ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN 81

(but not likely) that the spread of -TClI was Ruiperez thinks that the first millennium contrast betwccn Arcadian (Cyprian evi -dence on this point is ambiguous) and Attic-Ionic in the t reatmcnt of compensatorily lengthened E and 0 must already have existed in the second millennium_ But I fail to sec why the Arcadian falling together with old I) and w cannot be a post-lHycenaean inllovation, not shared by Attic-Ionic. Perhaps I am missing something obvious here; if so, I would welcome enlightenment fro m my fellow conferees.

13. Meanwhile, Pisani,16 who believes that Greek is an amalgam of the speech of different groups entering Grecce from diffcrent directions, proposed that there were originally four such groups: Dorians, Aoolians, Ionians, and Mycenaeans (p_ 10)_ Like Porzig, he assumes a pre-Doric Aeolian invasion of the South : from the mixture of Aeolian and Mycenaean clements come thc latcr Arcadian and Cyprian_ To be sure, he docs not list any innovations shared by Aeolic and Arcado-Cyprian and lacking in Mycenaean, nor have I come across any certain ones; if Risch is right in taking Myc. tereja and lerejae as coming from HAd!! and TEAE!W' (sec 29), and if, as seems likely to me from the viewpoint of general Indo-European (cf. Lg. 35.5 [1959]), Greek contract presents were originally inflected only thematically, then the athematic inflection of contract presents would be such an innovation found in Arcado-Cyprian lind AeoUc but lacking (or at least so far unattested) in Mycenaean_ Of more value is Pisani's observation that the Arcado-Cyprian words that Leu-mann had suspected to be loans from Homer and which now turn up in Mycenaean are more likely to be inherited dialect forms (pp. 14-15).

14. Ventris and Chadwick's Documents in Mycenaean Greek (I956) lists the same agreemcnts of Myccnaean with Arcado-Cyprian and Aeolic against Attic-Ionic as "Evidcnce" did: thc prcposition chu, and 0 from syllabic resonants (p. 74 ). To this is added the apparent athematic con-jugation of tercja TEAEla 'pays, performs (?)'. With Aeolic, Mycenaean shares adjectives of material in -HOi and -Wi, and patronymic adjectives.

,. But I am beginning to doubt that lst ag. a lone would have been able to i nfluence n"alogiclllly 2nd ego _(")"'" 3rd "g. _ro., and 3rd pI. without help from some as yet unconsidered source. Also, on theoretical grounds I would expect a Proto-Indo-Europcan lilt ag. middle " -A-o-!! (not - -A -e-!!), which as far 9.l! I now understand the phonology should gi ve Greek . -(0) ... , not .... On the other hand, influence of primary _'" hy secondary _0 is always possible. It might be then that -7", for expected -"01 is a feature (whose explanation is still to be found) of P roto-Greek, in which event the agreement of l\Iycenaean and Arcadian in -70< would be a significant innovation.

If "Die EntzifTerung der iigeischen Linear D Schrift und die griechisehen D ialekte," RhM 98.1- 18 (1955).

82 ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN

With Arcado~Cyprian it shares several vocabulary items and (on the testimony of ole P Y T o. 711 ) the formation of temporal adverbs in -TE (this also Attic-Ionic). Risch's and Porzig's vicw (4, 10) that the regu-lar Acolie development of n Wtl.l:! n lcads Vent.ris and Chadwick to con-sider the affinities with Areado-Cyprian and Attic-Ionic more significant than those with Acolic {po 75}. A more cogent rcason for this decision was noted by Chantrainc in his review of Documen18, Rev. de Phil. 31.239-246 (1957) : of the two l\'fyccnacan-Aeolic agreements listed by Ventris and Chadwick, the patronymic adjectives can be archaisms, and the adjectives of material in -1.0~ independ ent innovations (p. 241). In Gram-maire homirique 1~.578 II. 1 he modifies this last to suggest, wit.h a refer-ellce to Schwyzer, Gricch. Gramm. l AGan. 1, that the -/.Os adject.ivC5 are also a shared inheritance.

15. At the first Mycenaean Colloquium (April, 1956) Risch reported 011 "Ia position du dialecte mycenien" (Etudes myceniennes107- 172, 249-258). Although he does not insist that the ancestors of AtticIonic and Arcado-Cyprian were absolutely identical in the second millennium ("tres proches" [p. 170J, "un groupe dialectal sensiblement un" [po 253], " un groupe dialectal peu difMrcncie" [po 258]), his report minimizes their differences. He still considers the developmcnt of .[ unclear, but thinks that the development to op/ po is probably an archaism and hence not decisive for grouping .Mycenaean with Arcado-Cyprian (p. 171). Myc. pvsi hc thinks is possibly 1fopui, melathesized (like Cret. 1fOpr( from "-POT') from the 1rpouL ancestral to Atticlonic 71'pbs (ibid. and p. 256) . 'ATv 500ms an archaism (p. 172); in general, where Attic-Ionic and ArcadoCyprian disagree, 1\fycenaean agrees with the more archaic. All features shared by Mycenaean with both Arcado-Cyprian and Acolic seem archaisms, but there are innovations that Mycenaean shares with Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian (p. 25i). Mycenaean agrees with Attic-Ionic against Arcndo-Cyprian only in archaisms {p. 258}.IS

16. As was stated above in II , I do not believe that Riseh can be right in considering op from r an archaism, later replaced in some dialects by ap; at most olle call say that the contrast of op and ap is not very im portant for grouping Greek dialects. Similarly his t.rcatment of posi looks rather desperate, and has not generally been accepted. Regarding this word and the pair hlJ : .b6, it seems likely that Greek inherited both proti (cf. Skt. prati) and poti (cf. I ranian pati), both apo (d. Skt. apa)

.. I find a problem here in the idea of post-Mycenaean inllovations shared by Arcadia.n and Cyprian. Ir we do not allow for parallcl drift, presumably anything shared by these two would have to have come into exis tence before the Dorian conquest of the Peloponncsian coaatline, which does not Beem to leave very much time fo r common innovation after the latest Pylian texts.

ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN 83

and *apu (cL Schwyzcr-Dcbrunner, Griech. Gramm. 2.444). Each dialect has chosen one membcr of cach pair, and it seems rcasonable to say that agreement in choice is in itself nO reason to group two dialects togcthcr,I7 but disagrecment is a rcason to separate them.ls 1\'[yc. pofd and apu thus show that Mycenaean differed from the ancestor of AUie-Ionic,Jg but only the principle of Occam's razor impels us to see in these prepositions evidence for close relation between Mycenaean and the ancestor of Arcado-Cyprian.

17. I n the discussion a t the CoUoquium following Bisch's presentation, Bcnveniste objected that Hisch's scheme rcquired a surprisingly rapid evolution of Attic-Ionic ill the centuries immediately following 1200; would it not be more likely that characteristic Attic-Ionic innovations had begun already in Myceancan times? (D. myc. 203.)

18. At the same Colloquium, Ruiperez (pp. 118-119) and Lejeunc (p. 2(1) suggested that the coexistence at Pylos of perno and (in the work of one scribe) perna for *spermt} indicated that speakers of dialects ancestral to both Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian werc prescnt at Pylos arowld 1200.

19. Gcorgiev, who was also present at the Colloquium, maintained a quite diffcrent vicw,20 namely that IHycenaean spelling renccts pro-nunciation fairly accurately (D. m.yc. 173- 188, especially 175-183). If this were so, Mycenaean would have undergone quite radical sound changes that would make it a separate dead-end branch of Greek, not ancestral or even nearly ancestral to any of the later recorded forms of Greek. But as Risch pointed out (ibid. 252), and as most other scholars agree, so aberrant a dialect is much less likely than is a grossly defective writing system.21

1T Presumably the chllnges of :my two dialects making the same choice would be fifty-fifty.

" l am grateful to T. Dyen fur helpi llg me (0 clurify my thinking on this point, although r am not sure that the view presented here would meet with his upproval. Thllt agreement in choice of "ingle feutures is no renSon for grouping together be-comes clearer when we consider whether or not it is likely thnt Mycenaean and Iranian form !l. lIubgroup of Indo-Europcun ugainst Attic and Indic.

" Unless they coexisted with as yet unattested poro8i and upo; d. the case of I'u;, and "...10., both of which seem inherited, lind both of which are possibly at tested in Mycenaean .

~ Proposed aillo by Merlingcn and Lur'je. "Compllriwll wilh BOrne contemporary writing systems is iliumiuating.

Harlllnoo (a Philippine language) has, as described by H. C. Conklin, lfanunoo-Engli8h Vocabu lary Q-10 (Berkeley, 1953), syllables of the type CV and CVC, but the writ.ing system has only CV, 60 that syllable-final COHSOllants are regularly left unnoted. Further, the language hilS separate phonemes rand 1, but the writing does IlOt distinguish them before u. F. Loullijbury informs me that Canadia.n

84 ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN

ZO. Hugo Mlihleslein conlributed to the Colloquium a paper empha-sizing the agreements of l\"lycenaean with Aeolic (111. myc. 93- 97). The one exclusively shared innovation he found between the two was a tendency to reduce -CiV- and -CeV- to -(C)CV-, as exemplified by Myc. kuruso 'golden' for *XPOOtOi, suza 'fig tree' for (1UKtll . Aeol. ap'Yuppov 'of silver' (p. 96). To explain the treatments of TL and *Iy, where :Mycenucan appears to share a non-Acolie innovation with Arcado-Cyprian and Attic-Ionic, Mlihlestcin returned to the old view that Lesbian (1t, not Thessaliun and Boeotian n, is the native Aeolic development of n; and for *ty he took Thcssalian and Lesbian T/xJ(JO~, and so on, to reflect the same early assibilatioll as l\"Iyccnaean, Attic-Ionic, and Arcado-Cyprian, but without the specifically Arcado-Cyprian and Attic-Ionic shortening of -uu- to -u-. This is ingenious, but fails to account for the -TT- of Boeotian ill forllls likc chrOTTIl.t:! Milhlestein docs not coillment ou the contrast between Mye. ole and usb. ISnt, Boeot. 1fOKo..

21. In "Achiiisch, Jonisch und Mykenisch," IF 62.240 (1956), the views of Porzig mentioned above in 4 were discussed and criticized by F. Hodriguez Adrados, who showed that Areado-Cyprian agreements with Attic-Ionic do not. always affect. the whole area en bloc, as Porzig had asserted (e.g., Attic- Ionic and Arcadian share a.~, but Cyprian has >;t) , while those between Arcado-Cyprian and Aeolic sometimes do (e.g., t in aorist and future of tw-vcrbs). This suggests for Arcado-Cypriall (of which Adrados believes i\'Iycenacan is all archaic phase) a position be-twccn Attic-Jonic and Acolic. Simlarly the West Greek features of Boeotian and Thessalian rest not so much on late borrowings as on early proximity. Adrados thus arranges the Greek dialects into a chain of five members (p. 245): Doric, Bocotian-Thessalian, Aeolic (i.e., the language of Lesbos and the neighboring coast), Arcado-Cyprian, Attic-Ionic.

22. I n 1057 Antonio Tovar, "Nochillais Ionier lind Achaeer illl Lichte

Eskimos commonly use the Cree syllabary to write Eskimo, resulting in the same n(!glect of syllable-final consonants; and the Cherokee syllabary, which we know was invented by a Cherokee for writing Cherokee, genemlly ignores not only length and accent but also h and glottal stop everywhere except in syllable initial, so that each sign typicnlly hns half II. dozen values. In II. few instancea finer dis-tinctions are indicated. Three of these involve signs distinguishing di, de, da from syllables with h-clusters Ihi, the, IIw, which is perhaps of some interest for the special d-series of Linear B.

OJ Two possibilities seem open to rescue M(lhlestein's view . Either Boeotinn . .,..,.- forms were borrowed from West Greek before the affricate resulting from -k y and (restored) t ty had become West Greek -

ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN TilE LIGHT OF MYCENAEA N 85

der Lincar-B-Tafcln," ?!INHMH~ XAPIN 2.188- 193, noted that Mycenacan caused ~riOU8 trouble for Krclschmer's view that the Greeks came to Greece in three waves, first Ionians, then Achaeans, and finally Dorians. Accepting this three-wave view and the obvious agreements bctween Mycenaean and Arcado-Cyprian, Tovar assigned lldycenaean to the second wave, which leads to the paradoxical situation that the earliest attested Greek does not belong to the first wave of invaders. Instead of abandoning or modifying Kretschmer's scheme, Tovar is concerned with showing that a wellcharacterized Ionic existed already in the second millennium, and so is left with the problem of explaining what the 10nians were doing while their Achaean cousins were ruling the Peloponnese and Crete.

23. By this time 1dyccnaean studies were well enough established for Mycenaean data to be WlOO in working on problems of Homcric language. In L'elbnent achten dans la langue bpique (Assen, 1957) C. J. lluijgh de-fended against Leumanll the presence of an Achaean (iVrycenaean) layer in the epic language, using as part of his evidence lexical agreements between Mycenaean, Homer, anh Arcado-Cyprian . He put (p. 13) l\"iy-cenaean and Arcado-Cyprian together as n. separate main dialect of Greek, intermediate between Aeolie and Attic-Ionic- essentially the pre-lOW majority view mentioned in 1.

24. ru proof that Achaean was different fro m Attic-Ionic, Ruijgh used the by-now familiar difference ill the treatment of *r. To show that it was diffcren L from Aeolic he used its lack of dative plurals in -tuu~ (pp. 14- 17). '1'0 be sure, his rather involved proof that the Acolic dative plurals in - E

86 ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY l.N' TUE L IGHT OF MYCENAEAN

longer form was still flourishing when Aeolian colonis~s crossed the Aegean, and lasted there down to t he relatively late time when the change of *-ns to -,~ made -O"1't indispensable to keep dative and accusa-tive apart. It follows that the only secure terminus ante quem for t he creation of -E\1(H is the pGint at which clTective communication between Asiatic and Western Aeolic ceased . Better proofs that Mycenaean is not ancestral to Aeolic are the treatment of n and the adverb o/e.24

25. Whatever one may think of the details, the existence of an "Achaean" layer in Homer's language seems by now scarcely disputable. But the attempt of Klaus Strunk to do away with an Acolic layer alto-gether, in Die sogenannten Aeolismen der homenschen Sprache (1957), is, in my opinion, going too far, and has not convinced many linguists; cf. the criticisms of Hamp, Glolla 38.194- 198 (1960), and Ruijgh, Mnenwsyne 4;14.213- 215 (1961).

26. In his 1957 review of Documents (Rev. de phil. 31), Chantraine called attention to the seemingly inconsistent treatment of contract verbs in Mycenaean (p. 240). Oil the olle hand, toroqejmru:no T/101I"fOjJfVOS (py Eq 213.1) is clearly thematic, as in Attic-Ionic; but tereja (PY Eh 940. 1, te[.]ja 495.1) seems to belong to an otherwise unknown *n;\.wl.", with athematic inflection, as in Arcado-Cyprian and Aeolic. However, the interprctation of neither form is established beyond doubt (for tereja sec below 29), and even if we grant that both arc correctly understood, thematic inflection of iw-presents is certainly inherited, and athematic inflection of 6...,-prcsents may possibly be so (but cf. 13), so that both forms may be archaisms, and .Mycenaean would preserve an earlier stage from which Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian had diverged in opposite directions. In the third printing of the first volume of his Gram-maire homi:rique, Chantrainc has a new conclusion (pp. 495-513) dating from 1957, in which he presents a good discussion of the prehistoric dia-lect situution, agreeing substantially with Risch except for not linking Acolic with W cst Greek against the other dialect.s .

27. In 1958 the view that ~fycenaean was most closely related to Aeolic (cf. 20) received another champion in Carlo Gallavotti, "n carattere eolico del greco miceneo," Rivista di filologia 86.113- 133. Gal-Javott i bases his case partly on the apparent development of labiovelars to labials before e in words like pereqota., opepa beside qereqotao, oqcqa, but mainly on an interpretation of TU2 and T07. as ppo./ ;\.;\.a and ppo/;\.Xo, with a specifically Acolic development of prehistoric consonant clusters (pp.

I< Ruijgh's article of 1958, "Les dati fs pluriels dans les dialeetes grees et Ill. position du mye~nien," Mn em08!1ne 4; 11.97- ll6, makes some useful observations, but does not sufficiently reekon with the possibi lity that _au and -0''''' both existed in the Aeolic of the second millennium.

ANCIENT GRJ::EK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN 87

118-128). The development of 1"t to tTl, lacking in Boeotian and Thes-salian, he takes to be an innovation of the Mycenaean variety of Aeolie (p. 131).

28. Gallavotti's arguments havo not been generally accepted. His view of Til:! and rO! is by no means the only possible OIle, and already at the second Mycenaean Colloquium (Pavia, September, 1958) Chadwick remarked (Athenaeum NS 36.303) that Mycenaean words in which pc alternated with qc regularly contained another q. Later HcubcckZ5 de-veloped this into a regular sound law for one strain2e of Mycenaean: labiovelar . . . labiovelar is dissimilated to labial . .. labiovelar (p. 255). Heubeck expressly rejects Gallavotti's connection of this phenomenon with the Aeolic change of $k-c to n whether another labiovelar was present or not (p. 261).

29. At the same Colloquium Risch proposed to explain Mycenaean tereja by a sound law that *eije beca me dja in Mycenaean (p. 311 ; more fully MU8. Helv. 16.226 (1959]). 'l'ereia would thus be for nA~lH, the regular and well attested denominati ve to the noun stem nA~u-, and not a derivationally monstrous and inflectionally somewhat dubious nAda. Similarly its infinitive lerejae (PY Eb 940, Ep 617.1, 4, fragmentary Eb 495) will be a regular thematic $TfAf[W', not a morphologically dubious athematic infinitive in -tv. The Arcado-Cyprian athematic inflection of contract verbs can then be altoget.her a post-!\'fycenaean innovation, not shared by Attic-Ionic. The difficulty, of course, is that Risch attributes to Mycenaean a sound change somewhat unlikely in itself and not shared by any later dialect, so that we would have to see here a development of the type envisioned by Oeorgiev (19), with its attendant difficulties.

30. This was not the only specific Myccnacan innovation that Risch was fi nding. In BSL 53.96- 102 (1957- 1958) he pointed to apparent ac-cusative plurals in -u, an innovation not found in Arcado-Cyprian or Attic-Ionic, and so probably unrelated to similar forms appearing later in West Greek, Lesbian, and Koine.v In Anlhropo8 53.160 n. 40 (1958) he mentioned Mycenaean instances of 0 from . 1] and .~ next to labilals, for example, anowoio 'al'{lvaTO~', enewopeza 't""fn1l"~~a ' , perno (beside perna) 'udp}.Ia', kowo (PY Un 718.4) ' "Wa~'. Since other Greek dialects seem to have 0 from $1] and 711 only US the resnlt of anthology (cf. 36), :rdy-cenaean would here have another unshared innovation . It would follow, roo, that the coexistence of perno and pema at Pylos would indicate not the presence of an Arcado-Cyprianlike dialect opposed to an Attic-

Of "Myk. pe-re-qo-1w," IP 65.252-262 (1960) . .. I have taken thill term from Stimson, Lg. 38.378 (1962) . ., Bnt Scherer, Hdb. der gr . Dial . 2.343 (Heidelberg, 1!)59) ta kes the Mycenaean

forma II.!I nominativcB.

88 ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN

Ioniclike dialect, as Ruiperez nnd Lejeune thought in 1956 (18), but rather Ii specifically "i'l'lycenaean" v-dialect opposed to an a-dialect which could, as far as this one feature is concerned, be ancestral to any of the later-known dialects of Greek.

31. As remarked in note 16, I find some difficulty in supposing that the shared 1l0n-?l'Iycenaean innovations of Arcadian and Cyprian all originated during a time of Arcadian-Cyprian contact after 1200. The situation is made even more complicated by Kathleen Forbes' article Oil "The relations of the particle ,h with ~E(II), ~(1, ~(1~," Glotla 37.179-182 (1958). :Miss Forbes plausibly suggests that nil, peculiar to Attic-Ionic and Arcadian (l\fyccnaean unfortunately gives no evidence), was an in-novation for KOoIl (preserved in Arcadian ('~(1~), an ablaut variant of the KE(P) of Cyprian and Aeolic. This "points to a period of unity" between the ancestors of Attic-Ionic and Arcadian "after the emigration of Achaeans to Cyprus" (p. 182). Since a feature shared by Attic-Ionic and Arcadian but foreign to Doric can hardly have originated after the in -trusion of Dorians into the lands separating Arcadia and Attica, it is very likely that the innovation &... is already Mycenaean in date. Yet such a characteristic Arcado-Cyprian innovation as '" for Ell can hardly have got its start after the Doriarl invasion either.28

It appears then that the beginnings of the differentiation of Attic-Ionic, Arcadian, and Cyprian can be traced back at least to the late days of the Mycenaean empire. So long as we lack Lincar B evidence to the contrary, we can suppose that 0.11 fo r ~t was a widespread mainland feature, lacking in the colonial area of Cyprus. Arcado-Cyprian innova-lions not found in Lincar B texts evidently wcre limited to styles or social levels that did not find their way into the palacc records of the chief rulers.

32. Anton Scherer's revision of the second volume of Thumb's Hand-buch der griechischen Dialekle (Heidelberg, 1959) presents a full sketch of l\'rycellllcan and takes its evidence into account in discussing the intcrrelationships of the other non-West Greek dialeets_ Of l\'fycenaean, Scherer says that it "schcint ... der gemeinsamen Vorstufe des Arka-dischen und Kyprischcn nahezustehen" (p. 326). Similarly, Ebbe ViI-borg's A len/alive grammar of MycenaeUlt Greek (Gotcborg, 1960) pro-vides a good summary of the !'dycenllean features that had already been

II Indeed Lejeune, Jftmoire" de philQlogie mycellie.me 169 (Paris, 1958), and Heubeek, G/olta 39.161, have suggested that examples of this change are found in the Linear B tablets; but none of thei r examples are sure. Hamp. G/olta 38.200 (1960), adopts the view of Schulze, QuaC8tione8 epicae 323 n. 3 (Giitersloh, 1892), that Hom. "',VVTO. is a development of ,.. "TO., and suggests very plausibly that the word is one inherited by the E pie Ill.ngullge from Mycenaean times in 8. spe-cifically "Achaean" shape .

ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN 89

noted as diagnostic for dialect grouping (pp. 19- 23). Vilborg's conclu-sion is that if Risch is right in thinking that Attic-Ionic' and Arcado-Cyprian were :l " rather uniform dialect group in Mycenaean times," Mycenaean would belong to that group; otherwise, "there is no serious objection to ... regarding [it] as ... specifically Arcado-Cyprian" (p. 22).

33. 1\'lorc independent ideas arc to be found in Alfred Heubeck's "Zur dialektologischen Einordnung des J'l'lykcnischen," GlQtta 39. 159-172 (1960-1961). Heubcck accepts Risch's position that before 1200 the ancestors of At tic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian were quite close to each other, and Mycenaean was close to both (p. 1(0). Dut he contends that Mycenaean has a number of specific innovations that show that it is not precisely the ancestor of any latcr dialect. One is the development of -thiV - to -.siV -, as in kori.sijo 'Corinthian'; AWe e.xamples of this develop-ment like IIpo,6a}"l,nos 'from Probalinthos' arc, hc thinks, borrowed from Mycenaean (p. 164). But surely Ventris and Chadwick are right (Documents 73) in seeing llpo,6a}"lO"IOS as a regular Attic-Ionic form, and Koplv8wf, and so on, in Attic, as analogie or borrowed,~ so that this feature is not unique to Mycenaean.

34. More cogent is the dissimilation of labiovelars already mentioned in 28. The apparent syncope in -CiV- and -CeV- sequences (which Miihlcstein [20J and GalJavotti [27] had used as evidence for grouping with Aeolic) in words like kazoo for *KadclES, J,.:uruso for XP~o"IOS (pp. 167-168), and the apparent alternation of ke and ze in words like aketirija, azetirija, are both somewhat unsure because of our uncertainty about the precise range of values of the signs za ze zo and because it is possible that Mycenaean scribes were more prone to write allegro forms than were the writers of later centuries. Heubcck's final point (p. 169) is the develop-ment of " 1} to 0 in words like pe71l0 and amo, already noted as uniquely Mycenaean by Risch in 1958 (30).

From these four specific Mycenaean features Heubcck, if I understand him correctly, infers (p. 171) that it was not Dorians but the ancestors of thc later Arcadians and Cyprians who destroyed the :Mycenaean palaces. I strongly doubt that the number and imporlance of well-established differences between Mycenaean and Areado-Cyprian are enough to lend any significant support to such a view, which as far as I know is also quite unsupported by either archaoology or Greek legend.

35. In 1960 Porzig returned to the problems of Greek dialectology,1O and not surprisingly fOUIld occasioll to modify some of the views in

II So also Risch, MWi. llelv. 14.71 n. 23 (1957); II. prior i, one would expect that if "thy p!uticipates ill the change of "Ill to

90 ANCIENT GREEK DLUECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN

his predecipherment article of 1954. In particular, he gave up the idea of an Aeolic invasion of the South (pp. 504-596).

36. In 1961 Risch's views continued to be attacked, this time by Ruijgh, in " I.e traitement des sonantes voyelles dans les dialectes grccs et Ill. position du mYl.eniell," lIlnemosyne 4:14.193-216. Ruijgh first establishes that ill Arcado-Cyprian and Acolic the regular t reatment of r and 1 is op, po and oX, (Xo) (pp. 194-198), but that for . 1} and .1]1 these dialects, like others, regularly have a. Exceptions occur oilly ill numerals, for example, Arc. 6t1(0( TOi ) , EKor6p, Lesh. bOrOij and the aberrant development is shared by Attic-IOIlic in words like ~;:I(OU l and al(ll(OuWI. Ruijgh explains all these credibly as anaiogic, eventually to 6&0 and the decades in -~OPTa (p. 200)j likewise for Epic 6- from S11 1- he has a credible analogic explanation (p. 201).11

37. iHyttnacan clearly treats *r like Arcado-Cyprian and Aeolic. But for *1J and *1]1 there seem to be two developments. a OCCUI'S, for instance, in the negative prefix a-, the accusative ending -a, and the parHciple apeasa from apes1}tya (p. 202) . But 0 is found in the numeral enewo- and in neuter n-stems like amo and anowoto 'allOt!o.To,,'. The occurrence of ekamateqe fx.uaTUI("~ and ekamapi lXJ.I-lln on tablets in-scribed by the same hand that wrote encwo and amolewija refutes (p. 203) Risch's view (30) that the development to 0 is phonologically l'Ollditioned by a neighboring labial. Ruijgh's solution is to take enewo as analogic, like Arc. 30:0,1: and to explain the 0 of n-stems as starting in rl n-stems like tv.ncpop, a>.d.paToi: leveling to aX~lcpoP, a>'dcpoTof and aXu.pllp, aAd.pIlTof; hence also U1rEP/!O, U1fEPJM)TOi beside U'If'EP/!Il, f1'1f' fP/!IlTOS (p. 205). This solution is ingenious but not very convincing. There is no obvious reason why the few and unproductive nouns in *-r, -1}i08 should exert an influence on the common and productive type in *-m1}, +m1}tos, especially when that influence consists in the creation of new doublets, rather than the favoring of one or another inherited form or thc leveling of some anomaly; and it is just as difficult for me to believe that one idiolect would have analogically int roduced 0 in apJM)T- but not in fXPIlT- as to believe that one idiolect would combine forms taken from two or more different phonologic strains. The l'.,.rycenaean trea.t-ment of syllabic nasals remains problematic; but for dialeclological

ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTor.oGY IN THE LtGHT OF MYCENAEAN 91

purposes, we can say that. Mycenaean clearly shows something different from any later known Greek dialect, regardless of whether with Risch we view the development to 0 as a conditioned sound change, or with Ruijgh see in iL the result of various analogies.

38. Ruijgh furthcr (p. 207) tries to show that the early differences between Acolie and West Greek arc greater than Risch supposes. In this he is probably right, but the lack of texts from the ancestors of these dialects in the second millennium makes it impossible to say for sure when the characteristic differences between them began developing. Thus it is conceivable (albeit vcry unlikely) that in the North PIE *, and clusters of 8 with resonant existed unchanged mueh longer than in the South, and had assumed their characterist.ic West Greek and Aeolie shapes barely in time to predate the population movemcnts at the end of the Mycenaean period. For the dating of the Aeolic dative plural in - to"CH, see 24.

39. In the South, Ruijgh emphasizes the old diffcrences bctwccn Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian, and the agreements of IHycenaean with the latter, against Risch's view of relative homogeneity of all throe. Of the points raised by Ruijgh, the most cogent is the agreement of Mycenaean posi with Arcado-Cypriun 1I"O~ against Attic-Ionic 1I"pOf (15, 16). The differing treatment in Attic-Ionic and Arcadian of lengthened t and 0 I have discussed in 12; I still do not see how it can be proved to be a particularly old feature. Ruijgh tries to show that the Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian difference in the $tenscs of tw-verbsU must be old, because the Arcado-Cyprian distribution of + and -q-recurs in Argolie and so must go back to a pre-Dorian substratum, But why cannot the agreement between Arcadian and Argolic be the result of borrowing between neighboring dialects after the Dorian invasion? l\fore to the point is the agrccmcnt (as fur as the evidence goes) between Arcadian und Cyprian: it seems quite unlikely that the two dialects would have hit on exactly the same distribution of + and -q- by chance. The most reasonable intcrpretation of the presently available evidence is that aorists (if 1101. also futures) to r",-prcscnts had been created already in the second millennium, and that one group of southern speakers, those whose language was to develop into Arcadian and Cyprian, had already given them the shape -0"- after velars, + elsewhere (cf. 21).M

u Arc. M,~&u"", ... , :r"P'7';'~""", Cypr. kale&keuwase, oruxl1 v~. Att. Mb ....... , tE.j7"",,, .

.. Hence abo Ruijgh seema right in tracing Homeric {orUlll "'ith f to Achaean, since Homeric lauguage observes the AreadoCyprian rule to the extent of never uaing ~ if either of the t.wo precedill8 syllablc9 contains a velar. Yet PelMgiotic Thessalian, which is relatively little inl1uenced by West Greek, hll.8 lI'4>

92 ANCIEKT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCENAEAN

In the matter of the contract verbs, Ruijgh (p. 21 I) is skeptical of Risch's derivation of l\Iyc. tercja from nXdet ; but, paradoxically, if Ruijgh is right in considering lCTcja an athematic form (which I very strongly doubt), its inflection is possibly (but d. 13) an inherited archaism, of no diagnost.ic value for dialectology, while if R isch is right, lereja would contain an innovation shared by neither Attic-Ionic nor Arcado-Cyprian.

40. The apparent agreement of Myc. pel~ with Arc. u40m against Attic-Ionic uq,iu, (p. 212) can also be all archaism, so long as the pre-history of this pronoun remains unclear. The view that Mycenaean shares with Arcado-Cyprian the use of dative rather than genitive with prepositions meaning 'from' (ibid.) has been dealt a heavy blow by Householder's article, "pa-ro and Mycenaean cases," GloUn 38.1- 10 (1960).38

41. l\'!ore recent discussions that I have sccn do not seem to introduce any important new viewpoints. In his article of 1956, " The Greek dialects and Greek pre-history," Greece and Rome 25.38- 50 (which I failed to treat at its proper place in this survey), Chadwick suggested (p. 44) that the innovations in which AtLic-Ionic agrees with West Greek against Arcado-Cyprian and l\,[ycenaean can be explained by supposing "that round about 1000 D.C. a dialect oC the Areadinn type came for a period under Doric influence; but this soon censed .... ":17 T his explanation does not sccm adequnte to account for all the agrccments involved (cf. the skepticism of Ruijgh, Mnemo8yne 4:1 L 106 n. 4). The distribution of tV~ for tv with accusative, which may be a post-Mycenaean innovation, could perhaps be explained by Chadwick's view (although I don't see why it couldn't equally well have started in a variet.y of South Greek and spread from there to the super- and ad-jncent varieties of West Greek). But other agreements of Attic-Jonic and West Greek are almost

and fp")'"E

ANCIENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF MYCEKAEAN 93

certainly older: these are the choice of

94 ANCIENT GREEK DIALEt"l'OLOGY IN THE LtGHT OF MYCENAEAN

before vowels (34), while recurring in Aeolic, is not normal in Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cyprian, and so probably belongs here.

45. For Homeric, both Achaean (Myccnacan) and Acolic (Thcssa-lian?) layers seem firmly established.

46. The one point I would like to elaborate a little further is the puzzling position of Ionic in the second millennium. As I have just said, it is apparent that "Ionic" and "Arcado-Cyprian" speech forms co-existed in the ~-'lycenaean empire. But what was their distribution? It would be rather simple to suppose that "Ionic" was the speech of the upper classes, who remained in control in Attica and elsewhere went into exile, eventually ending up in the Cyclades and Asia Minor, while "Arcado.Cyprian" was the speech of the lower classes, which became standard in Arcadia aud Cyprus, in the former owing to the disap-pearance of the old upper class, in the latter owing to events about which we have no information. But this feature is hard to square with the "Arcado-Cyprian" features of Linear B and the Achaean layer of Homer's language. Granted that accountants may have written a different dialect from that which their employers spoke, it seems in-credible that poets would have used forms (e.g., aorisls and futures in -~-) that would hu.vc seemed substandard in the cars of the audience on whom their livelihood depended, and equally unlikely that poems on the heroic deeds of Mycenaean princes would have bccn composed and preserved by their former serfs.

An alternative would be to imagine a geographic distribution, with "Ionic" spoken perhaps in Attica (and elsewhere?), and "Achaean" in at least Pylos, Mycenae, and Knossos. But, leaving aside the minor detail that there is no direct evidence o.t all for any such distribution, this would result i.n the anomalous situation that Achaean and Acolic, which share presumably diagnostic features, would be cut otT from each other by Ionic-unless indeed we imagine that Boeotia was "Achaean," too, in which event Attic-Ionic would be cut otT from West Greek, and the old agreements between these two would have to be explained as owing to chance. The situation can be diagrammed as fo llows:

WEST GREEK AEOLIC

ACHAEAN IONIC

ANcrENT GREEK DIALECTOLOGY [N THE LIGHT Q}' MYCENAEAN 95

Each dialect shares significant features with its horizontal neighbor and the dialect diagonally opposite, but few or none with its vertical neighbor. Things would be much simpler if wc could posit a prehistoric distribution like this (or with the same configuration, but reversed or rotat-ed):

WEST GREEK AEOLIC

ION IC ACHAEAN

Now each dialect shares exclusive features with both its neighbors, but not with the dialect in the opposite corner. To be sure, I do not know of the faintest shred of I10nlinguistic evidence for such a prchistoric arrangement of the Greek dialccts. But it is perhaps not a complete waste of time to speculate that such an arrangemcnt may have existed, perhaps in Greece in the (early?) second millennium, perhaps even earlier and outside of Greece.

(Participant' in the disCtlssion jQ/lowin() the wnferenCll presentation of the firs l ~er8ion of Ihi8 paper: Watkins, Winter, Puhlltil, Halllp, Elllenea!l, Col/inder.)

b0077b0078b0079b0080b0081b0082b0083b0084b0085b0086b0087b0088b0089b0090b0091b0092b0093b0094b0095