Lingvističke aktuelnosti

Upisano u kategoriju: Disertacije, Broj 3

 Elena Džukeska (Skopje)


This work studies the details of the influence of pronominal inflexion on the nominal inflexion in Mycenaean Greek. Both in respect of the function as well as of the inflection, pronouns differ from all other nomina. However, in the course of the development, the pronominal inflexion was gradually getting closer to the nominal inflexion. In most of cases, the endings of the pronouns which distinguish gender and the nouns from the -o/e- and -a- declension became even. So, in most of the Greek dialects, for example the declension of the demonstrative pronoun ,,from the stem *so-/to- differs from the declension of the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems only in nom. sing. masc., cf. opposite to  Skt. , Goth. sa, in nom. acc. neut., cf.  opposite to , Skt. ta-d, Goth. Þa-t-a and in nom. acc. dual fem., cf. > (Attic.) opposite to .

From the comparison between the declensions of thematic and athematic nouns and the pronouns which distinguish gender, it becomes evident that specifically pronominal are also the endings *-osZo and *-eso gen. sing. masc. and neut., cf. -,Skt. t-ásya (< *so-/to-) and , OCS. c-eso, Goth. hw-is (< *q`e/o-); *-oi, *-ai nom. plur. masc. and fem., cf. ,(< *so-/to-, *sq-/tq-), Lat. qu-i, qu-ae (< *q`e/o/q-); *-qsrm gen. plur. fem., cf.  Skt. t-ásam (< *sq-/tq-), Lat. qu-qrum (< *q`q-), and probably the gen. loc. dual ending *-oZous, cf. Skt. t-áyrs, OCS. t-oü (< *so-/to-).

The leveling of the pronominal inflexion with the nominal inflexion was certainly a mutual process. The pronouns also took some nominal endings, cf. nom plur. fem. Skt. t-As, Avest. t-q, Goth. Þ-rs, Litv. t-õs opposite to Dor. , Ion. Att., Arc. Cyp., Lesb. (<*sq-/tq-). This perhaps speaks best of the fact that the pronominal endings appeared in the inflexion of the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems as a result of the horizontal analogy within frequent syntagms consisting of nouns and pronouns. Pronouns which distinguish gender are functioning as adjectives, cf. Gr. , Lat. iste lupe, OCS. ti vlßqi. On the other hand, the pronominal endings got extended to the nouns probably because of the tendency to maintain the functions of the case forms in the nominal declension. This probably was the reason why the endings *-sZo and *-so appeared in the gen. sing. of the nominal thematic declension. The nominal ending *-es/-os/-s was not sufficiently distinctive from the nom. sing. *-s. Perhaps, such is the case also with the the masculine *-a- stems gen. sing. in Greek dialects. After the ending *-s appeared in nom. sing., the old genitive ending *-qs was not functional any more, and therefore a new ending  was created.The leveling of the pronominal and nominal inflexion did not happen to the same extent in all Indo-European languages. Mostly spread is the substitution of the nominal ending *-es/-os/-s in the gen. sing. of the nominal -o/e- stems by the pronominal endings*-sZo and *-so. It is apparent in the Indo-Iranian and Germanic languages, then in Greek, Gothic, Armenian language, and there are also isolated examples in Faliscan. In several languages too, the pronominal ending *-i appeared in the declension of the nominal -o/e- stems, that is in Balto-Slavic languages, in Latin, Greek and partly in Gothic and Old Irish. Less disseminated is certainly the appearance of this pronominal ending and the gen. plur. ending *-srm in the declension of the nominal -a- stems. It is present only in Latin and Greek. The gen. loc. dual ending *-oZous appears in the inflexion of nominal -o/e- and -a- stems in the Indo-Iranian languages. If the ending  is related to the Skt. -ayrs, OCS. -oü, then in Greek it appears not only in the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems inflexion, but also in the nominal athematic stems inflexion.

The influence which the pronominal inflexion made on the nominal inflexion differs in the particular languages in respect of chronology as well. Traces from the previous state have not been preserved in all languages to same extent, and within the Greek dialects there are not such traces at all.

But, is the situation same in the Mycenaean period of the Greek language? The purpose of the study in this work is to find out if there is such data on the Mycenaean tablets, which would increase our information about the influence of the pronominal inflexion on the nominal one in the Greek language and about its chronology. The previous research has shown that the archaic features of the Mycenaean Greek from the second half of the second millenium BC are present on phonetic, morphological and syntactical level. Significant for the study of the influence of the pronominal on the nominal inflexion is the fact that in Mycenaean Z is still written in initial and intervocalic position, and so is occasionally h from initial and intervocalic s, that there are no contractions yet, that the nom. acc. dual ending -r appears in the inflexion of the nominal feminine -a- stems, that the instrumental exists independently from the dative. On the other hand, Mycenaean tablets are specific because of the way they are written and the administrative nature. The syllabic script is not always precise. The fact that the length of the vowels is not recorded, and

, , are omitted at the end of the word especially complicates problems related to the morphology of case forms. Because of the restricted lexical repertoire, some categories of words, like personal pronouns for first and second person or verbal forms for first and second person are completely missing. Due to the elliptic style of the scribes, the syntax is often inconsistent, and this makes the study of the syntactic function of the case forms quite difficult. The texts are in great measure damaged and because of the age often there are no parallels in the historical Greek dialects for the interpretation of particular words. Because of all these specific features analyzing the pronominal and nominal forms we have to have in mind not only the comparison of the linguistic facts from the Mycenaean period with the facts from other Indo-European languages and Greek dialects, but also the epigraphical and paleographical analysis, and even the archaeological circumstances in which a tablet has been found.

This work consists of introduction, five parts in which separately are analyzed pronoun forms, genitive singular forms from the nominal -o/e- stems and masculine genitive singular forms from the -a- stems, dual forms, masculine and feminine nominative plural forms from the -o/e- and -a- stems and genitive plural forms from the -a- stems. The analyzed material is presented in a survey of the forms according to the tablets and in tables, attached to each of the five parts concerning the analysis of the pronominal and nominal forms.

Due to the administrative nature of the texts pronouns are scarcely attested in Mycenaean tablets. However, the analysis has shown that in spite of this, Mycenaean testimony for the development of the pronouns in Greek is quite indicative. Most frequent (372 instances) and at the same time the only pronoun attested with examples out of the Pylos archive is the pronoun (), (). From the other pronouns, the personal pronouns  and , the reflexive possessive pronoun , the demonstrative pronouns , , (), , the relative pronoun  we have examples only in Pylos. Although isolated, the examples of these pronouns are significant because they are their oldest written forms.

In this sense, although there are only 5 genitive singular forms among the pronouns, it is indicative that they all have the ending *-sZo and that they belong to different pronouns, the possessive pronoun and three demonstrative pronouns. It is important that on the tablets there are some pronominal forms, of which there are no traces in Greek dialects later on, but which have parallels in other languages, for example the form to-to, /totto(d)/ (PY Aq 64), nom. acc. of a reduplicated demonstrative stem *to-, Skt. táttad and the form to-me, /tp(m)mei/ (PY Ep 613.8), dat. loc. sing. of the demonstrative pronoun (< *so-/to-) formed with the element -sm-, Skt. ta-sm-qi, Goth. Þa-mm-a, OCS. to-m-u. On the other hand the forms mi, /min/ (PY Ep 704.5; Na 926) and pe-i, /sphei(h)i/ (PY An 519.15; Na 395.B) show that pronouns like  and  typically Greek, are already existing in the period of the Mycenaean tablets. Indicative is also the form a2-te-ro nom. acc. sing. /hateron/ (PY Ma 365.2), because it confirms the antiquity of Attic  and Doric . It is interesting that forms of the pronoun ()with the particle  are present only on the Pylos tablets, and the only example to-so-de from Knossos (KN Ga 1530.7) has the adversative .

Unlike the pronouns, nouns are well attested on the Mycenaean tablets, especially forms of the gen. singular. The analysis of these forms has shown that on the tablets there are important data which throw new light on the question whether -o/e- stems gen. forms in  and contain the ending *-sZo or *-so, cf. and Skt. vUka-sya, Avest. vehrka-hyq opposite to Goth. Wulfi-s, OHG. wolfe-s and how was the masculine -a- stems ending created?

Genitive sing. forms of the nominal -o/e- stems in Mycenaean tablets end in -o-jo, that corresponds to Thessalian and Homeric, cf. i-qo-jo, /(h)ik`oZo/ (PY Ea 59.5), (87) from “horse”, ne-wo-jo, /ne`oZo/ (KN Fh 5506.b), (36) from “new”. The number of instances (329) and scribes in different places (30 scribes in Pylos, Knossos, Mycenae and Thebes) clearly speaks that the pronominal gen. sing. *-osZo was already spread in the nominal inflexion in Mycenaean. It is indicative that among the Mycenaean forms in -o-jo there are no real examples with ablative meaning, but most important is that in Mycenaean there are no gen. forms in -o-o. On one hand, this shows that the pronominal ending *-oso was not present in the thematic declension, and on the other hand, that the development *-osZo > *-oZZo > *-oZo > *-oo has not been accomplished yet in the Mycenaean period. Therefore the forms in  and  have been probably created from (< *-osZo) in the Posmycenaean period.Masculine -a- stem nouns in Mycenaean have only uncontracted gen. sing. forms in -a-o

, /-qo/, , cf. pu-ra-ta-o, /Pulartqo/ (PY Jn 605.11), (367, 277); ke-u-po-da-o, /kheuspondqo/ (KN C 1044.b). These forms alike the gen. sing. forms in -o-jo are well attested on Mycenaean tablets. There are 67 examples in Pylos, Knosos and Thebes from 14 identified scribes. On one hand, the fact that the gen. forms in -o-jo and -a-o stand next to each other on the Mycenaean tablets indicates that the gen. sing ending from the masculine -a- stems has not been created on the analogy of . On the other hand, Mycenaean -a-o could be indicator that gen. sing. forms from the nominal masculine -a- stems have the pronominal ending *-so. Gen. forms in later on are preserved only in Homeric and Aeolic dialects.

There are many questions related to the interpretation of the dual forms in Greek dialects, which come out of the lack of corresponding parallels out of Greek. Is the athematic ending  old, cf. (< )Litv. áugus-e, OIr. athir (< pYter-e), Skt. pitár-q and is it also contained in the nominal -o/e- stems ending in  (< *-r)? Was the ending *-e, specific for the neuter and feminine nouns out of Greek, cf. opposite to Skt. yug-é, OCS. i§-h; opposite to Skt. akW-e, OCS. oc-i, Litv. ak-ì; opposite to Skt. ášv-e; OCS. rœq-h, Litv. rank-ì in some previous period present in Greek too? Is the ending (< ) related to the Skt. gen. loc. ending -ayr“ of the -o/e- and -a- stems, which is characteristic for the pronouns and the number two, cf. vUk-áyr“, ásv-áyr“ and t-áyr“, d(u)v-áyr“ or is it an innovation within Greek on the analogy of the dat. loc. plur. in and instr. plur. in ?

On the Mycenaean tablets there are certain dual forms only in nom. accusative. The only example of dual, not in nom. accusative, the form du-wo-u-pi, /d`oiumphi/ from dwo, /d`r/,  shows that the instr. abl. plur. ending *-phi,  later preserved in Greek dialects only in petrified forms like } , etc., in Mycenaean was used in dual too, and that Arc. Cyp. forms in  are older than forms in  and could probably be related to the Sanskrit gen. loc. dual forms in -ayr“.

The analysis of the nom. acc. dual has shown that in Mycenaean, thematic and athematic nouns from all genders were already ending in  and . The analysis has also shown that in this period the ending  was also spread to the feminine -a- stems, in Pylos, cf. ke-ke-me-no , ko-to-no dwo, /k(h)ekhemenr ktoinr d`r/ (PY Eb 338.B) from /k(h)ekhemenq ktoinq/ “land possessed temporarily” and in Knossos, cf. i-qi-jo, /(h)ik`iZr/ (KN Sd 4401.b) from /(h)ik`iZq/ “chariot”, probably in order to avoid the homonymy with nom. plur. forms in . Apart from nom. acc. dual forms in -o, /-r/, the nouns from -a- stems, both in Knosssos and in Pylos show forms in -a. The fact that nouns have two times less forms in -o than forms in -a, and adjectives and participles two times more could be an indicator that the ending *-r first appeared in the inflexion of the adjectives. It is interesting that both Knossos and Pylos scribes always wrote ko-wa the nom. acc. dual form of the noun ko-wa, /korwq/, Ion. . The need to avoid the homonymy with the nom. acc. dual form ko-wo from the noun ko-wo, /kor`os/, Ion.  probably was the motivator to preserve the old dual ending *-ai at least in this noun.

The addition of the athem. ending  in the -a- stems nom. acc. dual forms in Knossos, cf. nom. acc. dual e-qe-ta-e, /(h)eq`etqe/ (KN Am 821.1) from e-qe-ta, /(h)eq`etqs/,  “follower” has a parallel in Postmycenaean, cf. (Lac.) from .

The pronominal inflexion also influenced -o/e- and -a- stems nom. plur. forms. But, unlike the Italo-Celtic dialects, which keep traces from the old nominal ending -es, cf. Osk. biv-us, scrift-as; Umbr. Ikuvin-us, urt-as, OIr. fir-u (voc. plur.), Greek dialects in the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems show only the pronominal ending *-i, cf. . The analysis of the nom. plural reveals that this is so, because the pronominal ending *-i was introduced in the nominal inflexion probably in the Premycenaean period already.

We could pose the question if the Mycenaean -o/e- and -a- stems nom. plural forms in -o and -a had the endings *-oi and *-ai or the endings *-rs and *-qs? Yet, the use of the syllabogram *33, /rai/, /lai/ in the Pylos archive directly shows that in Mycenaean the pronominal nom. plur. ending *-i was already spread to the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems. And dual forms in -o, /-r/ indirectly testify that this was the case even in those instances when the endings *-ai and *-oi were not specifically recorded, not only in Pylos, but also in Knossos, cf. pi-je-ra3 , to-qi-de-ja *200vas 3 (PY Ta 709.1), /phiZelai torq`ideZai 3/ “3 dishes with spiral decoration, ko-wo , me-wi-jo-e 4, /kor`oi me`iZo(h)es 4/ (KN Ai 824.2) “4 younger boys”.

The analysis of the nom. plural has also shown that the athem. ending  perhaps already in Mycenaean in some instances had an accusative function. Some forms in Mycenae and Pylos ending in *-es in the context of acc. plural, cf. o-di-do-si , du-ru-to-mo … a-ko-so-ne, /(h)r didonsi drutomoi aksones/ (PY Vn 10) “how the woodcutters contribute axles” perhaps correspond to the acc. plur. forms in  appearing in Greek dialects in the period of .

Mycenaean is also indicative regarding the nominal -a- stems gen. plur. forms. The pronominal ending *-qsrm was already present in Mycenaean, both in the feminine -a- stems, cf. ko-to-na-o, /ktoinq(h)rn/ (PY Ed 236.1; 901.1) from ko-to-na, /ktoinq/, “portion of land”, and in the masculine, cf. e-re-ta-o, /eretq(h)rn/ (PY Ad 684 lat. sup.), (319) from  “rower, sailor”. However, as in the case of the gen. sing. from the masculine -a- stems, there are only uncontracted gen. plur. forms in -a-o, /-q(h)rn/ on the tablets. Unfortunately, all examples are written in Pylos (60 forms and 5 identified scribes), and only one in Knossos.

In spite of all problems related to the interpretation of the pronominal and nominal forms in Mycenaean period, these forms are significant because they are the first written testimony for the chronology of the influence of the pronominal inflexion on the nominal inflexion. The analysis of the material clearly shows that the pronominal endings of gen. singular *-osZo, nom. plural *-oi, *-ai, gen. plural *-qsrm and probably the pronominal ending *-so are already present in the inflexion of the nominal -o/e- and -a- stems in the Mycenaean period. It could be argued that there are differences in the language of Knossos, Pylos and the other places. In Knossos, forms from the pronoun () are missing, and the relative stem *Zo- in Pylos is more frequently written o-, than in Knossos. But, it is important that there are no such differences from one place to another which would indicate possible different chronology of the influence of the pronominal on the nominal inflexion within Mycenaean. The fact that in the thematic gen. singular there are no certain forms in -o-o, and in masculine -a- stems gen. sing. and in -a- stems gen. plur. there are no contracted forms, indicates that Mycenaean was still more archaic in some aspects than the historical Greek dialects.



Bez komentara »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Napravljeno pomoćuWordPressa