Noun morphology of modern demotic Greek: A descriptive analysis 9783111355450, 9783110999655

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curai C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana University

Series Practica,

137

NOUN MORPHOLOGY OF MODERN DEMOTIC GREEK A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS by

DIMITRI SOTIROPOULOS Ball State University

1972

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER:

Printed in Hungary

76-109709

FOREWORD

T h i s book is a dissertation completed in J u n e 1962 at t h e University of Michigan. E x c e p t for a few minor modifications, it is being published in t h e original. There are t w o reasons which should justify t h e publication of a thesis eight y e a r s a f t e r its completion. First, any serious linguistic study t h a t deals with a n y phase of Demotic Greek is a contribution t o t h e social a n d cultural struggle of t h e Greek people. Greece is perhaps t h e only E u r o p e a n nation which, a t t h e end of t h e t w e n t i e t h century, has not y e t resolved t h e problem of its national language. T h e deeper reasons for this situation are not linguistic, b u t r a t h e r political a n d social. As a result, Demotic Greek — t h e de facto national language of Greece — has not been sufficiently studied, analysed a n d cultivated, a n d until t h e time comes for this urgent social reform, studies are needed t o help t h e demotic language meet t h e challenges of becoming t h e national language. T h e second reason is t h a t t h e present work represents an endeavor t o analyse descriptively t h e noun of Demotic Greek. The analytical model is taxonomic; a n d presently this t e r m m a y have a r a t h e r derogatory connotation, b u t reminds us t h a t in t h e recent p a s t t h e taxonomic model was t h e prevalent theoretical approach dominating t h e American linguistic scene. Describing a language by this model involved t w o m a j o r steps: first collecting a corpus of d a t a , and subjecting t h e d a t a into a progressive analysis until t h e t w o f u n d a m e n t a l units of description — t h e phoneme a n d t h e morpheme — were isolated. And second, a f t e r t h e setting u p of these two f u n d a m e n t a l elements, making a s t a t e m e n t regarding their distributional relations. The experimental language of this Bloomfieldian descriptivism was mainly American English. Very few languages outside English were subjected t o this analysis. The present book represents an a t t e m p t t o apply t h i s taxonomic approach t o a small morphological problem of Modern Demotic Greek. More specifically, it is an a t t e m p t t o isolate a n d identify t h e constituent morphemes of t h e n o u n and make s t a t e m e n t s about their distributional characteristics. Certainly t h e study is not exhaustive, and it is expected t h a t some linguistic

6

FOREWORD

debris has been swept under the rug, because there is no perfect analyst and no perfect linguistic theory that can explain and account for each and every linguistic phenomenon. Since 1962 two important studies have been published t h a t have contributed to the investigation of Demotic Greek. The first is the Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki (Indiana University, 1964) by Fred Householder, Kostas Kazazis and Andreas Koutsoudas. The book constitutes an excellent up-todate introduction to the study of Modern Greek geared to the needs of beginning students. The second contribution is an article by Fred Householder, "The Three Dreams of Modern Greek Phonology" (Word Special Publication No. 5, 1964) which deals with some basic problems of phonological interpretation. The reader, who may need more explanatory phonological information than is provided by the phonological sketch of the present work, should refer to these two studies. I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to Professor Ernst Pulgram, chairman of my committee, for his encouragement and enthusiastic help during the preparation of this work. I am greatly indebted to my informants, Olympia Vasiliades and Spyros Valsamis for giving so generously of their time. During the writing of this dissertation, I had many discussions which were of much benefit to me with my fellow linguistic students. In particular I wish t o thank Andreas Koutsoudas (now Professor of Linguistics at Indiana University) for his interest and criticism. My indebtedness to Professor Koutsoudas is evident throughout the study. His dissertation, Verb Morphology of Modern Greek: A Descriptive Analysis, published by Indiana University in 1962, has served as a prototype for the organization and preparation of the work at hand. Muncie, May 1970

CONTENTS

Foreword

5

List of Tables

11

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

12

1. Introduction 1.0. The Problem 1.1. Survey of Pertinent Scholarship 1.2. The Material of the Study 1.3. Hypotheses, Methodology and Terminology 1.4. Organization of the Treatise

13 13 14 18 18 19

2. Outline of Phonology 2.0. Introduction 2.1. Vowel Phonemes 2.11. Distributional Characteristics of Vowels

21 21 21 21

2.12

2.2. Consonant PhonemeB 2.21. Stops 2.22. Fricatives 2.23. Liquids 2.24. Nasals 2.25. Palatalizing Phoneme (j) 2.26. Distributional Characteristics of Consonants 2.3. Stress 3. Normalization 3.0. Introduction 3.1. Variations Independent of Borders

21

22 22 23 23 23 24 25 27 29 29 29

8

CONTENTS

3.2. Variations at Word Borders 3.21. Vowels 3.21 1 3.21 2 3.22. Consonants 3.22 1 3.22 2 3.22 3 3.3. Automatic Variations at Word Borders

30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32

4. Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek: Introduction 4.0. Transcription 4.1. Postulates and Methodology 4.11. Postulates 4.12. Working Methodology 4.2. Definitions 4.21. Stem 4.211. Base 4.212. Prefixes: Class 00 4.213. Derivational Suffixes: Class 100 4.22. Terminus 4.221. Inflectional Suffixes: Class 200 4.23. Summary 4.3. Noun Classes 4.31. Class I 4.32. Class I I 4.33. Class I I I 4.34. Paradigms

33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 39 39 41 42

5. Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek: Morphophonemics 5.0. Preliminaries 5.1. Phonologically Conditioned Modifications 5.11. Modifications in Morpheme Initial Position 5.12. Modifications in Morpheme Final Position 5.2. Stress 5.3. Morphologically Conditioned Alienations 5.31. Classification of Affixes 5.32. Formation of the Noun Stem 5.321. Subclass 0 5.322. Subclass 10—20

46 46 46 46 46 49 50 50 52 52 53

CONTENTS

5.323. Subclass 30 5.324. Subclass 40 5.33. Description of the Terminus 5.331. Suffixes of Class 200 5.34. Allostems 5.341. Class I 5.342. Class I I 5.343. Class I I I

9

55 57 58 58 71 71 72 72

6. Derivational Suffixes 6.1. Suffix Class 100 6.11. Subclass 100—150 6.111. Group 1 0 0 - 1 0 9 6.112. Group 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 6.113. Group 1 1 5 - 1 1 9 6.114. Group 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 6.115. Group 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 6.116. Group 132—136 6.117. Group 138—139 6.118. Group 142—144 6.119. Group 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 6.12. Subclass 160—180 6.121. Group 1 6 1 - 1 6 9 6.122. Group 170—172 6.123. Group 173—174 6.124. Group 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 6.125. Group 177 — 179 6.13. Subclass 190—200 6.131. Group 1 9 1 - 1 9 5 6.132. Group 196—197 6.133. Group 198 — 199

74 74 75 76 81 84 87 89 91 94 96 98 101 101 105 106 107 109 110 Ill 112 113

7. Conclusions 7.1. Phonological Outline of Modern Demotic Greek 7.2. Noun Morphology

115 115 115

Bibliography

116

Index

118

Index of words

122

TABLES

1. Two-Consonant Clusters

24

2. Three-Consonant Clusters

26

3. Chart of Phonemic Norms

27

4. A Bipolar Representation of the Noun

34

5. Paradigms

42

6. Class I

43

7. Class I I

44

8. Class I I I

45

9. Affixes: Prefix Class 00 and Suffix Class 200

50

10. Affixes: Suffix Class 100

51

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

00

Prefixes

100

Derivational Suffixes

200

Inflectional Suffixes

Nb

Noun Base

Ab

De-adjectival base

Vb

Deverbative base

A1N

Active imperfective non-past tense

A PP

Aotivo perfective past tense

1'1'P

Passive perfective past tense

V

Vowel phoneme

C

Consonant phoneme

+

Optional (when referring to prefixes or suffixes)

-j-

Obligatory (when referring to inflectional suffixes)

first vowel

Ultimate syllable

second vowel

Penultimate syllable

third vowel

Antepenultimate syllable

1 INTRODUCTION

1.0. T H E P R O B L E M

I n this study a descriptive analysis of the morphology of the noun in Modern Demotic Greek has been undertaken. Modern Greek is spoken by eight and a half million people in Greece proper, and by another million speakers of the 'Greek Diaspora'. I t is composed of a few dialects whose speakers have 110 difficulty in communicating with each other. The Athenian dialect — the subject of the present analysis — has served as the cultural core around which a national standard language has been formed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. According t o André Mirambel, Demotic Greek "est le plus communément en usage en Grèce: il est non seulement propre au peuple mais à tous ceux qui s'expriment naturellement". 1 This last qualification — "naturellement" — has its explanation: Demotic Greek — the koine of Modern Greece — has waged and is still waging a war for official recognition. Today the official language of the 'Kingdom of Greece' is not the natural language of its speakers but an artificial idiom called ' xaQaqevovaa, which is based mainly on the grammar of classical Attic. The question of Katharevusa and Demotic, t h a t plagues Modern Greece linguistically, is the same as that of Latin and the vernaculars in Western Europe. The harmful influence of Katharevusa is that, by being the official written language, it has lowered the social status of Demotic and hindered its use in scientific and technical writing, its linguistic study, and its systematic teaching and cultivation. 2 This unfortunate historical and

1

André Mirambel, Grammaire du grec moderne (Paris, C. Klinoksieck, 1949), p. X I I . For a complete and documented history of the linguistic problem (rXu>aaixô ZyTrj/ia) in Greece, see Manolis Triandaphyllides, Neoelliniké grammatiké (Athens, Dimitrakos. 1938). 2

14

INTRODUCTION

cultural anachronism has a serious effect on the linguistic development of the formally educated speakers. Since in the Greek schools, the grammar of Demotic Greek is never taught, the only grammar with which the students are familiar is the one of xadagevovaa and unless these formally 'educated' speakers are in a relaxed state of mind, their speech is full of purist forms. I t is therefore my contention that an educated informant of Modern Greek is quite an unreliable source of linguistic information, unless his utterances are elicited under the most natural conditions of communication. 3 A survey of the linguistic bibliography pertaining to the problems of Modern Demotic Greek shows that most of the studies were done abroad, mainly by foreign scholars. To these scholars, Modern Greek represents the latest phase of a long and uninterrupted linguistic development, and consequently it was treated as such. And although the grammatical analysis was mostly traditional and therefore prescriptive, the fact t h a t Modern Greek became finally an object of linguistic investigation was in itself a gain. More recently, the linguistic literature lists some studies — mainly doctoral theses and periodical articles — which have applied modern linguistic techniques in the analysis of some phase of Modern Demotic Greek. These works now make available a phonemic analysis which, though tentative and sketchy, can serve with minor modifications as the phonological basis for a morphological analysis of the nominal system. Hence the present study, in order to be concise and, if possible, exhaustive, will concern itself only with the problems of the noun morphology and its analytical description.

1.1. SURVEY OF PERTINENT SCHOLARSHIP

Most of the prescriptive grammars on Modern Greek were published during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By the middle of our century the methodology begins to change and a series of studies appears which attempt to apply to some degree the descriptive approach. I n Germany, Albert Thumb, in 1895, published his Handbuch der neugriechischen Volkssprache (Strassburg). In France, Louis Roussel published, in 1922, his Grammaire descriptive du roméique litteraire (Paris); Hubert Pernot published in 1917 and 1930 his Grammaire du grec moderne; langue parlée (Paris); in 1949 and in 1959 André Mirambel came out with his Grammaire du grec moderne (Paris); and his 3

Cf. Kahane Henry and Ralph L. Ward, Spoken Greek 2 vols. (New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1945), p. vi: "He [the informant] should speak this type of [Demotic] Greek naturally and without affection. He should be neither overeducated nor too uncultured."

INTRODUCTION

15

La langue grecque moderne; description et analyse (Paris). In England, Nicholas Bachtin published in 1935 an Introduction to the Study of Modern Greek (Cambridge); and Julian Pring, in 1950, A Grammar of Modern Greek on a Phonetic Basis (London). George D. Thomson came out in 1960 with The Greek Language (Cambridge). I n Athens, Manolis TriandaphyHides published a series of grammars under the title NeoellenikéGrammatiké in 1938, 1941, and 1949. Finally, in the U.S.A., Henry and Renée Kahane, in collaboration with Ralph L. Ward, published Spoken Greek (New York) in 1945; and in 1959, Donald C. Swanson came out with his Vocabulary of Modern Spoken Greek (Minneapolis). All these scholarly works contain excellent reference material t h a t can be used profitably in every linguistic investigation of Demotic Greek. There are then four books, two articles, and two doctoral dissertations, which have an immediate relevance for our specific morphological problem, and consequently have been amply consulted. The grammar of L. Roussel has been characterized by R. Kahane as "a masterpiece of descriptive grammar, far ahead of its time". 4 The study constitutes indeed a precursor of every descriptive analysis of Demotic Greek, and the wealth of material is impressive. I t s methodological approach could be considered radical in relation to the existing grammars of t h a t period. Nevertheless the analysis, seen through the criteria of a descriptivist trained in the school of American linguistics, shows that it stopped at the first stage of the analytical procedure without proceeding to the second. In other words, Roussel segmented his corpus into morphemes, or rather into morphs, without attempting their unification; t h a t is, without assigning membership to the morphs, so t h a t his book stands as a sort of a morphic inventory. In any event, Roussel's insights into the structure of Demotic Greek are being verified by the recent more rigorous methodology, as we shall see in Chapter 2. Thus, the contrast between the palatalized and non-palatalized consonants — an essential phonological feature — and the existence of voiceless allophones of unstressed /i/ and /u/ phonemes in utterance final position, have been overlooked for decades, and only recently have been 'rediscovered' and applied in Koutsoudas's doctoral thesis. Roussel's theory t h a t these phonological features, as well as the distinction of aspects and the great number of diminutive and augmentative suffixes, are due to the influence of Slavonic languages, still awaits verification or rejection. 5 The study by A. Mirambel represents another French attempt at a descriptive analysis of Modern Greek. André Mirambel is one of the few Neo-Hellen4

K a h a n e and Ward, Spoken Greek, pp. ii-E. Louis Roussel, Grammaire descriptive du roméique littéraire (Paris, E. de Boccard, 1922), p. 271.

5

16

INTRODUCTION

ists in Franco with a long record of .scholarly endeavor and a rich output of publications on Demotic Greek. His latest publication, in 1959 — a book of 472 pages — marks a turning-point in his method of approach. The subtitle — "description et analyse" — suggests t h a t his intent was to produce a descriptive analysis. But this work, too, judged by the standards of modern rigorous linguistic practices, does not quite satisfy the expectations of a descriptivist. There is an evident mixture of synchronic-diachronic treatment, and a confusion and overlapping of the function of form and meaning, and of phonetics and phonemics. Statements such as, "A l'intérieur des mots variables, le grec moderne connaît line distinction fondamentale: celle du 'nom' et du 'verbe'. Cette distinction est sémantique sans doute"; or "[Le vocatif] est à part, car il ne remplit pas à proprement parler une fonction 'grammaticale' et se trouve toujours à l'écart du système verbal", 6 do not show much understanding of the significance of formal criteria in descriptive methodology. From the preface we learn also t h a t to study a linguistic system is to study the psychology or the sociology of a language, and that his methodology was based on a new linguistic theory developed by J . Yendryes in 1945. This new method "consiste à utiliser la comparaison, non plus sur le plan généalogique ou historique, mais psychologique". It seems that this analysis was made on the basis of this new methodology. Nonetheless, despite his different theoretical criteria and his divergence from the practice of American descriptivists, the work contains a great number of useful observations to which I will refer during the present investigation. The usefulness of J . Pring's book lies in the fact that his material is presented in a phonetic transcription. The treatment of the language is in its entirety traditional, but his transcription can be compared with other phonetic material, and thus provide a basis for a phonemicization of the data. Finally, the book by the Kahanes and Ward marks the first attempt in this country to tackle Demotic Greek descriptively. The work is part of a series of publications — "Spoken Language Series" — aiming at providing the Armed Forces personnel with reliable tools and aids for learning the spoken form of foreign languages. In the general foreword of the series, it is stated t h a t "linguistic scientists provided the descriptive analyses of the several languages". 7 The treatment given to Spoken Greek cannot be said to constitute a complete and rigorous descriptive analysis of it, but the book contains a number of sound general statements that can be used profitably by other investigators.

0

André Mirambel, La langue grecque moderna; description et analyse ( Paris, C. Klincksieck, 1959), pp. 70, 90. 7 K a h a n e and Ward, Spoken Greek, pp. ii-c.

INTRODUCTION

17

In addition, its pedagogical value is high, and the manual can be used most rewardingly by anyone wishing to master Modern Demotic Greek. In 1955, James Maoris, a Greek student working under André Martinet in Columbia University, wrote his doctoral dissertation on "An Analysis of English Loanwords in New York City Greek". The value of the study for our present morphological problem lies in his attempted phonological analysis of Demotic Greek. Modern procedural operations, like the use of minimal pairs, were applied for the first time in the discovery of phonemic contrasts, and the final result could stand as a tentative phonological sketch, although proof is lacking for some of his phonemic interpretations. The second dissertation which contains relevant information for our study is "Verb Morphology of Modern Greek: A Descriptive Analysis". I t was done at the University of Michigan in 1960 by Andreas Koutsoudas, again a Greek student. His dissertation, along with the present one, will complete the attempt at a morphological analysis of Demotic Greek. One hopes t h a t the two studies will lay the ground for further grammatical or syntactical studies. Koutsoudas's dissertation is a good example of the precise and rigorous application of modern linguistic techniques to a limited area of investigation; the present study will follow the same general pattern of presentation and will apply the same analytical procedures as set forth by the American school of linguistics. Koutsoudas's phonemic sketch shows considerable improvement over the phonology of Maoris, especially with the introduction of the palatalizing phoneme /]/, the interpretation of the affricate clusters as a sequence of two segments, and the ample use of evidence for the various phonological interpretations. This study will make selective and critical use of the phonological analyses made by the following investigators: Roussel (1922), Triandaphyllides (1941), Kahane and Ward (1945), Pring (1950), Maoris (1955), Shipp (1958), Swanson (1959), Mirambel (1959), Koutsoudas (1960), and H a m p (1961). The study will adopt Koutsoudas's procedural device of the phonemic normalization, as well as his outline of presentation. One of the two articles which has a pertinent significance for the present study was written by Hansjakob Seiler — a Hellenist with a great interest in Modern Greek — and appeared in Glottn, 37 (1958) 41 — 67. Its title is "Zur Systematik und Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Nominaldeklination". In the third part of this paper he discusses matters pertaining somewhat to the morphemic segmentation of the noun stems of Modern Demotic Greek, which resemble the practices followed by the present study. The second article, "A Descriptive Analysis of Latin Declension", which appeared in Word, 3 (1947) 48—58, was written by Fred W. Householder. I t s value for the present paper lies in the treatment of the morphophonemics of the Latin noun, which shows some parallelisms with the morphophonemics of the noun in Modern Demotic Greek.

18

INTRODUCTION

1.2. THE MATERIAL OF THE STUDY

The author of the present dissertation spent a full year (August 1960—August 1961) in Athens collecting linguistic material and working on the main outlines of the study. The core material, from which the structural features of the nominal system have been extracted, was based mainly on the idiolects of my two principal informants, one age 27 (female), the other, age 33 (male). The younger informant is a housewife and the older a Bank employee. Both of them were born and raised in Athens, have never been abroad, and do not speak any foreign languages; their highest academic degree was a high school diploma. Examples drawn from the publications above listed, and needed to fill gaps in our morphological picture, were verified by the informants as occurring or non-occurring in their speech. In addition, the author of the present study, who has a longstanding interest and enthusiasm for the cause of Demotic Greek, although not an Athenian by birth, may be considered as a third informant. 1.3. HYPOTHESES, METHODOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY

The central assumption of any descriptive analysis is the hypothesis t h a t a language has an inherent structure which the investigator is supposed to discover. Therefore Modern Demotic Greek, as an instrument of communication, has a system, a design, a structure which is composed of a group of subsystems in mutual dependence and interrelationships. This study will concern itself with the morphology of the noun. Morphology, the descriptive analysis of words, as it is currently understood, studies the composition of words; t h a t is, its primary level of analysis is the word level, as opposed to higher levels or layers, such as the phrase or clause layer (syntax), or to lower levels such as the phonological layer (phonology). These divisions in structural levels are convenient operational tools, but, taken separately, they do not give an integrated picture of the functioning of a linguistic system. The noun in Demotic Greek, for example, described on its pure morphological or word boundary level, cannot display its dynamic function unless it operates within the matrix of the phrase where, it ties together and interconnects with the definite article and the adjective, or within the clause level, where it fills the distributional slots of subject or object. But before the noun can function as a component within a higher structure, and before it can be set in formal contrast with other form classes — the adjective, the pronoun, or the verb, for example — its own component units, its own morphemes, its own structure must first be analyzed and seen in their own mutual interdependence and function. Linguistic methodology, therefore,

INTRODUCTION

19

obliges us to operate analytically on a single separate level, and then proceed to higher levels. The methodology of the morphological analysis of the noun will follow the model of item-and-arrangement analysis. This view treats units — phonemes or morphemes — as discrete, contrastive components of speech and operates with two basic theoretical concepts: the units (phoneme—morpheme) on the one hand, and their distribution on the other. The item-and-arrangement approach differs from the item-and-process approach in that the former pays attention to items, to unit segments and their distribution, while the latter turns its attention to basic linguistic forms which are modified by some process of affixation, or by some phonological changes. The early exponent of the first analytical model was Z. Harris, that of the second E. Sapir. 8 Both views are used in linguistic practice, and both views introduce some kind of distortion in the handling of data. Nonetheless, according to K . Pike, both are needed because each view shows one phase of language structure, although the itemand-arrangement view "is very effective whenever one needs to list morphs or morphemes separately". 9 Ho, by the application of this approach we expect to obtain an inventory of the component morphemes of the noun and a set of statements describing their arrangement and distributional characteristics» The nomenclature, the terms, and the linguistic formulas used by this approach reflect its basic principles: they simply enumerate and list the linguistic items and describe their allomorphic distribution, without referring to any morphological process or change. Here, an item, a linguistic element, occurs before or after another item; it does not become or change into another item. 1.4. ORGANIZATION OF THE TREATISE

The present study is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 serves as an introduction to the study. Chapter 2 is devoted to a basic phonological outline of Modern Demotic Greek, and consists of a brief discussion of the nature, arrangement and distribution of segmental phonemes. Chapter 3 discusses the procedure of normalizing the phonemic transcription of some morphophonemic modifications, in order to simplify the statements of allomorphic distribution. These morphophonemic alternations usually occur (1) independent of boundary, (2) at word borders, and (3) at morpheme borders. Chapter 4 constitutes a general introduction to the task of describing the morphology of " For a critical discussion and bibliography cf. Kenneth L. Pike, Language; in lielation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, Pt. I l l (Glondale, Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1960), pp. 56 — 65. 9 Pike, Language Human Behavior, p. 59.

20

INTRODUCTION

the noun. A morphological definition of the noun and i t s components is given, along with a set of axioms and a working methodology u nderlying the descriptive analysis. The criteria for dividing the nouns into classes and subclasses are further discussed and illustrated by a series of pertinent paradigms. Chapter 5 includes mainly the description of the morphophonemic modifications of the various stems and suffixes t h a t occur in the noun construction, together with the conditions of their occurrence. The conditioning factors of these morphophonemic alternations have been divided into phonological and morphological ones, and are discussed and treated in t h a t order. The discussion of the distribution of one suffix class (marked 100) belongs actually to Chapter 5. But, due to the excessive number of suffixes and their particular function of forming further noun stems from verb, adjective, and noun bases, Chapter 6 has been added to describe the distribution and meaning of this important class of derivational suffixes. Finally, Chapter 7 comprises a brief summary of the conclusions reached during the present analytical study.

2 OUTLINE OP PHONOLOGY

2.0. INTRODUCTION In the present outline, those phonological features will be discussed which are pertinent to the central concern of the present study, namely, the segmental phonemic units and stress, but not the suprasegmental elements. The phonemic inventory of Modern Demotic Greek comprises twenty-four segmental phonemes (five vowels and nineteen consonants), and one stress phoneme (i.e., a syllable may be either heavily stressed or weakly stressed).

2.1. VOWEL PHONEMES /i, e, a, o, u/. The vowels pattern in the following way: in respect to tongue height, /u/ and /i/ are high vowel phonemes, /o/ and /e/ mid vowel phonemes, while /a/ is a low vowel. I n respect to tongue and lip position, (the first two units) /i/ and /e/ are front vowels and have the lips spread and unrounded; the last two units, /o/ and /u/, are back vowels and have the lips rounded; and /a/ is a central vowel with a maximal degree of lip aperture. Vowels tend to be longer and louder when stressed, and to be nasalized before a sequence of consonants of which the first is a nasal. The high vowels, /i/ and /u/, in voiceless environments and in unstressed positions, may have but need not have, voiceless positional variants [i] and [u]. 2.11. Distributional

Characteristics of Vowels

Within an utterance, any vowel can occur initially, medially or finally. 2.12.

Two dissimilar vowels in sequence can occur in any position within an utterance. Clusters of three dissimilar vowels can also occur in any position within an

22

OUTLINE OF PHONOLOGY

utterance, but they are limited in initial position to clusters of the type /iVV/ and /oVV/ (in which the second vowel cannot be /u/) and in final position to clusters of the/ViV/ type. The utterances of the /iVV/ and /oVV/ types are on the phrase level or higher and usually include the article o and i. Examples of this are the words degag [aeras] 'wind' (aeras), oaarj [oasi] 'oasis' /oasi/; or the set expression: oval xai aXi/xovo /ue ke aljimono/, 'woe' /ue ke alimono/, aaixa [saita] 'arrow' /saita/, idea [iSsa] 'idea' /iSea/, ntoLovaia [psriusia] 'fortune'/periusia/, ?] drjdia [iaiSia] 'aversion' /iaiSia/, veoeXkrjvixog [neoeljinikos] 'neohellenic' /neoelinikos/, ' l a m a ; [isaias] 'Isaiah' /isaias/, -/QVOO'/OSIO [xrisoxoio] 'jewelry shop' /xrisoxoio/. Sequences of two identical vowels are limited to /aa/, /ii/ and /oo/ in utterance-initial position, have no limitation in medial position, 1 and are limited to /aa/, /ee/, /oo/, and /ii/ in final position. Examples of this are the words f j rjfoxia [iiljikia] 'the age' /iilikia/, o ogajzodog [ooksapoSos] 'the devil' /ooksapoSos/; 'Aancov [aaron] 'Aaron' /'aaron/, neQirjyr]T?]g [periiyjitis] 'tourist'/periiyitis/; also, in emphatic utterances like ir/i ra /navQa ra aojipa aov Xeco [oxi tamavra taaspra suleo] 'not the black; the white, please' /oxi tamavra taaspra suleo/, the cluster /aa/ is preserved, axovovv [akuun] 'they hear' /akuun/, ayQioi [ayrii] 'wild' /ayrii/, xAaisrai [kleete] 'he complains' /kleete/, room [troo] I eat' /troo/, xale [kee] 'burn' (imperative) /kee/.

2.2. C O N S O N A N T

PHONEMES

/p, 1), t, d, k, g, f, v, 0, 8, x, y, s, z, 1, r, m, n, j/.2 The patterning of consonants displays four orders and six series: the labial, dental, alveolar and velar orders, and the series of voiced-voiceless stops and fricatives, of liquids and nasals. 2.21.

Stops

/p, t, k/ in respect to their manner of articulation (series) are voiceless tense (fortis) stops; /b, d, g/ are their voiced lax (lenis) counterparts. (Both sets are not aspirated, although occasional aspiration has been noticed in various realizations of the voiceless stops. The conditioning of these allophonic distributions, however, is not yet evident.) In respect to their point of articulation 1 A n d r e a s K o u t s o u d a s , Verb Morpholoyy of Modern Greek; a Descriptive Analysis ( P u b l i c a t i o n s of t h e I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r in A n t h r o p o l o g y , F o l k l o r e , a n d L i n g u i s t i c s , N o . 24) ( B l o o m i n g t o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , 1962), p . 6. T h e o c c u r r e n c e in m e d i a l p o s i t i o n is l i m i t e d t o f o u r t y p e s of v o w e l c l u s t e r s : / i i / , / a a / /ee/, a n d / o o / . 2 T h e affricate clusters [ts] and [dz] have been phonemically interpreted as a sequence of t w o c o n s o n a n t s h a v i n g t h e s a m e d i s t r i b u t i o n a s a n y o t h e r t w o - c o n s o n a n t c l u s t e r s .

OUTLINE OF PHONOLOGY

23

(order), /p, b/ are bilabial, /t, d/ are dental and /k, g/ are velar: jro'Aiy 'city' /pòli/, [inó?d, 'vaccine' /bòli/, nóòia 'feet' /póSja/, /ATIÓÒUI 'hurdles' /hóSja/, ràfia 'votive' / t a m a / vrdfia 'dame' /dama/, roonr/ 'turn' /tropi/, vjoonrj 'shame' /dropi/, rtwg 'the' (acc. pi. masc.) /tus/, vrove 'shower' /dus/, xàatQo 'fortress' /kàstro/, yxàaxQi 'pregnancy' /gàstri/, xaaóvi 'case' /kasóni/, yxaoaóvi 'waiter' /garsóni/, xana 'cape' /kàpa/ yxàcpa 'blunder' /gàfa/.

2.22. Fricatives If, 6, x/, in regard t o their manner of articulation (series), are voiceless flat fricatives; /v, 8, y/ are their voiced counterparts, /s/ is a voiceless grooved fricative; /z/ is its voiced counterpart. I n respect t o their point of articulation (order), /f, v / are labiodental, /0, 8/ interdental, /s, z/ alveolar and /x, y/ velar: (pdot] 'phase' /fasi/, /?d(r?j 'base' /vasi/, v psix-ön

The stems of Subclass B comprise a small number of i-stems and may take the following set of allomorphs: allomorph -0 of suffixes 201, 203 and 204; allomorphs -s or -eos (in free variation) of suffix 202, allomorph -a' or -es (in free variation) of suffix 205 and allomorph -eon of suffix 206. The formal contrast is also twofold. Stem: parabosi- 'tradition': nom.

gen

sing.

Tiaodöoor)

parddoni-0

pi.

Tiagaddaeig paradösi-s nagadooet; ~ pardöos-es

nanadooEoiq naoddoarjc, nagabiaemv

parados-eos ^ parddosi-s paraöös-eon

(see nom.)

(see nom.)

(see nom.)

(see nom.)

Subclass C of Class I I is the only group of feminine nouns, all of them o-stems, which display a threefold formal contrast. The group is very small in numbers but of considerable frequency of occurrence and its inclusion in the nominal system is disputed. 9 The set of allomorphs which are attached to these stems is the following: allomorph -s of suffix 201, allomorph -u of suffix 202, allomorph -0 of suffixes 203 and 204, allomorphs -i or -es (in free variation) of suffix 205, allomorph -n of suffix 206 and allomorph -us of suffix 207 in free variation with allomorph -es of suffix 205. Stem: proobo- 'progress': nom. sing, pi.

proodo-s TfQooöoi pröod-i ~ 7IQ6OÖEQ pröoö-es JIQÖOÖOQ

gen. TIQOÖÖOV

TIQOOÖOJV

proöö-U pro6S-o-n

Cf. Andre Mirumbel, " G e n r e e t n o m b r e " , p. 114.

acc. TIQÖOÖO

JIQOOÖOVQ

voc.

prooöo-0

(see nom.)

proöd-us

(see nom.)

NOUN

MORPHOLOGY

OF MODERN

DEMOTIC GREEK:

4.33. Class

INTRODUCTION

41

III

This class is also divided into three subclasses and includes the neuter nouns. Subclass A includes stems ending in /i/ and /o/ and it is very rich in numbers. The following set of allomorphs may be attached to the stems: allomorph -0 of suffix 201, alloinorpli -u of suffix 202, allomorph -a of suffix 205 and allomorphs -n and -on of suffix 206; stems: afti- 'ear', nero- 'water':

gen.

pi.

ami afti-0 amid ajlj-d

air tot! aftj-u amiwv ajtj-on vequ)v nero-n

(see nom.) (see nom.)

(see nom.) (see nom.)

Subclass B includes a limited number of o-stems which take the following group of allomorphs: allomorph -s of suffix 201, allomorph -us of suffix 202, allomorph -i of suffix 205 and allomorph -n of suffix 206. Stem: krato- 'nation':

nom.

sing. pi.

wjarog krdto-s XQUTtj krdt-i

gen.

xgarovg krdt-us kqoz&v krato-n

ace.

voc.

(sec nom.)

(see nom.)

(see nom.)

(see nom.)

Finally, Subclass C includes a very large number of stems. They may end in /a/ and /o/, and twelve stems end in /n/. The following set of allomorphs is attached to the stems: allomorphs -0 and -s of suffix 201, allomorph -os of suffix 202, allomorph -a of suffix 205 and allomorph -on of suffix 206. Examples: derma- 'skin', melon- 'future', fo- 'light':

gen.

sing. pi.

SeQ/ia derma-0 gjcbg fo-s dEQ/iaza derma-t-a ¡.dXov ra melon-d-a

deQfiaTog derma-t-os 8eQ[idTevya>

jevyo

(AIN) ' I flee'

(pevydka

krem-ala-0

'hanging gallows' (Vb + 161 + 201) trex-dla-0 'running' (Vb + 161 + 201) fevy-dla-0 'flight' (Vb + 161 + 201)

162: -idiSuffixal form 162 is attached to APP, AIN, and P P P verb stems to form neuter noun stems denoting (1) action which is repeated, (2) the result of action. TT.QlOVtÇm prion-iz-o

(AIN) ' I saw'

axovniÇoi skup-iz-o

(AIN) ' I sweep'

ÈTQEÎ-a

é-trek-8-a

( A P P ) ' I ran'

iaxQwaa

é-stru-s-a

( A P P ) ' I paved'

ßdiartjxa vris-tika

( P P P ) 'to insult'

TlQlOvtÖl prion-iôi-i0

'sawdust' (Vb + 162 + 201) axovmôi skup-iôi-èI 'garbage' (Vb f 162 + 201) T QEÇîôi trek-s-iôi-i0 'continuous running' (Vb + 162 + 201) GXQWaÎÔl stro-s-iôi-i0 'the floor covering' (Vb + 162 + 201) ßQiaiöi vris-iôi-0 'insult' (Vb + 162 + 201)

163: -joSuffixal form 163 is added to AIN verb stems to form neuter noun stems indicating the result of action: yeXd)

yelo

naQaxaXw para-hold ovvi]6iCco siniB-iz-o

(AIN) ' I laugh' (AIN) ' I bug'

yefao

yel-jo-0

'laughter' (Vb + 163 + 201) TIagaxaho para-kal-jo-0 'begging'

(AIN) 'I get used' ovvrjdeio ainiB-jo-0

(05 + Vb +

'habit'

(Vb +

163 +

163 +

201)

201)

164: -maSuffixal form 164 is added to AIN, APP and PPP stems to form neuter noun stems indicating the result of action.

103

DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES SnXaaa

é-pla-s-a

àvolym

aniyo

TQaßrixzr]>eatravix-tika

(APP) 'to shape' (AIN) «to open' ( P P P ) 'to pull'

ipOQEVW

psarévo

(AIN) 'to fish'

öidßaaa

ôjâva-s-a

(APP) ' I read'

xXaÔEvm

hlaôévo

(AIN) 'to prune'

jùAafia

plaz-ma-0

(Vb axoiyfia dniy-ma-0 (Vb Todßrjyßa traviy-ma-0 (Vb yiage/ia psdre-ma-0 (Vb öidßaopa djdvaz-ma-0 (Vb xMòe/m klaSe-ma-0 (Vb

'creature' + 164 + 201) 'opening' + 164 + 201) 'pulling' + 164 + 201) 'fishing' + 164 + 201) 'reading' + 164 + 201) 'pruning' + 164 + 201)

165: -móSuffixal form 165 is added to AIN, APP and P P P verbal stems to form masculine noun stems denoting action or the result of action: Xddrjxa

xd-dika

( P P P ) 'to lose'

nviyv)

pniyo

(AIN) 'to drown'

Òióxzrjxa

òjó-x-tika

( P P P ) 'to persecute'

òÓQOrjxa

ôdr-Oika

( P P P ) 'beaten'

r¡Br¡xe

é-fay-a (APP) ' I a t e ' allostem fayipsi-dike (PPP) 'to roast'

ayáyncrpia

sfdx-tika

( P P P ) ' t o slaughter'

roxali-tó- 0 (Vb Çetpcovr] TÓ ksefoni-t6-0 (Vb ipayr) ró fayi-tó-0 (Vb y>r¡ró psi-tó-0 (Vb oipa/TÓ sfax-tó-0

yndqiTr¡xe

yrdf-tike

( P P P ) ' t o write'

yQCLipTÓ

roxáli-s-a

£Eogd,

aipaigiôio, 84

axgaydXi,

68

axekeràç,

32

84

58

92

axayia, axai,

58

48

auvr'fiEio,

110

axdarj,

48

48

avvavXia,

amxicôv,

axavQÔç,

91

23,

amxdxi,

axaaiôi,

91

84,

48

om>dôeXq>oç,

82 76,

48

at

INDEX 04

ZEYY&v,

xgavjxa,

x'Qau.ani(i, 90 Tydfil, 90

vnoxgwia,

xgeiiòi, 85

77

106

86

VTIÓQSarj, 57 vipdôi, 114

61

vipaivo), 114 vtpava, 110

102

xgnH/iaxoç,

-z'Qr)-/-azlr}-,

WORDS

86

zgavßaziag,

70

-rimo-,

OF

xgé^ifio,

103

xgs^dXa,

102

v, 102

vyrjXioç, 57 'Yyir]Xdvxt]ÔEÇ, 66

-xgia-,

110

'YynjXdvxrjç,

xgidvza,

90

zrjMyoafpoç, 58 Tr/Xé/ta/j:, 63 ztjkeÓQaarì,

35,

58

zr]Xe7id6eM, 58 xrjXEipóvìjaa, 110 zr]Ae