A pl.n remainder:n/a.pl.n the:gen Circassian-N/A.pl This structure is interpreted by Dawkins (1916: 169) as an instance of accusative-genitive syncretism alongside with the following example (1916: 520): (8.26) τζ όψες αντά ντo γεμέκι τις μισαφούροι [dʒ ˈopses aˈnda do ʝeˈmeci] NEG roast:2sg.pst.pfv here the: N/A.sg.n food:n/a.sg.n tis misaˈfuri] the:acc.pl guest:n/a.pl.m you have not cooked food here for the guests (Dawkins 1916: 520) Nevertheless, a closer look at these structures demands a different approach. In the first example, the genitive του of the definite article is used with the nominative/ accusative plural Τʃερκέζοι, which is identical to the possessive structures of zero marking in Italiot and Cappadocian that were previously discussed. In the second example, Dawkins himself translates τις μισαφούροι as for the guests which clearly shows that its semantic role was benefactive and not possessive, as indirect objects are marked by the accusative in Central Asia Minor. Further attestations of 288

309 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK undeclined genitives in other texts (Thumb 1912: 310) corroborate this approach and indicate that the phenomenon affected both numbers: (8.27a) στου φιδιού τʃαι στου απού τʃαι στου λύτʃοι τα τʃυρίγματα [s.tu fiˈð-ʝu tʃe s.tu aˈp-u tʃe in.the:gen.m/n snake-gen.n and in.the:gen.m/n fox-gen.m and s.tu ˈlitʃ-i ta tʃiˈriɣmata] in.the:gen wolf-n/a.pl.m the:n/a.pl.n hissing:n/a.pl.n in the hissings of the snakes and the foxes and the wolves (8.27b) νά βρωμ του χωρίον την στράτα [ˈna.vrom tu xoˈri-on tin ˈstrata] COM.find:1pl.PFV the:gen village-n/a.sg.n the:acc.sg.f road:n/a.sg.f that we find the road to the village (lit. of the village) Silli The dialect of Silli was the smallest and the most isolated of the dialects of Central Asia Minor, as it was spoken by just a few more than 2000 individuals at the time of Dawkins documentation ( ). The status of the genitive is quite similar to Cappadocian and Pharasiot and involves maintenance of the genitive singular, but retreat of the genitive plural. Homophony between the two forms with masculine and neuter nouns occurs once again 298, even though the original suffix -ω(ν) is found more frequently than the previous two dialects: (8.28a) τέκν-ων [GEN.PL] τα ονόματα the names of the children Dawkins (1916: 286) (8.28b) ρυο ματʃ-ού 299 [GEN] του απέσ the inside of his two eyes Costakis (1968: 67) [ˈteknon ta oˈnomata] [rʝo maˈtʃu tu aˈpesu] 298 Costakis (1968: 71) mentions the genitive plural forms αυτουνούς and αυτουνώς which shows that the addition of -ς served for the distinction with the singular form αυτουνού of the demonstrative αυτός. 299 <*ματι-ού(ν) <*ματι-ών. This genitive is identical to the gen.sg ματʃ-ού. 289

310 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Both the descriptions of Dawkins (1916) and Costakis (1968) report a large number of paradigmatic gaps in the genitive plural other than in mainly human nouns of high frequency, cf. άρτουπους/ αρτουπουριώ human (M) (Dawkins 1916: 47), εναίκα/ εναικώ woman (F), κόρη/ κοριώ daughter (F), παιρί/ παιριώ child (N) (Costakis 1968: 63 & 67). Zero marking seems to be established as a possessive strategy, as it is not limited to modifiers, but it is found with nouns of both numbers (Costakis 1968: 67 & 123): (8.29a) χεκέμηροι τα ιλάτζα [# *χεκεμηρ-ιώ] [çeˈcemir-i ta iˈladʒa] doctor-n/a.pl.m the:n/a.pl.n remedy:n/a.pl.n the medicines of the doctors (8.29b) βουνί τʃην άκρα [# *βουνι-ού] [vuˈn-i tʃin ˈakra] mountain-n/a.sg.n the:acc.sg.f edge:n/a.sg.f on the tip of the mountain (8.29c) ούλα ρούχα του κουτσάκια [# *ουλ-ού ρουχ-ώ] [ˈul-a ˈrux-a tu kuˈtsaca] all-n/a.pl.n clothing-n/a.pl.n 3sg:GEN.m button:n/a.pl.n all the buttons of his clothes The confusion in the case system can be best seen in the following construction in which the modifying adjective is in the nominative, the definite article is in the accusative case (possibly under the influence of the syncretic third person accusative τους, cf ), while the head noun retains the morphologically distinct genitive form: (8.30) ούλοι τους μισαφιριώ τα ʃέρια [ˈul-i tus misafir-ˈʝo ta ˈʃerʝa] all-nom.pl.m 3pl:ACC.pl.m guest-gen.pl.m the:n/a.pl.n hand:n/a.pl.n all of the guests hands (Costakis 1968: 126) 290

311 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK Pontic varieties with genitive loss Pontic is greatly differentiated from the dialects of Central Asia Minor. The status of the Pontic genitive is very similar to the southern dialects and CMG, involving maintenance of the case in most paradigms apart from neuter diminutives and the plural of (mostly) abstract feminine nouns (cf. Table 4.2; cf. Papadópoulos 1955, Oeconomides 1958). Nevertheless, dialectal variation indicates that genitive loss can also be found in Pontic and particularly in two varieties located on the limits of the Pontic-speaking regions of Pontus (cf. Map 8.2), Argyroúpolis (Gümüşhane; in the area of Chaldia, eastern Pontus) and Ophis (Of; eastern Pontus) and two varieties of relocated Pontic communities in Southern Russia and Armenia. As can be seen in the following structures from the variety of Argyroúpolis (Drettas 1997: 154), undeclined genitives are used in constructions with indefinite possessors 300 : (8.31a) ακούει πρόβατα λαλίας [aˈkui ˈprovat-a laˈlias] hear:3sg sheep-n/a.pl.n voice:n/a.pl.f he hears voices of sheep (8.31b) εμείς χωρέτ κ είμες, χωρέτ φίλ είμες [eˈmis xoˈret-ø k h imes 1pl:NOM peasant-nom.pl.m NEG be:1pl xoˈret-ø fil-ø ˈimes peasant-nom.pl.m friend-nom.pl.m be:1pl] we re not peasants, we re friends of peasants [# *προβατ-ίων [GEN.PL] λαλίας] [*χωρετ-ίων [GEN.PL] φίλ είμες] Examples like (8.31b) prompt Drettas (1997: 142-3), in his analysis of the variety of Argyroúpolis, to list identical nominative plural/ genitive singular and plural forms in the nominal paradigms he provides for η-masculines such as χωρέτες peasant, while also giving morphologically distinct genitive plurals: nom.sg ο χωρέτες/ gen.sg τι χωρέτ (<*χωρέτη-ø with deletion of unstressed final /i/)/ nom.pl οι χωρέτ (<*χωρέτ-οι, with deletion of /i/)/ gen.pl τι χωρετίων/ τι χωρέτ. 300 As Janse (2002: 222) has shown, both occurrences of [xoˈret] in (8.31b) are nominative plurals. 291

312 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS The variety of Ophis (Of) also seems to display identically realized genitives for both numbers 301 : (8.31) δυο Εβραίου μμάτια [*δυο Εβραί-ων μμάτια] [ðʝo Eˈvre-u ˈmatæ] two Jew-GEN.sg./pl eye:n/a.pl.n eyes of two Jews Dawkins (1931: 119). Furthermore, according to the grammatical description of the Ophis variety, as it is spoken nowadays by the descendants of Pontic refugees in Macedonia (Tiliopoulou 2008: 58), the genitive plural has been lost and is expressed analytically through relative clauses: (8.32a) Ophitic Pontic (refugees in Nea Trapezunta, Pieria, Macedonia) το τερτίπ ντο έχουνε οι ανθρώπ [to terˈtip ndo ˈexune the:n/a.sg.n system:n/a.sg.n REL:N/A.sg.n have:1pl i anˈθrop] the:nom.pl.m human:nom.pl.m the system that people have (8.32b) Common Pontic το τερτίπ τ ανθρωπίων [to terˈtip t anθroˈp-ion] the:n/a.sg.n system:n/a.sg.n the:gen human-gen.pl.m the system of the people Nevertheless, according to Sitaridou (personal communication), who has recently documented the present-day variety of Pontic-speaking Muslims who have remained in Ophis (Of), the genitive plural is maintained as elsewhere in Pontic, e.g. μάνα/ gen.pl μαναδ-ίων mother. 301 Cf. Revythiadou & Spyrópoulos (2009: 49). 292

313 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK As regards varieties spoken outside of Pontus, Semenov (1935: 98) provides full paradigms for the variety of Pontic settlements of Rostov-na-Donu in the Russian shore of the Azov Sea, but mentions that the genitive is often replaced by the preposition ας from (<*AG ἐξ). Similarly, Hodgson (2008) does not list genitive plural forms of inanimate nouns in her corpus from the Pontic varieties spoken in the villages Madan and Hankavan of Armenia and mentions (personal communication) that inanimate possessors are marked by ας: (8.33) τα πόρτας ας οσπίτιä [# *οσπιτ-ίων τα πόρτας] [ta ˈportas as oˈspit-æ] the:n/a.pl.n door:n/a.pl.f from house-n/a.pl.n the houses doors Discussion As has been shown, the loss of the inflectional potential in the dialects of Eastern Asia Minor involves two main phenomena: i) loss of distinction between genitive singular and genitive plural forms and ii) the use of undeclined possessors. While it was hinted earlier that the features of Turkish morphology have affected the nominal inflection of these dialects in terms of the elimination of gender distinctions and the development of agglutinative genitives (and nominative plurals) in a few Cappadocian varieties, what has not been dealt with yet is the correlation between contact with Turkish and the development of these two phenomena. As Janse (2002: 222) has shown, the use of undeclined genitives in examples (8.32a) and (8.32b) is based on the indefinite izafet-construction in Turkish, in which indefinite possessors are left unmarked (Lewis 1967: 43-4) 302 : (8.34a) Üniversite-nin profesör-ler-i university-gen professor-pl-3sg.poss the professors of the University 302 In contrast, MG differentiates these structures with the definite article, cf. CMG καθηγητές του Πανεπιστημίου [GEN.SG.N] professors of the University, καθηγητές πανεπιστημίου [GEN.SG.N] university professors. 293

314 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.34b) Üniversite profesör-ler-i university professor-pl-3sg.poss university professors The fact that in Cappadocian (ex. 8.16), Silli (ex. 8.29c) and Phárasa (ex. 8.26) undeclined genitives are also used with definite possessors can either be interpreted to be an extension of the lack of marking on indefinite possessors or simply seen to reflect another sign of morphological attrition, which is commonly found in minority communities under extended language shift. As can be seen in (8.18a) and (8.18b), the loss of agreement between nominal genitives and their determiners and modifiers most likely reflects the absence of concordial case in Turkish. The development of identically-realized genitive forms in either number can also be attributed to various factors. First, it could be said that the use of single morpheme in Turkish to mark the genitive case (-[n]vn, V=high vowel) might have played a role in the extensive diffusion of -γιου (/ju/) or -ου to most paradigms and both numbers, as it could have constituted the main motivation behind the loss of final /n/ and the shift of /o/ to /u/. Second, in the case of overlapping genitive singulars and plurals in Pontic varieties, the development might have originated from structures with undeclined possessors as in (8.32a), where the nominative plural χωρέτ is identical to the genitive singular form due to the deletion of unstressed final /i/ and /u/. Hence, it is likely that speakers reanalyzed these forms as common genitive singulars/ plurals and then extended the pattern to other paradigms, where the final /u/ was not deleted, as in example (8.31) where /u/ in the genitive Εβραί-ου is phonetically the second member of a diphthong ([eˈvreu]). Regardless of the exact origin of these identical genitive forms, in the case of the dialects of Central Asia Minor it seems that this development favored the maintenance of the case by reducing its structural complexity, which is verified by the presence of a few genitive plural (=genitive singular) forms in collections of narratives. In fact, if we consider that the genitive in the dialects of Eastern Asia Minor is monofunctional, since the accusative is the case that marks indirect objects, it can be observed that the genitive is maintained to a greater degree overall than in the ACC=IO varieties of Northern Greek. This higher degree of maintenance of the case cannot only be attributed to the fact that in past stages of these dialects the distributional potential of the genitive must have been wider (cf. 8.18), but also to the morphological unmarkedness of the case due to the eliminated 294

315 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK distinction between its singular and plural forms, and the predictability of the iconic suffixes -ιου/ -ιων. To explain this higher degree of maintenance, we must also acknowledge another factor that can be connected to language contact. More specifically, special attention needs to be paid to the role of word order; unlike the rest of the MG-speaking world, in the dialects of eastern Asia Minor, the genitive precedes its head exactly as in Turkish, e.g. komşunun [GEN] evi the neighbor s house. Evidence for the external origin of this distribution comes from Manolessou s (2000) diachronic study of the Greek noun phrase structure. More specifically, even though ClG allowed both patterns for the possessive genitive 303, the post-head type is consistently more frequent (e.g. Manolessou 2000: 81) than the pre-head type whose use was reinforced by its special focusing role. During HellG, the frequency of post-head genitives becomes even higher which is best shown in New Testament; in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), 827 post-head and only 27 pre-head genitives are found (Manolessou 2000: 99). The same tendency is found in MedG, as Manolessou (2000: 114-5) mentions, pre-head genitives are rare in prose texts, though frequent in verse (possibly due to metric reasons, as well as the general persistence of archaic elements in poetic speech). Therefore, it can be concluded that while in the majority of the Greek-speaking world the prehead order only survived to denote focus, this distribution became the default in many areas of Asia Minor 304 where there was close contact with Turkish. The way this element affected the maintenance of the genitive in Eastern Asia Minor can be seen in the fact that due to the default prenominal order of the genitives in Central Asia Minor the possessive reanalysis of ablative/ partitive markers was not facilitated, as opposed to the possessive use of από in Northern Greek, where both genitives and partitive constructions are largely postnominal: 303 AG also had two other types which were entirely lost along the diachronic course of the language and thus are irrelevant to the matter under study here: i) DET NOM + DET GEN + NOUN GEN + NOUN NOM ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως θρόνος the king s throne ii) DET NOM + NOUN NOM + DET NOM + DET GEN + NOUN GEN ὁ θρόνος ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως the king s throne. 304 Also in Bithynia. 295

316 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.35a) μαλλιού τουν άκρες the tips of their hair /mali-ˈu tun ˈakres/ hair:gen 3pl:GEN edge:n/a.pl.f Silli (Costakis 1968: 67) (8.35b) κόφτει να τελ απ το σκέιʃκε he cuts a strand of hair /ˈkofti ena tel aˈpo to ˈskeiʃke/ cut:3sg one cord from the:n/a.sg.n hair Ulagátsch (Kesísoglou 1951: 144) It is no surprise that in the wider setting of Greek in Eastern Asia Minor, the only varieties that exhibit possessive use of the preposition ας from are those that stopped being in contact with Turkish, namely the Pontic varieties of southern Russia and Armenia, as mentioned earlier. Crosslinguistic evidence for the correlation between the prenominal order of the genitive and its maintenance comes from replacement of the synthetic genitive by ablative prepositions in languages with a preference for the postnominal distribution of possessors, such as de from in the Romance languages and van/ von from in Dutch and German. Quite interestingly, the diachrony of English presents a very good example for this matter, as the Old English genitive survived in the modern language only in the prenominal position despite its limitation to being a phrasal clitic, e.g. the king of France s Palace (cf. Allen 2008, Norde 2009 etc.), while postnominal genitives became entirely obsolete due to competition with the preposition of (originally from ). 8.3 Mariupol Before examining the status of the genitive in Mariupolitan, a few features of the dialect will be mentioned. Despite the fact that the actual origin of this dialect remains uncertain, it shares isoglosses with Northern Greek and Eastern Asia Minor Greek, such as deletion of unstressed /i, u/ and raising of unstressed /e, o/, which however are not consistently found in all varieties (cf. Pappou-Zhuravliova 1995 and Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 114-6) and seem to be an independent development. Contact with the Northern Greek dialects must have been limited, even given the 296

317 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK name of the village Makedonovka and the establishment of Greek speakers from Thrace in the region during the 19 th c. (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2006). Contact with Pontus seems to have been in place since the medieval period due to the close ties between the Greek-speaking Christians of Crimea and the Pontic Church (Delópoulos 2003: 377), which may explain the restriction of grammatical gender, the disappearance of most forms of the definite article 305, the prenominal distribution of genitives and the extension of the suffix -ί (<*-ίου with unstressed /u/ deletion) of ι-neuters to other inflectional classes. Quite clearly, for the first three of these changes, the fact that both Pontic and Mariupolitan were in contact with Turkic languages (Turkish and Crimean Tatar respectively) may have played an important role. The varieties of the region of Mariupol constitute the most complicated case of genitive loss among the dialects under examination here. The limited available sources mostly include collections of poems and most narratives (cf. Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009) are translations of the works of Russian and Ukrainian writers, while there are not many recordings of native oral narratives (cf. Ashla 1999). Furthermore, the two available grammatical descriptions (Pappou- Zhuravliova 1995, Symeonidis & Tompaídis 1999) refer to possessive constructions quite superficially. However, Henrich (1999) and Kisilier (2013) provide specialized analyses which indicate that the genitive is still present in the dialect despite a great degree of loss. Starting with the genitive singular forms, it can be safely stated that their presence is quite regular. The morphemes used for each inflectional class resemble those seen in most other Northern MG and Pontic varieties. Thus, o-masculines form the genitive with the morpheme -Ø 306 and similarly to o-neuters with -u 307 and less commonly -ˈi, α-/η-masculines have the morpheme -Ø, feminines take -s 308 and, quite interestingly, loanwords (mostly of Tatar and also Russian origin) have adapted to the inflectional system and take the genitive suffix /ˈi/ because of their resemblance to penult-stressed ι-neuters which end in a consonant due to the deletion of unstressed /i/. The following examples include genitive singulars from almost every paradigm 309 : 305 As is known, Turkic languages and Russian do not have definite articles. Masculine and feminine nominatives o, η, οι (singular and plural) and accusative plurals τ ς (<*τους/ *τις) of the definite article are entirely absent in Mariupolitan, while genitive forms are extremely rare. 306 Cf , e.g. Maniot του Χάρο-Ø <nom.sg ο Χάρος Charon (#CMG του Χάρου). Note that these forms are identical to accusative singulars. 307 Examples from Mariupolitan are given in phonetic transcription (IPA) due to the usual documentation of the dialect in Cyrillic, Latin or simplified (phonetic) Greek. 308 Note also the relic usage of -us/ -os, e.g. AG/ MedG γυναικός ineˈkus (Kisilier 2013). 309 The inconsistency in deletion and raising of unstressed vowels of these examples is due to the diversity of these phenomena in the Mariupolitan varieties and in some cases the influence of CMG. 297

318 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.36a) uraˈn-u ta ˈakres [o-masculine: uraˈnos, cf. CMG gen.sg ουραν-ού] the limits of the sky (Kostoprav 1934: 17) (8.36b) uraˈnο-ø ta ˈastres [o-masculine: uraˈnos, cf. Maniot gen.sg ουρανό-ø 310 ] the stars of the sky (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 450) (8.36c) θanaˈt-i ˈprosopo [o-masculine: ˈθanatos, cf. Pontic gen.sg θανατ-ί(ου)] death s face (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 349) (8.36d) vasiˈlea-ø jos [α-masculine: vasiˈleas, cf. CMG gen.sg βασιλιά-ø] the king s son (Ashla 1999: 78) (8.36f) ˈnixta-s to skuˈtin [α-feminine: ˈnixta, cf. CMG gen.sg νύχτα-ς] the darkness of the night (Kostoprav 1934: 25) (8.36g) ðenˈdr-u ta ˈfila [o-neuter: ðenˈdro, cf. CMG gen.sg δέντρ-ου] the leaves of the tree (Kostoprav 1934: 33) (8.36h) zisˈm-i tu ˈvarema [o-neuter: ˈzismu (<*ˈzisimo)] the boredom of life (Henrich 1999: 668) (8.36i) ðermaˈt-i murˈðia [μα-neuter: ˈðerma, cf. Pontic gen.sg δερματ-ί(ου)] smell of leather (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 289) (8.36j) korˈts-i to vaxt [ι-neuter: koˈrits (<*koˈritsi)] the girl s fate (Kostoprav 1934: 43) (8.36k) tʃoˈl-i ta pliˈdza [loanword: tʃol <Crimean Tatar çöl] the steppe s little birds (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 397) Turning to the genitive plural, the form is extremely rarely found in collections of texts and is never mentioned in the available grammatical descriptions. As regards genitive plurals formed with the original suffix -ων, the only examples I have encountered are the following relics: 310 Cf. ex. (2.18) from Bithynia: gen/acc.sg άθρωπο-ø. 298

319 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK (8.37a) piɣaiˈðon 311 ta ʃili [ι-neuter: piˈɣað(i)/ nom.pl piˈɣaðia/ piˈɣaiða] the lips of the wells (Ashla 1999: 34) (8.37b) anθropˈnu 312 t aˈblatia [o-masculine: ˈanθropos/ nom.pl anˈθrop(i)] the sholders of people (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 238) (8.37c) ðenˈdru 313 kulˈfes [o-neuter: ðenˈdro/ nom.pl ðenˈdra] the tips of the trees (Henrich 1999: 668) (8.37d) ʝineˈku 314 tin ta plaˈtocia [α-feminine: ʝineˈka/ nom.pl ʝineˈces] their women s kerchiefs (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 359) The vast majority of neuter nouns have genitive plural forms that are identical to the genitive singular, as in Central Asia Minor: *-ίου/ *-ίων -ίουν -ίου/ -ίου -ί/ -ί: (8.38a) saˈranda alˈʝ-i ˈraiða [o-neuter: ˈalɣu/ nom.pl ˈalɣa] tails of forty horses (Ashla 1999: 84) (8.38b) balaˈð-i ts ta ˈdzopes [bala/ nom.pl baˈlaiða <*baˈlaðia <Crimean Tatar bala] the pockets of her children ] (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 191) (8.38c) provaˈt-i daˈuʃa [o-neuter: ˈprovato/ nom.pl ˈprovata] voices of sheep (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 124) The suffix -ί is also found with the genitive plural of feminine nouns: kuˈruna/ nom.pl kuˈrunes kuruˈn-i fuˈleis nests of crows (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 330), kadzaˈkana/ nom.pl kadzaˈkanes kadzakaˈn-i fteˈra wings of magpies (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 358), ˈfrata/ nom.pl ˈfrates fraˈt-i ta ˈfila the leaves of corn plants (Biletsky 2009: 216). This widespread use of the suffix leads Pappou-Zhuravliova (2009: 203-4) to propose that -ί has been grammaticalized as a derivative suffix and that such forms actually constitute indeclinable adjectives. She further notes that the prenominal distribution of these genitives should not be attributed to influence from Crimean Tatar, but to the similar use of Russian adjectives, e.g. мамин платок [ˈmamin plaˈtok] lit. motherly kerchief vs. платок мамы [plaˈtok ˈmamɪ] lit. 311 <*piɣaˈðion. This is a set expression found in poems which explains the unusual retention of final -ν. 312 <*anθroˈpun. Possible contamination with the adjective anθropˈnos human. However, this form is definitely a genitive, otherwise the structure would be * t anθropˈna aˈblatia the human shoulders. 313 Identical with gen.sg ðenˈdru due to the usual shift of the suffix -ων to -ουν and deletion of final /n/. 314 <*ʝineˈko(n). 299

320 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS kerchief mom s 315. This analysis seems to be supported by the following structures: in the first example, the genitive is preceded by the definite article which is very typical of adjectives, cf. CMG το σιδερένιο (το) χέρι lit. the iron (the) hand, while in the second -i is unexpectedly used with the feminine nominative/accusative singular ˈporta and unexpectedly replaces the frequently found suffix -s, e.g. *ˈportas to kuˈʃe: (8.39a) to siðeˈr-i to ʃer [o-neuter: ˈsiðero] the:n/a.sg.n iron-gen the:n/a.sg.n hand the iron hand Arich (1935: 79) (8.39b) porˈti to kuˈʃe the corner of the door Pappou-Zhuravliova (2009: 203) A few aspects of this analysis need to be clarified. In most cases these i-genitives are not accompanied by a definite article, as shown in examples (8.36), (8.37) and (8.38), while the extension of -i to feminine singular possessors is most likely explained by the inanimacy of ˈporta, showing an early sign of the process that has taken place in Cappadocian. Furthermore, the Russian pattern involves adjectives that are inflected for number, case and gender which is certainly not the case with the Mariupolitan forms that end in -i. What is more, the prenominal distribution of genitives is irrelevant to Russian, as opposed to Pappou-Zhuravliova s (2009: 204) claim; on the contrary, it is a clear sign of contact with Crimean Tatar which is not only proven by the greater extent and longer period of contact between the latter and Greek before the relocation of Crimean Greeks to the region of Mariupol in 1778, but mainly by the already mentioned element that this order is also found in the dialects of Asia Minor which are in contact with Turkish. However, the Russian influence on the use of the definite article with the genitive in example (8.39a) seems to be clear and can also be traced in the following structures which exhibit the use of the adjective maˈnitko (<*μανίτικο <μάνα mother + suffix -ίτικο) and 315 Nom.sg мама gen.sg мам-ы. 300

321 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK ˈpluʃko (<*πλούσικο <πλούσιος rich + suffix -ικο) that is inflected for number and gender instead of the use of a genitive 316 : (8.40a) maˈnitka ˈðakris 317 ta zeˈsta motherly:n/a.pl.n tear:n/a.sg.n the:n/a.pl.n warm:n/a.pl.n the warm motherly tears (Kiriakov 1993: 164) # *ˈmana-s (GEN) ˈðakris ta zeˈsta mom s warm tears (8.40b) pes ta ˈpluʃka ta ˈzaɲa in the:n/a.pl.n rich:n/a.pl.n the:n/a.pl.n field:n/a.pl.n in the fields of rich people (Biletsky 2009: 213) # CMG στων πλούσιων [GEN] τα χωράφια Thus, it is more accurate to argue that forms in -i continue to function as genitives, as in Pontic and the dialects of Central Asia Minor, but are often reanalyzed and employed as modifiers through the use of a form of the definite article that agrees with the possessum. Apart from the use of such morphologically distinct genitives, the retreat of the genitive case in Mariupolitan can be seen by two main strategies. First, zero marking takes place quite similarly to Italiot and Central Asia Minor Greek. As regards singular forms, uninflected feminine and neuter genitives can be found 318 : (8.41a) aliˈpu tu ˈðerma [# *aliˈpu-s] [feminine] the skin of the fox (Kisilier 2013) (8.41b) ˈðendro ta klaˈðia [# *ðenˈdr-u] [o-neuter] the branches of the tree (Arich 1935: 78). (8.41c) arˈniθ t avˈɣo [# *arniˈθ-ι] [ι-neuter] the egg of the hen (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 372) 316 It should be noted that these adjectives are nowhere found in MG and are unique innovations of Mariupolitan. 317 <*ˈðakres. The extension of the feminine nominative/ accusative plural suffix -ες to neuter nouns, cf. ˈastris vs. CMG άστρα, was probably triggered by inanimate feminines, e.g. tu raʃ (<*ˈraçi) the back (CMG η ράχη)/ n.a.pl ta ˈraʃis (<*ˈraçes). 318 Henrich (1999: 669) provides a rare example of an uninflected masculine genitive: ˈtatas lalaˈʃiʝa fatherly pampering (lit. father s pamperings) (# *ˈtata-Ø). 301

322 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Zero marking is also found with masculine and feminine plural forms: (8.42a) ˈɣlosis ˈɣraða [feminine: ˈɣlosa/ n/a.pl ˈɣlosis] line of words (Kiriakov 1988: 58) (8.42b) arxonˈdað ta ˈɣraθis [α-masculine: ˈarxondas/ nom.pl arˈxond/ arxonˈdað 319 ] the lines of masters (Kiriakov 1995) (8.42c) duʃˈman ta ˈkascis [ο-masculine: duʃˈmanus/ nom.pl duʃˈman 320 ] the helmets of the enemies (Kiriakov 1997) The development of these juxtapositional structures is a clear instance of the morphological attrition in a linguistic community that has been undergoing language shift for centuries. Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation with possessive constructions in Crimean Tatar in which possessors can be left unmarked when used with possessive pronouns: (8.43a) i. men-im aɣa-m-nɯŋ køz-ler-i 1sg-GEN brother-1sg.poss-gen eye-pl-3sg.poss ii. men aɣa-m køz-ler-i I brother-1sg.poss eye-pl-3sg.poss my brother s eyes dialectal Crimean Tatar (Kavitskaya 2010: 91) (8.43b) cf. aðerˈfi-ø m tu spit [#*aðerˈfi-s m tu spit] sister-n/a.sg.f 1sg:GEN the:n/a.sg.n house:n/a.sg.n my sister s house (Pappou-Zhuravliova 2009: 204) The second phenomenon of genitive loss in Mariupolitan is related to accusative-genitive syncretism. Unlike Pharasiot, Silliot and some Cappadocian varieties, Mariupolitan has maintained distinct nominative and accusative plural forms for masculine nouns, e.g.: duʃˈmanus (<*duʃˈmanos) enemy / nom.pl duʃˈman (<*duʃˈmani)/ acc.pl duʃˈmans (<*duʃˈmanus). In 319 <*arxonˈdaði <*arxonˈdaðes with extension of the o-masculine nominative -οι to imparisyllabic α-/ηmasculines. This development is also found in Livisi and Silli. 320 <*duʃˈmani <Crimean Tatar düşman. 302

323 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK many possessive constructions with masculine nouns, forms that are identical to these accusative plurals are used: (8.44a) as 321 duʃˈman-s maˈreja to the side of the enemies to enemy-acc.pl.m side:n/a.sg.f Kiriakov (1993: 45) (8.44b) kurˈmija skutuˈmen-s the bodies of dead men body:n/a.pl.n killed-acc.pl.m Kiriakov (1995) (8.44c) poˈl-us karˈðies the hearts of many many-acc.pl.m heart:n/a.pl.f Arich (1935: 149) (8.44d) ul-ˈnus ta oˈnomata the names of all all-acc.pl.m the:n/a.pl.n name:n/a.pl.n Kiriakov (1988: 112) This development resembles the syncretic phenomena found in a few MG dialects, such as Cypriot. Quite interestingly, as was mentioned in 5.3.4, this phenomenon is also found in medieval inscriptions from Crimea (cf. Markópoulos 2010): (8.45a) ἡγούμενος τῆς μονῆς τοὺς Ἁγίους Ἀποστόλους /iˈɣumenos tis moˈnis tus abbot:nom.sg.m the:gen.sg.f monastery:gen.sg.f the:acc.pl.m aˈʝius apoˈstolus/ saint:acc.pl.m apostle:acc.pl.m abbot of the monastery of the Saint Apostles Partenit, Crimea, 906 AD (Latyshev 1896: 75) 321 <εἰς to. 303

324 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS (8.45b) τὰ σημάδια τὶς Γενουβέζους /ta siˈmaðia tis ɣenuˈvezus/ the:n/a.pl.n sign:n/a.pl.n the:acc.pl Genoese:ACC.pl.m The arms of the Genoese eastern Crimea, 15 th c. AD (Latyshev 1896: 46) The consistency of the pattern indicates that accusative-genitive syncretism of masculine nouns has deep roots in Crimeo-Azov Greek; while the loss of the ancient dative seems to be unrelated to this development, as has already been shown, this syncretism might reflect an effort of speakers to reduce the three-case distinction which was only maintained in the plural of o- masculines after LMedG. However, the possibility of these phenomena being mere solecisms (cf ) calls for an alternative explanation. Thus, this syncretism could also be interpreted to be a much more recent development than these inscriptions indicate. As in the dialects of Central Asia Minor, raising of -ων to -ουν and deletion of final /n/ neutralized genitive singular and plural forms of masculine nouns. However, the deletion of unstressed /u/ and /i/ could often cause an instance of triple or even quadruple 322 homophony with masculine nouns: (8.46) Stage 0: nom.sg *duʃˈman-os gen.sg *duʃˈman-u acc.sg *duʃˈman-o(n) nom.pl *duʃˈman-i gen.pl *duʃˈman-u(n) acc.pl *duʃˈman-us Stage I: nom.sg duʃˈman-us gen.sg duʃˈman acc.sg duʃˈman-u nom.pl duʃˈman gen.pl *duʃˈman acc.pl duʃˈman-s The need to disambiguate these three homophonous forms resulted in the addition of -s to the genitive plural form, as was also the case with Pharasiot and Silliot, in which accusative and genitive forms remained distinct throughout. The advantages of a distinction between an oblique (genitive/ accusative) and a nominative form over a nominative/ genitive vs. accusative 322 Note that in Mariupolitan the plural of many α-/η-masculines is modeled after o-masculines similarly to other MG dialects such as Silli and Livisi. Thus, η-masculines would have four homophonous forms: nom.sg namˈliðs notorious (<*namˈliðis, Crimean Tatar namlɯ)/ gen.sg and acc.sg namˈlið (<*namˈliði)/ nom.pl namˈlið (<*namˈliði)/ gen.pl *namˈlið (<*namˈliðu(n))/ acc.pl namˈliðs (<*namˈliðus). 304

325 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK distinction are obvious from a typological point of view and were also based on the frequent neutralization between the genitive and the accusative in the singular (cf. ex. 8.36b and 8.36d): (8.47) Stage II: nom.sg duʃˈman-us gen.sg duʃˈman acc.sg duʃˈman-u nom.pl duʃˈman gen.pl duʃˈman-s acc.pl duʃˈman-s The addition of -s was probably not only influenced by the accusative plural form, but could also be based on the genitives of indefinite pronouns like kaθeˈis everyone or kaˈnis nobody which only have singular forms, but can be interpreted as semantically plural: (8.48a) kaniˈnus 323 aðriˈfi no one s sister (Kiriakov 1993: 229) (8.48b) ta ˈmatia ulˈnun-s everyone s eyes (Kiriakov 1988: 20) Quite interestingly, the form in (8.48b) exhibits addition of -s to a genitive plural that has maintained final /n/. Furthermore, the development of innovative accusative plurals may result in morphologically distinct genitive and accusative forms: (8.49a) polˈnus [many:gen.pl] t karˈðia the heart of many (Kostoprav 1934: 27) (8.49b) ðulefˈtaðs poˈlis 324 [many:acc.pl] ɣo ˈiða I saw many workers (Arich 1935: 55) What is more, the pattern of the addition of -s as a genitive marker is also found with neuter nouns: (8.50a) ˈplija-s pkað flock of birds [ι-neuter: pli/ n.a.pl ˈplija] Henrich (1999: 669) (8.50b) ta ˈtʃfalia baˈlaiða-s the heads of the children [bala/ n.a.pl baˈlaiða <Tatar] Kiriakov (1993: 102) (8.50c) ˈdʒapia-s tu raʃ the top of the mountains [dʒap/ n.a.pl ˈdʒapia] (Kiriakov 1988: 56) 323 <*kaneˈn-os. Cf. κιανεν-ούς <*κανεν-ός (Crete; Lioudaki 1936: 41). 324 The development of such accusatives as poˈlis of oxytone masculines - not found anywhere else in MG - is based on the deletion of unstressed /i, u/; more clearly, as the accusative plural duʃˈmans of duʃˈmanus simply involves the addition of -s to the nominative plural duʃˈman, -s was added to the nominative poˈli. 305

326 DEFLEXION IN THE PERIPHERAL DIALECTS Consequently, if this alternative approach on the development of accusative-genitive plural neutralization in Mariupolitan is accurate, it seems that the phenomenon was affected by accidental homophony rather than actual morphosyntactic syncretism, as was the case with the dialects examined in Chapter 5. Finally, the possessive use of the prepositions ax (<AG ἐκ) and aˈpo is not found in Mariupolitan 325. Again, contact with a Turkic language may have resulted in the solidification of the prenominal distribution of the genitive, which ruled out the possibility of reanalysis of ablative or partitive constructions as possessive ones. 8.4 Conclusions Two main patterns can be observed from the evidence of loss of inflectional potential in the periphery of the MG-speaking world. First, the role of language contact has been extremely crucial to the forms that these changes take, such as the influence of Italian (and the local Romance dialects) on the possessive use of ˈatse from and the appearance of undeclined genitives in Italiot, as well as phonological changes that indirectly affected the nominal inflection (cf. loss of final /s/), the effect of unmarked indefinite possessive constructions in Turkish on the emergence of undeclined possessors in Eastern Asia Minor, and the correlation between zero marking of possessors in Crimean Tatar and the use of possessive adjectives in Russian on the one hand and the appearance of similar structures in Mariupolitan. The role of language contact can also be reflected in the importance of the language-specific features in each case, since contact of Italiot with Romance has resulted in the monodirectional loss of the genitive, while contact of the dialects of Eastern Asia Minor with Turkish has taken two directions, namely loss of inflectional potential due to the structure of the indefinite izafet, but also less competition from ablative prepositions due to the prenominal order of the case. The case of Mariupolitan is different, as it is the most remote MG dialect and has undergone multiple disruptions of 325 Viktorova (2009: 204) provides the example kurˈvat j pax ˈksilo lit. bed from wood, but this is a non-anchoring possessive construction that denotes material, which is also marked by από in the rest of the MG-speaking world. 306

327 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK sociolinguistic stability due to the relocation from Crimea to Mariupol and the change with regard to the language of contact (Crimean Tatar before 1778 and Russian afterwards). Second, the role of intensive language shift that the speakers of all these dialects (apart from Pontic) had been exposed to seems to be responsible for the morphological attrition in the inflectional system (cf. Dorian 1978), as languages that are exposed to a high degree of contact may be prone to case loss, as opposed to highly monolingual communities which may exhibit more stable case systems (cf. Clyne 2003, Barðdal & Kulikov 2009). More precisely, in all three dialect groups, the phenomenon of undeclined possessors is the most common form that the loss of inflectional potential leads to, something that is extremely interesting, given that in the considerably more stable communities of insular and mainland Greece (and Western Asia Minor), such phenomena are much more restricted (cf ). 307

328 9. CONCLUSIONS According to the analysis I have presented thus far, almost every Modern Greek variety exhibits phenomena of genitive loss that differ according to their type and extent of expansion. In the following sections, I bring these findings together in order to evaluate the role of markedness and the notion of case hierarchy on the loss of the Greek genitive from a diachronic and diatopic perspective. Furthermore, I will relate the outcomes of this study to the broader concept of case decline and the way linguistic systems evolve, especially with regard to the loss of the genitive case as an areal (epi)phenomenon that is encountered in many languages of Europe. 9.1 The markedness of the genitive and its evolution in the diachrony and diatopy of Greek As has been shown throughout this study, the loss of the genitive in Greek can be interpreted through the dynamic relations it bears to the other members of the case system. These relations are largely determined by the five criteria of markedness, as laid out in Chapters 1 and 4: i) conceptual complexity, ii) structural complexity, iii) distributional potential, iv) frequency and v) inflectional potential. As shown in Chapter 2, the polysemy of the AG oblique cases resulted in the restriction of the non-grammatical uses of the accusative, the dative and the genitive 326. Thus, the first criterion that had a significant impact on the position of the genitive in the case hierarchy of Greek is its conceptual complexity. Given the fact that the concrete meaning of the accusative was already limited in ClG, the functional reformation of the AG case system had a much greater deal of impact on the genitive and the dative. The conceptual complexity of the ancient genitive motivated its disassociation from the ablative and partitive meanings, which were more 326 It should be noted that this study has not attempted to explain in full detail the reformation of the ancient case system, as the primary interest of this thesis involves the developments that took place after the last centuries of the EMedG period.

329 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK peripheral than its prototypical use to mark possessive relations. This essentially suggests that the roots of the functional restriction of the MedG genitive can already be found in AG, especially when one keeps in mind that the morphological and syntactic unmarkedness of the accusative, cf and Chapter 4. Thus, the distributional potential of the genitive was steadily reduced with the loss of its nonpossessive uses in a great range of syntactic domains, such as prepositional complement, second argument with partitive or ablative origin, adverbial prepositional complement, adnominal/ adjectival complement in partitive, pseudo-partitive and ablative relations, which took place through a long process that began in HellG and was intensified at the end of the EMedG period. Structural markedness most likely assisted these changes, since morphologically unmarked structures like the accusative - which quite often tended to overlap with the nominative - and juxtapositions were preferred. The role of dialectal variation should not be underestimated, given the fact that the tendencies to reduce the use of the genitive in a wide range of syntactic domains were not realized at the same rate and pace in all areas, especially when we consider the functional merger with the dative in Southern Greek. Nevertheless, the overall development, which can be found everywhere in the Greek-speaking world, was a significant decrease in the frequency of the use of the case, even in dialects where archaic functions were maintained, due to the fact that in contrast to AG the use of these functions occurs in parallel with innovative periphrastic (prepositional phrases), analytic (juxtapositions) or morphosyntactically unmarked (accusative) structures. As noted in 4.4, this thesis attempts to trace the evolution of the genitive in the dialectal range of MG starting from a hypothetical point ( Stage 0 ) after the loss of the dative during EMedG, when it can be assumed that the genitive still had all of its ancient inflectional potential, i.e. before it developed paradigmatic gaps, syncretism with the accusative or competition with other strategies for the marking of possessive relations. As it turns out, the high degree of structural complexity of the genitive, mainly due to marked stress patterns that were no longer phonologically motivated after the EHellG period, and the combined reduction in the distributional potential and frequency of the genitive crucially altered the equilibrium of its form and function at the crucial point near the end of the EMedG period, when the dative had been lost and the genitive became the most marked member in the case system. After that particular diachronic point, the genitive displays a quite consistent pattern of losing its inflectional potential 309

330 CONCLUSIONS mainly with innovative forms, paradigms and recently introduced lexemes (native formations or loanwords): first, when monosyllabic weak forms are developed for the first time in the plural of the first and the second person pronouns, the genitive is replaced by the accusative (c. 10 th c. AD); second, when innovative ι-neuter derivatives become widespread during LMedG, they do not acquire genitive forms due to their marked stress patterns that require shift of stress from the derivational to the genitive suffix, while a large number of feminines of medieval and modern origin with unpredictable stress position were also rendered defective; third, in the periphery of the MG-speaking world, loanwords from the majority languages of those areas, as well as native nouns are often uninflected when they function as possessors. Quite clearly, inflectional loss also occurs with forms of ancient origin, but it is remarkable that the starting point of these developments usually involves - more frequently than not - new elements in the language. The important role of lexical borrowings in the decline of case systems is also reflected in the evolution of the case systems in the Germanic languages, where Icelandic has a conservative case system as opposed to English, Swedish and German which went through an early and more advanced degree of vocabulary replacement (Barðdal 2001: 217). The first attested inflectional loss involves the development of syncretic accusative clitic pronouns μας (1PL)/ σας (2PL) which had replaced the ancient genitives ἡμῶν/ ὑμῶν by the 10 th c. AD. This seemingly minor development was quite crucial, as it not only shows that the position of the genitive in the case system had significantly changed by that particular diachronic point, but it set a pattern that was later extended to other inflectional domains, such as the strong 1SG and 2SG syncretic accusatives (εμένα/ εσένα), the 3PL syncretic masculine accusative τους (c. 12 th c.) and quite importantly the accusative plurals of masculine nouns in Cypriot (c. 13 th c.) and of masculine and feminine nouns in some northern dialects with genitive indirect object marking. Apart from the fact that the loss of inflectional potential triggers further instances of loss of inflection, the development of accusative-genitive syncretism in the third person plural clitics seems to have led to reduction in the use of genitive plural indirect objects in the southern dialects, as mentioned in Table 3.7 and in sections and 5.6. The increased use of the preposition σε (and occasionally the use of masculine accusative plural indirect objects in GEN=IO dialects) for the marking of recipients, benefactives and experiencers constitutes a quite explicit instance of how inflectional potential may result in reduction of distributional potential, especially in south-western dialects, which in turn affects the frequency of the genitive plural, 310

331 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK which is significantly low compared to the other case forms (cf. 4.3). Consequently, the loss of inflectional potential is not the endpoint of change, as case decline in Greek seems to have worked in a multidirectional way. The low frequency of genitive forms and the high structural complexity of genitive forms of innovative derivatives (α-feminines and ι-neuters) or loanwords that required shift of stress from the derivational to the inflectional suffix resulted in the development of defective paradigms (Chapter 6) in almost every MG variety. This development created the need for alternative possessive strategies, which has led to the use of the preposition από from as a strategy to avoid defective genitive forms even in southern varieties. Again, the development of inflectional loss in one domain serves as the starting point for further loss, as can be shown by the subsequent grammaticalization of από from as a possessive marker in Northern Greek and the complete loss of the genitive plural and the restriction of the genitive singular in most of these varieties. In this case, the factor of semantic unmarkedness is quite crucial even in varieties where the genitive has lost a lot of its inflectional potential, since it maintains its prototypical (thus unmarked) possessive relations such as kinship and ownership and the prototypical possessors (personal and non-personal pronouns, proper names and human nouns) are almost always marked with the genitive (primarily in the singular number; cf. Table 7.7). Besides the internal character of these changes, the sociolinguistic factor is also of great importance. The genitive faces various phenomena of deflexion in communities that have been destabilized linguistically due to the extreme degree of exposure to languages of authority and sociopolitical prestige, while the systems of these languages may also provide new strategies to speakers that result in the morphological attrition of the case (cf. Chapter 8). Norde s (2001: 243) and Barðdal s (2001: 210) remarks on the correlation between stable linguistic communities - which are frequently found to be insular - and the low extent of linguistic change possibly explain the very limited attestation of undeclined genitive forms in the core of the Greekspeaking world in contrast to the varieties of Central Asia Minor, Italiot and Mariupolitan. The dynamic relations of markedness criteria that resulted in the loss of the genitive and the proposed hypothesis about the diachronic order of the aforementioned developments can be summarized as follows: 311

332 CONCLUSIONS Figure 9.1: The effect of markedness criteria on the loss of the Greek genitive CONCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY 1. Polysemy of the ancient genitive [LOSS OF] DISTRIBUTIONAL POTENTIAL/ / FREQUENCY 2. Imbalance between form and function [LOSS OF] INFLECTIONAL POTENTIAL 3. Inflectional loss results in further functional restriction (bidirectional effect) Table 9.1: The diachronic order of inflectional loss of the genitive in Greek 10 th c. accusative-genitive syncretism in the innovative 1PL and 2PL forms 12 th c. accusative-genitive syncretism in the 3PL clitics 13 th c. accusative-genitive plural syncretism in the masculine nouns in Cypriot 14 th c. (appr.) after the establishment of synizesis, ι-neuter diminutives are rendered defective in most dialects 14 th c.-16 th c. (appr.) development of paradigmatic gaps for a large number of barytone α-/η-feminines in many dialects 16 th -19 th c. (appr.) loss of the genitive plural in most Northern Greek varieties 17 th -20 th c. (appr.) deflexion in the peripheral dialects due to extreme exposure to language contact and language shift The proposed analysis here regarding the effect of markedness on the loss of the genitive manages to explain the significantly more advanced loss of the genitive in dialects where it is monofunctional, namely distributionally marked, since one of the most decisive developments for the evolution of the genitive was the dialectal split in indirect object marking, with the use of the genitive in Southern Greek and the accusative in (most of) Northern Greek and (most of) Asia Minor. Nevertheless, the equations [ACC=IO dialects = genitive loss] do not reveal the whole story and can be quite misleading. As mentioned earlier, even though Cypriot has maintained a great range of ancient and medieval functions of the genitive, it exhibits loss of the 312

333 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK genitive plural with all masculine nouns, while varieties of Pontic (ACC=IO dialect) have maintained the case in most paradigms and do not even exhibit accusative-genitive syncretism in the pronominal inflection. Thus, the increased markedness of the genitive after the loss of the dative in EMedG led to different developments that were closely, but not exclusively, related to indirect object marking. Variety-specific factors include the survival of ancient and medieval functions of the genitive (e.g. in Cyprus and the Southern Aegean), the development of iconic genitive marking (cf. the suffixes -ίου/ -ίων with fixed stress position in Pontic) and accidental or not-so-accidental phonological changes (such as the overlap of genitive singulars and plurals in Cappadocian or the reduced diagrammaticity of the genitives of masculines and neuters in Northern Greek due to deletion of unstressed /i, u/). In addition, the genitive in Livisi seems to exhibit the Northern Greek stage before the diffusion of the loss of the genitive plural forms, quite possibly due to contact with the Dodecanese varieties, which exhibit a high degree of maintenance of the case. Different markedness criteria seem to have different effects diatopically. For instance, there seems to be interplay between the high degree of distributional potential and reduced structural complexity due to inflectional loss. As seen in the cases of Cypriot and Italiot, the high degree of distributional unmarkedness of the genitive could be related to the reduction of structural markedness, which implies that the position of the case in the hierarchy of Greek after EMedG could not justify a high level of unmarkedness in both of these criteria. In other words, the maintenance of ancient and medieval functions was possibly facilitated by, or even reinforced the reduction in the inflectional potential through the accusative-genitive plural syncretism with all masculine nouns in the former dialect, and the undeclined use of possessors or accidental phonological overlap (due to deletion of final /s/) in the latter. The following table summarizes the main tendencies in the major dialect groups 327 : 327 The role of conceptual complexity has been crucial mainly in AG due to polysemy, but not to a great degree in MG, which is why it is omitted in the table. 313

334 CONCLUSIONS Table 9.2: The markedness of the genitive in the diatopy of Modern Greek DISTRIBUTION & FREQUENCY STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY Italiot [(+)/-] [+language contact] [+(+)] overlapping gen.sg +GEN=IO South-Eastern 328 (+AG/ MedG [+] functions) conflicting stress in gen.pl Cypriot [-] columnar stress in gen.pl South-Western 330 [+] [+] conflicting stress in gen.pl Northern I +GEN=IO [+] (competing with conflicting stress in gen.pl σε=io) low icon. of gen.sg forms Northern II [-] [+] ACC=IO low icon. of gen.sg forms Livisi [-] [+] [+dialect contact] ACC=IO conflicting stress in gen.pl Eastern Asia Minor [(+)/-] [(+)/-] [+language contact] ACC=IO (often) gen.sg=gen.pl relics of AG high iconicity of -ίου/-ίων functions (low icon. of gen.sg forms) Mariupol [(+)/-] [-] [+language contact] (often) gen.sg=gen.pl ACC=IO (low icon. of gen.sg forms) INFLECTIONAL POTENTIAL [+/-] indeclinability nom/acc/gen.sg overlap [+] 329 [+/(-)] masc.gen.pl<acc. [+/(-)] paradigmatic gaps [+/-] masc./fem.gen.pl <acc.pl or 331 paradigmatic gaps [(+)/-] competing with από [+] [+/(-)] 332 indeclinability [(+)/- -] indeclinability gen.pl nearly lost 328 Dodecanese, Chios, Icaria, Crete, Cyclades. 329 With the exception of the syncretism in the 1PL/ 2PL clitics (found everywhere else in MG, apart from Pontic) and a few defective paradigms. 330 Heptanese-Peloponnese, Western Epirus, Old Athenian group (Mani, Kymi, Mégara). 331 Accusative-genitive syncretism in Samos, the Sporades, Northern Euboea, Voúrbiani, Epirot Sarakatsans, Kýzikos and paradigmatic gaps in Central Greece, Eastern Epirus (the variety of Ioánnina is closer to Northern Greek II in that regard) and Lesbos. 332 Note that the genitive plural in Silli is limited. 314

335 THE LOSS OF THE GENITIVE IN GREEK The following tendencies can be observed in Table 9.2: i) distributional potential (especially indirect object marking) plays a crucial role for the maintenance or the loss of the case, unless variety-specific factors lead to different directions (cf. Livisi, Cyprus and Italiot); ii) low structural complexity may lead to maintenance of inflectional potential, but it also depends on variety-specific factors (cf. Italiot and Mariupolitan); and iii) the attestation of inflectional loss of various degrees in almost every MG variety signifies that this is a general characteristic of the MG inflectional morphology, something that has been shown throughout this study, especially with regard to the deep roots of the phenomenon that go back to MedG. The isoglosses regarding the maintenance and loss of the genitive can be depicted in the following map: Map 9.1: The loss of the genitive in the Modern Greek-speaking world (early 20 th c.) Italiot (GEN=IO) and Mariupolitan (ACC=IO) exhibit indeclinable possessors. The gen.pl is almost entirely obsolete in Mariupolitan. Areas within the black lines exhibit maintenance of the 3PL genitive των (also in Italiot and Mariupolitan), which is replaced by the accusative τους in all other dialects. In areas within the red, but outside the black lines exhibit a higher degree of competition of the use of genitive indirect objects by σε (apart from Cyprus). The circles indicate that Samos (Eastern Aegean) has the syncretic 3PL τς (<*τους), Mégara (Attica, eastern Central Greece) maintains the 3PL τωνε (<*των) and the variety of Vourlá (Ionia, western Asia Minor) has accusative indirect objects. 315