The Homeric adjectives θοῦρος and θοῦρις (gen. -ιδος) are normally glossed as ‘rushing, impetuous, furious’. While θοῦρις exclusively qualifies feminine nouns, no feminine form of θοῦρος is... Show moreThe Homeric adjectives θοῦρος and θοῦρις (gen. -ιδος) are normally glossed as ‘rushing, impetuous, furious’. While θοῦρις exclusively qualifies feminine nouns, no feminine form of θοῦρος is attested. What was the exact relationship between θοῦρος and θοῦρις? In this paper it is argued that θοῦρις is not the paradigmatic feminine of θοῦρος, but an artificial formation of epic Greek. It arose in the formula θούριδος ἀλκῆς due to the metrical constraints of epic hexameter, and subsequently ousted the original feminine of θοῦρος. In elaborating this scenario, I show that the basic meaning of θοῦρος and θοῦρις is ‘fierce’. Other instances of artificial change of inflection in the Homeric Kunstsprache are discussed, and it is argued that the mechanism underlying their creation is linguistic contamination. Show less
While there is no doubt that the middle perfect stem is a secondary addition to the verbal system of Ancient Greek, the reasons for its creation beside the older active perfect are rarely discussed... Show moreWhile there is no doubt that the middle perfect stem is a secondary addition to the verbal system of Ancient Greek, the reasons for its creation beside the older active perfect are rarely discussed. On the one hand, it has been claimed that the middle perfect stem was first introduced in the pluperfect for morpholog-ical reasons, in order to supply the active perfect with a past tense (Chantraine 1927); on the other hand, it has been argued that the difference lies in the role of the subject (Daues 2006). In this contribution, we propose that active and middle perfects fulfilled two different derivational functions. Originally, the active per-fect transformed certain types of dynamic events into a state (not necessarily a resulting state) of the subject; the middle perfect was introduced to indicate the resulting state of the object with transitive verbs. Subsequently, the middle per-fect gradually replaced the active perfect with deponent verbs, but the active per-fect was left untouched in large parts of its original domain. Finally, we argue that the perfect stem transformed a complex predicate into a simple one Show less
In Greek compounds, non-privative ἀ- is normally derived from copulative *sm̥ - (cf. Vedic sa-, sam-) or from *n̥-, allegedly the zero grade of the preposition ‘in’. In this paper, I propose that... Show moreIn Greek compounds, non-privative ἀ- is normally derived from copulative *sm̥ - (cf. Vedic sa-, sam-) or from *n̥-, allegedly the zero grade of the preposition ‘in’. In this paper, I propose that various such compounds contain traces of local particles. A reconstruction with ἀν- (the apocopated form of ἀνα-) is proposed for the nominal compounds Ἄτλας, ἀστεμφής, ἀσπερχές, while PIE *h2ed- (as in Latin ad, Gothic at) is recognized in ἄχρι, ἀσπάζομαι, ἀθρέω, ἀτενής, ἀσελγής, and ἀχανής. The remaining body of evidence for intensive and copulative alpha is also scrutinized. I argue that Greek preserves traces of *sm̥ - not only as a nominal prefix, but (like Indo-Iranian) also as a preverb. I see no compelling reason, however, to posit PIE *n̥- as the zero grade of ‘in’. Show less
Ancient Greek was spoken in a large number of dialectal varieties, and is attested in both literary and epigraphic sources. Although none of these sources offers direct evidence for syllabic... Show moreAncient Greek was spoken in a large number of dialectal varieties, and is attested in both literary and epigraphic sources. Although none of these sources offers direct evidence for syllabic liquids, it is known that these sounds must have been present in Proto-Greek, the common pre-stage of these dialects, and already in Proto-Indo-European. This dissertation offers a reconstruction of the development of the syllabic liquids in all alphabetic Greek dialects (from ca. 800 BCE) and in Mycenaean (ca. 1400-1200 BCE). The emphasis is on two questions: what exactly was the regular outcome of syllabic r and syllabic l (in which way did they vocalize)? And when in the prehistory of Greek sound changes did this vocalization take place? Show less
