The first case study deals with one of the core syntactic patterns in Standard Modern Greek: the unit between the particle νά (possibly followed by OCPs) and the verb, i.e. the “verbal unit”. I will demonstrate that this unit has already been firmly established in the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry. For this purpose, I rely on the distribution of those other small unstressed words: the P2 particles. By now, particles such as γάρ, γοῦν, δ(έ), μέν, οὖν, which abounded in Classical Greek, had fallen into disuse in the contemporary speech and can thus be considered an archaising feature belonging to the “mixed”
31 Cf. Ralli (2006); Pappas (2006); Janse (1994b; 2006 & 2008); Revithiadou & Spyropulos (2006); Chatzikyriakidis
(2010).
idiom of the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry (cf. supra 1.1.1.2.2). In 5.3.1, I will extensively discuss the development of the particles.
Albeit “dead”, the particles still obey Wackernagel’s Law in my corpus: in 97.5% of the cases, the particles still occur in P2 in the IU (either P2 in the verse, or after the fixed caesura, of which we will see that it can be equated with an IU boundary; cf. infra 5.1.3.2:
Table 3). However, sometimes the particles are found in a non-classical order, that is to say: they take a seemingly postponed position. Rather than being mistakes on the part of untrained poets or scribes, this divergence betrays more information about the contemporary language, more precisely: about the modern syntax.
4.2.2.1 Verb + OCP + P2 particle
A first apparent divergence concerns the classical cluster order: remember that if an OCP co-occurs with a P2 particle, the latter must precede the former in Ancient Greek (cf. supra 4.2.1.2.1). In my whole corpus, this order is consistently reversed. In all the examples (12) in which the verb opens the half-verse and in which both an OCP and a particle appear, the particle is postponed, which results in the highly remarkable and very unclassical sequence verb + OCP + P2 particle:
(1) εἶχαν τον γὰρ οἱ Ἕλληνες # τὸν Ἀχιλλέα Πελείδην (IB 801) “for the Greeks had him, Achilles, son of Peleus”
(2) εἶπε τους γὰρ τὴν ἀφορμὴν # διὰ τὴν ἐξεκληρίαν (BT 14128) “for he told them about the onset to expulsion”
(3) Λέγω σε γοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν # καὶ παραγγέλλω σέ το (LR 3393) “So I tell you from now on and I recommend it to you”
This clearly confirms that the LMG OCPs must be adjacent to their verb: the sequence verb + OCP now forms a phonological unit occupying P1 (cf. supra 4.2.1.2.4). There is one seemingly exception, though:
(4) εὐχαριστῶ δέ σε πολλά, # χιλιομυριοεπαινῶ σε (BT 339) “I thank you much, I honour you a thousand times”
However, most manuscripts present the alternative reading: “δέ σε X: σε δὲ ABE” (Papathomopoulos & E. Jeffreys 1996: 17). This is a nice example of where linguistic research can actually help editors (cf. supra 1.1.2.2.2).
It is necessary to invalidate the potential criticism that this order is simply determined metri causa. As repeatedly mentioned, the accents on particles are of an artificial nature and do not influence the stress pattern (cf. supra 4.1.1.1). As such, the
classical cluster order, verb + P2 particle + OCP, would not have any effect on the pattern of the πολιτικὸς στίχος. From a metrical point of view, εἶπε γάρ τους would have been perfectly possible as well.
These results show that the conflict between the two competing positioning principles, i.e. on the one hand contemporary LMG rule that requires that the OCPs are adjacent to their verb and on the other hand the ancient Law of Wackernagel which requires that the P2 particles occur immediately after the first word/constituent (i.e. the verb, in this case), is clearly resolved in favour of the contemporary rule. This in turn shows that the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry is far from a “hotchpotch” full of mistakes.
It is interesting to note that while in my corpus not one counterexample can be found, we still find the classical order verb + P2 particle + OCP in the 12th c. Digenis Akritis,
at least in the “archaising” G manuscript. As for the E version, we cannot draw conclusions, such ancient particles being very rare in this vulgarising version (cf. infra 5.3.1.2.2), for instance:33
(5) οἰκτείρω γάρ σε ὡς γυνὴν # καὶ κάλλους πεπλησμένην (DA G 6.757)
E. Jeffreys (1998: 195): “I have pity on you since you are a woman and of full beauty” (6) ἕξεις δέ με καὶ συνεργὸν # εἰς τοὺς ὑπεναντίους (DA G 6.770)
E. Jeffreys (1998: 197): “and you shall have me as your comrade against your enemies”
Compare with:
(7) δάκνει με δὲ τῆς Μαξιμοῦς # ἡ πάντολμος βραδύτης (DA G 6.814)
E. Jeffreys (1998: 199): “but what irritates me is Maximou’s most bold delay” (8) πείθει με γὰρ τὸ συνειδὸς # τηρεῖν τὰ ἐναντία (DA G 4.741)
E. Jeffreys (1998: 111): “for conscience persuades me to do the reverse”
In my view, this variation points to the fact that the language of my texts shows traces of a certain grammatical evolutions and thus constitutes a crucial witness in the history of Greek.
The fact that in the Digenis Akritis (both in G and – to a lesser extent – in E) constituents (γοργόν) can intervene between the subordinator ἵνα and its verb, while in my corpus this is unattested, also testifies to this, for instance:
(9) καὶ θὲς βαρὺ τὸ μάσσημα # ἵνα γοργὸν γυρίζῃ. (DA G 4.379)
E. Jeffreys (1998: 89): “and put on the heavy bit so that he turns quickly”
This brings me to the verbal unit with νά.
4.2.2.2 Nά + verb + P2 particle
4.2.2.2.1 Standard Modern Greek
Although Standard Modern Greek is known as a language which exhibits a great flexibility with respect to word order, this of course does not mean that its word order is completely free (cf. infra 5.2.1). Certain fixed ordering rules have been identified for Standard Modern Greek, predominantly by linguists working within the framework of generative grammar. The obligatory adjacency between the particle νά and its verb is such a strict syntactic pattern in Standard Modern Greek (Philippaki-Warburton 1990 & 1998). Nά is a frequent marker in Greek: it can introduce a variety of types of clauses and is thus multifunctional (Mackridge 1985: 282ff.).34 We even read: “The use of νά is so
frequent and so varied that a systematic and comprehensive survey of its uses would be beyond the range of this book” (Mackridge 1985: 282). “Subjunctive marker” is probably the best term to cover all the functions of νά (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki- Warburton 1997: 195; cf. Philippaki-Warburton 1998).
No matter which kind of clause νά introduces, it has to constitute an uninterruptable unit with the verb: “In νά-clauses, the verb must immediately follow νά” (Mackridge 1985: 238), for instance:
θέλω ή Ρούλα νά παντρευτεί τό Μίμη (Mackridge 1985: 237) “I want Roula to marry Mimis”
As such, Philippaki-Warburton (1998: 167) argues against an interpretation of νά as an ordinary complementiser, since these keep a distance from the verb and thus allow any other sentence constituent to intervene between them and the verb. Hence, Joseph (1981: 144) calls νά a verbal particle, analogous to an element like English to.
34 Cf. Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton (1997: 196ff.); Mackridge (1985: 282ff.) divides the types into
4.2.2.2.2 Ancient Greek
To understand why νά is so important in Standard Modern Greek, it is again important to look back in time. The particle νά is etymologically derived from ἵνα, which is a subordinator in Ancient Greek. More precisely, ἵνα introduces final, consecutive and control clauses and the verb in the subordinate clause thus normally takes the subjunctive mood (Horrocks 20102: 277f.). In Ancient Greek, the subordinator ἵνα is − like
other subordinators − not obligatorily followed by the verb. As the following example from Plato illustrates, ἵνα and its verb (δηλώσω) can easily be interrupted by several constituents:
ἵνα δὲ σαφέστερον ὃ λέγω δηλώσω, τῇδέ μοι συνεπίσπεσθε. (Plato, Critias 107b4) “But in order that I may explain my meaning more clearly, pray follow me further”
Consider the particle δέ, which nicely occupies the Wackernagel-position. Remember that in the Digenis Akritis too a constituent can still intervene between ἵνα and the verb (cf. supra 4.2.2.1).
With regard to the phonological evolution from the ancient subordinator ἵνα to the modern marker νά, the following steps have been hypothesised: via aphaeresis, which is a common phonological phenomenon in LMG, the /i/ is omitted (Horrocks 20102: 276f.).
Before this deletion of the initial vowel, however, there must have been a shift of the stress to the final syllable α, which results in the scheme: ἵνα => ἱνά => νά => να (Horrocks 20102: 277ff.; cf. Browning 19992: 43). In its current stage, νά should indeed be
written without an accent, for it has lost its stress and turned into a proclitic which has to lean on the following word to constitute a phonological word (Horrocks 1990: 50).
Excursus: from enclitic to proclitic OCPs
The rise of the particle νά has been related to one of the major evolutions in the syntax of Standard Modern Greek, i.e. the transition from enclitic to proclitic OCPs. It seems appropriate to go more deeply into this change (cf. supra 4.2.1.2.5). In LMG, it is difficult to decide over the OCPs’ precise prosodic nature: “Whether or not the Medieval Greek pronouns were still enclitic, as in Ancient Greek, or had become proclitic (...), is a moot question” (Janse 2008: 181). Condoravdi & Kiparsky (2004: 172ff.) believe that the LMG OCPs are still enclitic and thus lean to the preceding word, even if this is not the verb (but a subordinator for instance). Pappas (2004: 101ff.), on the other hand, is convinced that the LMG OCPs are of a hybrid nature. In his view, their only possible phonological host has become the verb and dependent on their exact position they are proclitic (if preverbal) or enclitic (if postverbal). Revithiadou & Spyropulos (2006: 30) totally agree
with Pappas. However, what is certain is that at some time a reanalysis of the direction of the phonological dependence must have taken place, namely from the left (enclitic) to the right (proclitic), and that the obligatory “verb-dependency” of the OCPs in LMG has been the initial impetus (cf. supra 4.2.1.2.4).
Here, ἵνα/νά comes into play according to Horrocks (1990: 49): “The history of ἵνα is vital in this connection”. Both ἵνα and νά, as a subordinator and its “derivative”, attract the OCPs into preverbal position in LMG (Pappas 2004: 156). I give two examples from my corpus:
(10) Ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἠθέλησα # ἵνα τὸν ἐρωτήσω,
πάλιν ἐλάλουν πρὸς αὐτὸν # καὶ ἐνέγκαζά τον πλέον (LR 68-69) “I, since I wanted to ask him questions,
again spoke to him and forced him to (tell) more”
(11) οἱ στρατιώται πάραυτα # ὥρμησαν να τὸν πιάσουν (VC 206) “the soldiers immediately rushed to grab him”
Horrocks (1990), one of the pioneers in the study of LMG OCPs, has been the first to propose that the phonological evolution from ἵνα as a phonologically independent subordinator to the preverbal proclitic particle νά is relevant to the reanalysis from enclitic to proclitic OCPs:
“As long as να (...) retains sufficient phonological independence to host a following clitic, the naturally enclitic status of the pronouns (...) can remain. When, however, the particle comes effectively to cliticise to the right, there are only two possibilities for the associated clitic pronouns. Either they remain enclitic and therefore cease to appear in this position altogether, or they themselves become proclitic, forming a clitic group with the preceding particle, and attach to the following verb” (Horrocks 1990: 50)
Obviously, the Standard Modern Greek OCPs have chosen the latter option. Eventually, the “reinterpretation” (Horrocks 20102: 280) of clisis direction is – by analogy – extended
to other modal particles such as θά (derived from θέλω νά) and ἄς, as well as to the negatives. Later on, the OCPs also appear before the verb even in the absence of these preverbal particles (Horrocks 20102: 280). Finally, indicatives start to follow the model of
the subjunctives and as such preverbal proclitic OCPs become generalised in Standard Modern Greek (Horrocks 1990: 51).35
It must be emphasised that not all varieties of Greek have evolved along the same path: the above observations only apply to Standard Modern Greek and the south- western dialects, on which the standard language has mainly been based (cf. supra 4.2.1.2.5). Therefore, it might be expected that texts originating in the Peloponnese, such as the Chronicle of Morea and the War of Troy (cf. supra 3.3.1.2), show early traces of this development towards proclisis. Whereas postverbal position is the default position for the OCPs if the verb opens the IU, the Chronicle of Morea indeed shows some preverbal examples, as Mackridge (1993: 333; fn 2) had already noted. This is also observed by Chila-Markopoulou (2004: 210; fn 6), who gives the following two examples:36
(12) σὲ θέλει ἐβγάλει ἐκ τὸν Μορέαν, # ὅπου οὐδὲν ἔχεις δίκαιον (CoM H 4125) Lurier (1964: 192): “he will put you out of Morea, to which you have no right” (13) μὲ ἤφερεν ἡ ὄρεξις # κ’ ἐπίασα τὸ βιβλίον (CoM H 7638)
Lurier (1964: 286): “a whim led me to take up the book”
Pappas (2004: 87), on the other hand, denies that the Chronicle of Morea foreshadows the change towards proclisis:
“texts from western Greece that were written much later (almost three centuries later in some cases) than the Chronicle of Moreas favor postverbal pronoun placement at the beginning of clauses. That information (…) argues against the suggestion that what is found in Moreas is the inception of dialect differentiation. Whatever the reasons for it, preverbal pronoun placement in clause-initial position is a phenomenon unique to this text”
This observation corresponds to the view that we cannot (yet) find dialectal diversification in the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry (cf. supra 1.1.1.2.1).
However, my own impression is that the other text of my corpus originating in the Peloponnese, i.e. the War of Troy, which is unfortunately excluded from Pappas’ corpus, shows a similar tendency (perhaps due to influence of the Romance languages?), for example:
(14) Ὁ Γκός, ἰατρὸς ὁ θαυμαστός, # ὁ Ἀνατολικαῖος, “Gkos, the wonderful doctor, the Anatolian one,
τὸν ὕγιανε πολλὰ γοργόν, # τίποτε δὲν ἐγνώθει (BT 6280-6281) cured him [Hektor] very quickly, he felt nothing”
(15) Μετὰ μεγάλης καὶ φρικτῆς # τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης “Wit a large and frightening modesty”
τὸ ἐπροσκυνῆσαν Ἕλληνες # καὶ παρελάβανέ το. (BT 11887-11888) “the Greeks worshipped it [the Pelladion] and accepted it”
4.2.2.2.3 Late Medieval Greek
Let us return to the modern unit between νά and the verb: can this pattern already be identified in the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry? In the eight texts of my corpus, νά occurs 33 times in combination with a P2 particle (γάρ, γοῦν, δ(έ), μέν, οὖν). In each case, the particle is seemingly postponed: it does not occur immediately after νά, but after the combination νά + verb. However, if we consider νά + verb as one phonological unit occupying P1, the distribution of these 33 particles does not deviate from the other particles, which nicely obey Wackernagel’s Law:
(16) νὰ κρίνῃ γὰρ τυραννικὰ # ὡς φυσικὸς αὐθέντης. (IB 196) “so that he judges in a tyrannical way, as a natural ruler” (17) νὰ μάθετε δὲ ἅπαντες, # νὰ πληροφορηθῆτε (AB 14)
“so that you will all learn, you will be informed”
(18) νὰ ἀφῆστε γὰρ τοὺς τόπους σας # καὶ τὴν ἀνάπαψίν σας (CoM H 3760) Lurier (1964: 182): “to leave your lands and ease”
(19) ἀξιῶ σε καὶ παρακαλῶ # νὰ ποιήσῃς γὰρ ἐτοῦτο (CoM H 5652) Lurier (1964: 235): “I again beseech you and pray you will do this”
The fact that νά + verb is truly conceived as a unit is also shown by the following two – exceptional – examples in which Wackernagel’s Law is violated:37
(20) τοὺς Ἕλληνας νὰ ποίσῃ γὰρ # ὀπίσω νὰ στραφοῦσι. (BT 7918) “so that he takes care that the Greeks return later”
(21) Κακὰ νὰ ἤσουν γὰρ υἱὸς # ἐκείνου τοῦ Τυδέου (BT 8783)
“It would have been a bad thing if, being the son of the great Tydeus…”
There is one apparent exception:
(22) Τί νὰ δὲ λέγω τὰ πολλὰ # καὶ νὰ σὲ τὰ ἐμορφίζω; (CoM H 753) Lurier (1964: 89): “Why should I tell you too much and embellish it”
However, this is not a true exception, but a mistake of the editor: the particle δέ should be changed to σέ, the OCP. As a matter of fact, τί νὰ σὲ λέγω τὰ πολλά functions as a formula (occupying the first half-verse) in the Chronicle of Morea, for instance:
(23) Τί νὰ σὲ λέγω τὰ πολλὰ # πολλάκις νὰ βαρειέσαι;38 (CoM H 203)
Lurier (1964: 73): “Why should I tell you much the many details if perhaps you will be bored?”
Furthermore, the parallel verse of manuscript P also presents the correct wording:
(24) Τί νὰ σὲ λέγω τὰ πολλὰ # καὶ νὰ σὲ τὰ φουμίζω; (CoM P 753) “Why should I tell you the details and embroider them for you?”
In parenthesis, this is again a nice example of where linguistic research can actually help editors (cf. supra 1.1.2.2.2).
4.2.2.3 Nά + OCP + verb + P2 particle
The above example constitutes the perfect transition to the next two examples, which can be interpreted as a combination of the two above observations (4.2.2.1: unit between the verb and the OCP + 4.2.2.2: unit between νά and the verb). An OCP stands between νά and the verb and the particles are again found after this whole complex:
(25) νὰ τὴν φυλάξῃ δὲ καλὰ # ἔνι καὶ φρόνησίς του. (BT 8614) “but to preserve it [honour] should be his (major) concern” (26) νὰ τὸν μαδίζῃ γὰρ τινὰς # καὶ μάχην νὰ τοῦ κάμνῃ (CoM H 4341)
Lurier (1964: 198): “[should anyone] despoil him and make war on him”
Indeed, as in Standard Modern Greek, OCPs are allowed to intrude the unit (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 196): 39
38 Cf. CoM H 482, 548, 845, 1092, 1734, 2524, 2923.
39 Beside OCPs, the negative markers μή(ν)/δεν are the only other elements allowed to interrupt the verbal
unit in Standard Modern Greek. Unfortunately, the number of co-occurrences of μή(ν)/δεν and a P2 particle in my corpus is too small to allow significant conclusions. However, the 2 examples (both from the Chronicle of
Morea) which I have found do follow the modern pattern, for the P2 particle is “postponed”:
(1) μὴ τὰ πιστέψῃ γὰρ κανείς, # ψέματα εἶναι μεγάλα. (CoM H 3897) “no one should believe them, they were huge lies”
(2) μὴ πιάσῃ γὰρ καὶ ἀπελθῇ # ἐκεῖ στὴν Ἀνδραβίδα (CoM H 5044) “he shouldn’t set off and go from there to Andravida”
On the other hand, the ancient negations οὐ(κ) and οὐδέ(ν) do not seem to prevent the “intervention” of the particle:
(27) Nα σου τα δώσω; (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 197) “Should I give them to you?”
Philippaki-Warburton (1990) calls this tight unit the “ρηματικό σύνολο”, which I translate as “verbal unit”. Joseph (1992: 34) speaks of the “ρηματικό σύμπλεγμα” or “verbal complex”. The verbal unit is considered crucial in Modern Greek syntax, as Joseph writes on his personal webpage:40
“The verbal complex that results from the combination of the verb with weak pronouns is the core of the Modern Greek clause structure, since tense, mood, and negation markers also form part of this complex”
Finally, I would like to point to the existence of a construction which is comparable to the verbal unit with νά, but one which is peculiar to LMG, namely the so-called nominalised (Horrocks 20102: 289) or circumstantial infinitive (Holton & Manolessou
2010: 550). This construction consists of the article τό and the infinitive:
“the nominalised infinitive which, in popular speech, was increasingly restricted to use as a temporal adverbial adjunct: thus τὸ ἰδεῖν (...) is used to mean ‘when/after s/he had seen...’ in vernacular texts of the later middle ages” (Horrocks 20102: 289)
In its normal use, i.e. defining a noun phrase, the definite article can easily be followed by a P2 particle, as the next two examples demonstrate:
(28) τὸ δὲ τρυγόνιν ἔφερε # νερὸν με τὰ πτερά του (VC 1184) “the dove carried water with its wings”
(29) τὸ δὲ παιδίον ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς # ἐπόνεσεν καρδίᾳ (AB 212) “but the child Achilles suffered in his heart”
(3) οὐ γὰρ προσάψω, δέσποινα, # τὸν ἰδικόν μου αὐθέντα. (VC 990) “I will not touch, mistress, my own man”
(4) ὅλοι φωνάζουν, λέγουσιν, # οὐδὲν γὰρ τοὺς ἀρέσει (BT 5652) “all yelled, called, for it didn’t please them”
(5) οὐδὲν γὰρ εἶχαν καμποσῶς # φωνὴν κἂν νὰ συντύχουν. (AB 1737) “for they had no voice at all to talk”
When the OCPs co-occur with the negation, the resulting order is the following: Nα μην του τα δώσει. “(S)he shouldn’t give them to him” (Holton, Mackridge & Philippaki-Warburton 1997: 197).
40 Statement taken from http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/articles/gmodern.htm (last access on
On the other hand, when functioning as a nominaliser, the definite article should immediately be followed by the infinitive and the P2 particle is “postponed” (12 examples):
(30) Τὸ ἀκούσει δὲ ὅτι ἔχομεν # τὴν πόλιν ἐδικήν μας (BT 887) “When they hear that we possess our own city”
(31) ἐκεῖνο εἰς κάμπο ἐκοίτετον• # τὸ ἰδεῖ γὰρ τὰ φουσσᾶτα (CoM H 2028-2029)
Lurier (1964: 130): “[Nikli] which lay in a plain. Now, seeing the Frankish armies…” (32) τὸ σώσει δὲ τὰ πλευτικὰ # τὸν γῦρον τὸ ἐγυρίσαν. (CoM H 1698)
Lurier (1964: 118): “but, arriving there, the ships encircled it all around”
Again, the OCP forms an uninterruptible unit with its verb, which is in this case the infinitive:
(33) Τὸ ἰδεῖ τους γὰρ οἱ Κούμανοι, # ἐκεῖνοι ὅπου ἐκουρσεῦαν (CoM H 1139)
Lurier (1964: 100): “Now, when the Cumans who were pillaging saw that they had come out against them”
This construction has no descendant in Standard Modern Greek, though, because the infinitive has died out and the nominalised infinitive has been replaced by other constructions. Thus, it seems to be a rather short-lived phenomenon restricted to LMG (Joseph 2000: 318).
To sum up, my first case study has made clear that the verbal unit, which is important in the current grammar of Greek, is consistently respected in the LMG πολιτικὸς στίχος poetry. This shows that this type of poetry should not automatically be classified as unsuitable for any kind of linguistic research and that its description of a “hotchpotch” is undeserved.