On the pronunciation of ancient greek zeta

Lingua 47 (197% 323-332 0 North-Holland Publishing Company

N THE PRONUNCIATION OF ANCIENT GREEK ZETA Sven-Tage TEODORSSON Department of Classics, University of Giitehwg

Received June 1978 Ionic-Attic zeta undeniably represents the reflex of *[dj], *[gjJ, *[j] as well as original *[zd]. These two sources fused imo a cluster *[3d3] that existed by the time the alphabet was introduced. Then there was a divergent evolution into [d:], [dz], and [zd] in different dialects. That ieta did not correspond to [zd] in Attic is demonstrated by the absence of an orthographic variation m (Cd) in that dialect.

Phonetic prehistory The problem of the phonetic correspondence of the Phoenician-Greek grapheme (2, is one of the most difficult issues in the history of Greek pl~nology. The phonetic prehistory of its use in Greek comprises the Ft._.1italization of *[d] and *[g] before *[j] and the concomitant affricativization of *[j] on the one hand, and on the other the connection of the reflex of this development with the original sequence *[zd] @[OS, cf. Got. ast-s ‘ bough ’ ; JI&jz~c+ < *~~~vcwo-~E). The palatalization and affricativization of *[dj], *[gj], and *[j] is already seen in Mycenaean to-pe-za < *+x&3-ja qxhd$ ‘table’; y)?e-zo < *plyjw~ @‘&Jv; ze-u-ke-u-si zeugeusi, &v- ‘yoke’, CF. Skt. yGga, Lat. iugunl. Not only was *b] being eliminated, but the process also affected prevocalic [i], which was about to be changed, although not generally, into a semivocalic glide, a development attested later in Lesb. (@ < St&), Thess., Boeot., and Cypr. Considering this early date of the process of palatalization and elimination of *[j], it is not surprising to find that the combination of its reflex, which may have been an affricate *[d3], with the sequence *[zd] apparently took place early. The phenomenon was probably post-Mycenaean (cf. Lejeune 1972: 112, 5102, n. 4), and it can be shown to have been prealphabetic by the common Greek loss of a nasal before a sibilant followed

3%

S.-T. Teodorsson ] On Artcient Greek zeta

without the lengthening of the preceding vowel: *uvv-oT~AA~ > OV-O’TiAACL) ; *cr&J-+.mS > ov’~vyos; “Gk&j~ > *7rGy> CK&&J ; Delph. @mdE;~~~~ ZCiw> nAti[w ; “aahiyy~jw > S&hly-~clo < *cb&r- (kitt. C~%-~~TE~V). These cases with [zd] have a parallel with [zs] in$oya, if < *&WYW (Brugmann 1913: 87,149, but cf. Lejeune 1972: 118, $11 I, n. 1). Later, the loss of a (nelwly developed) nasal before a sibilant followed by a consonant or a vowe’i was compensated by the lengthening of the ljreceding vowel: *~&+uY > *?T&+LCC > ~+,wc; KOC&S: *-KOVfmW (on analogy with -KOVTGI) (?) > Lesb. (Tp&)KOl(TTOS; &V~U (Arcad., Cret. etc.) > 7&7(x.

by another

consonant

PhonoEBgicalititerpretationand graphemiccorrespondence Together with the fact that there is nothing to show that the reflexes of* Proto-Greek *[dj], *[gj], *[j], and of *[zd] respectively were ever reprcsented by different graphemes when the alphabet was introduced,’ the’ above evidence indicates that these reflexes had amalgamated to a cluster that was interpreted as a phonological unit. There is no n /~riori reason to suppose that any one of the Phoenician or other signs was originall! adopted for the denotation of anything but what was felt as one phon+ logical unit. This is shown by the use of zllJVi2 (zeta) instead of st’qut’nco as ‘ZA>, ~‘AQ, c’ ..L’ZJ~,or the like. Other indications of such monophoncn~ic anal:isis are the uses of @>, (Y), , the Carian-Ionian ,T (sampi), and the Pamphylian CL+.‘). Indications of a biphonemic analysis is provided by the use in SOIIIL dialects of grapheme sequences, either consistently or sporadically 01 temporarily, -instead of these graphemes, e.g. Attic (KY), i:;;‘c), for \‘f/ !, G), literary Lesbian (cj, for (Z), Theran (l7H), (KH) for , .Y p Cretan .:lIZ>. (KC) for (Y), (E), etc. These data show that either of’tht: \ two phonological inter Jretations was possible, which means th;tt thz phonetic correspondences of the signs mentioned above differed son~t’h~ from other*, that were never denoted by either one or two signs, SLKII\WYJ the phonemic sequences [zb] and [zg] which, unlike the originally (i.c’, I!\ l The Boeot .(-TLless.) spelling opposition @~d~o~os (for the range of orthographic varir~~l,~l! in this name, cf. Aleila 1960: 531-536) as against the normal Boeot.(-Thess.) (J(J) is 10~) singular- to motivate the vieiv of Diver (1958: 16) that in Boeotian the cluster *[zd] did 11~:: go together with the reflex of original *[dJ{, *[gj], *[j]. The differem spelling may be &IL\-<) this compound being relative!y late. Anyhow, there does exist the spelling O&OTOS.

S-T. Teodorsson / On Ancient Greek zeta

325

Proto-Greek) parallel sequence *[zd],2 are never represented by one grapheme, evidently because they could not be conceived as monophonemic. onic-Attic dialects Lesbian literary orthography OS, Boeot.-Thess. OE~C~OTOS (OE+~~OTOS), Delphic inscriptional 21[0v for &t70v etc. suggest the pronunciation [zd]. But the Lesbian inscriptional orthography (2) (&.&&J) and sporadic use of (Z> for
(Z) indicates that the sounds of this particular sequence had combined closely so as to be pronounced [zd], and not [sd]. This Pmpiies that, by the introduction of the alphabet, the sibilant was voiceless in the sequences [!*b] and [sg], which is structurally improbable and remains to be demonstrated. 3 For a presentation and discussion of the evidence pro el contra the pronunciation [zd] in Lesbian, set: Arena 1960: 513-523. a Cf. the fcrm {iKa (= &a) Hesperia 5 (1936) 235-241, 6th century. 5 Cf. Fan<& i Mt. &l~) (lG IV 506, 5). GFrom $&I, d{aXos; cf. Old PO]., Czech ozd ‘kiln’. The etymology has been questioned. 7 Blass 1888;: 112-l 19; Brugmann 1913: 42; Buck 1928: 66; Brandenstein 1950/l: 45-46; Diver 1958: 18-19; Bartonek 1961: 152; Lejeune 1972: 112-114, et al.

326

S.-T, Teodorsson 1 On Ancient Greek zeta

Matthews (1954/5) has collected much evidence against the pronunciation [zd] in Ionic-Attic. It seems that there exists a further piece of coun~erevidence, which must be considered cogent: There is virtually no orthographic variation in archaic and classical Attic to show that (2) corresponded to [zd]. In total, there exists only one, or at the very most four, instances that would suggest this.8 This orthographic pattern of archaic and classical Attic is not different from that found in Attic texts of the Hellenistic period and in the Ptolemaic corpus (cf. Teodorsson 1977, 1978), where spellings as (24) or (d) are non-existent, which is natural seeing that (2) then corresponded to [z( :)]. If Attic (2) had ever corresponded to [zd], i.e. to a phonemic sequence /s/ + /d/, the incongruity in the correlation grapheme-phoneme would have given rise to more than a h~~pn.uinstance of the graphemic sequence Z&, and no one instance of (cd), for (Z).g These are especially evident facts considering that the structural parallels /s/ + /b/ and /s/ + /g/ existed corresponding to the sequences (223) and (Cr) respectively. Moreover, the juxtaposition of Is/ +- /d/ existed in compounds of the type +JSE, which would also have furthered the variation (cd) w (Z). Finally, the large extent of the Attic inscriptional corpus (ca. 3600 normal book size pages) secures statistical reliability. Thus, the absence of evidence warrants the conclusion that Attic (Z> cannot possibly have been pronounced [zd]. It is reasonable to suppose that this statement can be generalized to comprise Ionic,lO and perhaps even the closely related Arcad.-Cypr. and Pamphylian.

Explanation of the phonetic development The next alternative to be discussed is the proposal by Bailey, *[3d& The starting-point is the difficulty to explain how the reflex of the EcThe cases are: ZS& (Kretschmer 1894: 103, 85) 600/575: and perhaps 7oio5’ ht%p[av~os &5G 10, 404, 3) ca. 47615 ; ndcdas (Audollent 1904: 94, 66, 5) 4th/3rd c.; L&V’S (Graef and Langlotz 1933: 211) 530/00. The last three instances do not provide any conclusive rnformation a bout the phonetic correspondence of (2 ,\. The data were collected by Teodorsson f 1974) in a comprehensive study of orthographic variation in archaic and classical Attic. ’ There is a varied and rather widespread variation between (5, and \!?‘J respectively, and relevant graphemes or graphemic sequences (Teodorssan 1974: 141-143). The Old Attic use of the sequences :’XZ and (@Z:. indicates a biphonemic interpretation. I’ An exhaustive investigation of the orthographic variation in Ionic would give the definite ansiver.

palatalization, which was most probably an affricate *[d3], was combined with the original sequence *[zd]. The metathesis theory is rightly questioned by many phonologists (e.g. Witton 1898: 429; Allen 1957/8: 120,n. 40; Bailey 1968 : 177-I 78). Even less plausible is the idea that the mutation was directly into [zd], without the appearance of an affricate at all (Meyer 1896: 369-371; Brandenstein 1950/l : 45-46; Diver 1958: 18). It is therefore appropriate to adopt with Matthews (1954/5: 75-76) and Bailey (1968: 182; the apparently parallel Old Church Slavic case as an explanation of the Jzvelopment. I1 Modern Bulgarian [3d] (meidu, cf. Lat. medius, Skt. mehas) derives from Old Bulgarian *[dj] through *[3d3], by the mediation of criginal *[zd] (cf. Diver 1955: 229-233). However, Bailey is hardly right in assuming a lasting existence of a cluster *[3d3] in Greek. Such an XX lgamation would be unprecedented in Greek and, as lacking any structural support, is possible only as a short-lived transient stage. However, as such it may have been possible and, indeed, such a stage offers a phonetically natural mediation between the affricate *[d3] and original *[zd], which undoubtedly fell together. If the stage *[3d3] is posited for the time when the alphabet was introduced in Greece, then the double reflex reference of I, viz. *[zd] and *[dj]/*[gj]/*[j], becomes natural. The alveopalatal initial sound [3] either itself brought about the loss of a preceding nasal (a6u-3dyyos > *o&3~/3uyor > &~u~os) or was depalatalized early into [z]. The cluster *[3d3] was invariably interpreted as a phonological unit, unlike the seqi.ences /sb/ and /sg/, and was thus denoted by one sign ~nyin (I) (zeta). It is reasonable to assume that for a short period the stage *[3d3] was common Greek, although the evidence is very meagre for Doric (cf. above, fn. 6)

Phonological variation in Attic The history of the phonetic correspondant of (2) is parallel to that of Ionic-Attic LZ’L’)/(TT), which stand for the reflex of *[t(h)-j], *[k(h)-j], *-[tw]-, but this reflex never fused with [St].‘” The result of the palatalization was probably at the affricate stage *[tJ] when the alphabet was introduced. The use of one sign (‘p) (beside (Cc>) in Ionic dialects, and (y ) in Pamphylian, indicates the monophonemic interpretation. The chronology *l The

parallel was pointed out by Gonzhlez dc: la Calle (1948: 305-306), who was inspired by Brugmann’s (1897: 292-293) treatment of the Old Bulgarian development. l2 The change [st] > [t :] is attested sporadically in Boeot. (ZTTCJJ, &TE), Lat., and Cret.

328

S.-T. Teodotxon

/ On Ancient Greek zeta

of the following Ionic development *[tj’] > [ts] > [s:] > [s] (Koine) is not established.13 In Boeotian there seems to have been an early development of both the voiced and the voiceless reflex of the palatalization into [d:] and [t:] respectively. Attic is intermediary between these extremes, Ionic and Boeotian. In the early post-Mycenaean period, during the Aegean migration, Ionic-Attic was probably still undifferentiated.14 The origin of Attic [t :] l5 as opposed to the Ionic sibilant pronunciation is supposed to be due to Bocotian influence. However, the difi’erentiatiorl between Attic and Ionic in this point appears to still go on in archaic and classical Attic? Such formal categories as xwkaacr: suggest the undecided situation. There ~-my have existed a (sociolinguistic?) variation in Attic in this point ot- the phonemic system. l7 The variation was possibly of the type [t :] m [s: 3, the latter being the Ionic pronunciation, which can be assumed at least ii OIII the 5th century on, although (T) was still in use besides @‘L’) (cf. fn. 13). In view of this Attic variation in the voiceless reflex of the palatalization, it seems reasonable to suppose that the development of the voiced affricative cluster, i.e. *[3d3], produced a similar intradialectal variation in Attic and a similar relation between the three dialects, Ionic, Attic, and Boeotian. If Ionic-Attic (L’Z>/(~ > corresponded to [ts] ( c *[tj]) from some early point of time on, it seems probable for structural reasons that Ionic-Attic :Z\ corresponded to [dz] ( < *[d3] < *[3d3]) during the same period.18 Structural arguments also seem to account for the lack of orthographic variants as QLZ) or ld2Y for \;[Z\ in Attic. tJr;Iikc phoneticphonemic sequences as /s/ -t /d/, /s/ + /b/, /s/ + /g/, Ldi.1 _ is felt as a I’ The grapheme s’V \ was still in use in Iomc during the 5th century, which, howeb :r, dots not mean that the change [ts] > [s:] had not yet taken place. I4 The development of original *[s:], *[!.s], *[tth’j] (homoll~orphemic, cf. Allen 1957,8: 124, n. 56) > [s] was common Ionic-Attic. l5 That the dewlopment was actually into [t :] is demonstrated by Koine and Modern Greek forms, 7++LCU, ~TLTT&OV, *ypjTTdS. I6 Evidence is the frequent variation [zd] as suggested by Nag?! (1970: 130), 2nd a late date for this hypothetic metathesis is outruled by the early date of Ihe loss of a r~~l before a sibilant without concomitant lengthening of the preceding vowel (cf. above. p, 324).

S.-T. Teodorsson / On Ancient Greek zeta

329

phonetic-phonemic unit which is not likely to be rendered by a graphemic sequence. There is also the circumstance (pointed out by Allen 1974: 55) that voice-assimilation in Greek is normally regressive, so that (AC) would be an unsatisfactory representation of [dz] and thus is not to be expected, while the voiceless /ps/, /ks/ could readily be represented by ic sequences. oeotian [t : 1, [d : ] can be supposed to have developed early, i.e. soon after the introduction of the alphabet, from *[t[] (cf. Allen 1957/8: 126) and *[3d3] respectively. The shift was parallel to, and perhaps contemporary with, the Ionic-Attic assimilation *[tj’] > [ts].lg While there is the Attic orthography (TT) to demonstrate the existence of the (Boeotian) pronunciation [t :] in Attic, there is less graphic evidence to indicate the intrusion of the voiced counterpart [d :] into the Attic systen~.20 However, this scanty evidence may perhaps be combined with the known passage in Plato, Oat. 418 b-d:

The ‘&pronunciation’ obviously refers to a phonetic stage dominated by the voiced dental stop. Most probably the dental element in [dz] is meant, but it also appears to be possible that the passage is about an imported, purely ‘ Boeotian’, d-pronunciation used by some (small) part of I9 The Ionic(-At tic) development may perhaps have been *[tJ] > [j’:] ( > [s :]) and *[3d3] > r3:] (> [z:]) instead (cf. Witton 1898). But the evidence for this, e.g. Skt. hariya dplt(w, spellings with uu before a stop, E&S$, cliuo/3ov etc. (Bailey 1968: 179), is weaker than the contrary evidence (cf. the material in Matthews 1954/5). There is also Pers. takabmi Yaumi, oatm#dp01 “IWV~S < *twak- (cf. Skt. tuac-)which would indicate a preserved f-element even initially in the reflex of *[tw], which is represented by U- generally in Greek dialects (Pisani 1964). - It cannot be proved that the transliteration was from Ionic, but there is no evidence against this. 2o There are only two instances of the variation (d) N (cf. above, fn. 8), and six instances of variation between (7’) and (Z) (Teodorsson 1974: 140). 2l “You know that our elderly people used the iota and the delta very much, and not least the women, who more than others preserve the old pronunciation. But now people change the iota into epsilon or eta, and the delta into zeta, because these sounds are more impressive. . . . And you know that the old said &uoydv instead of &~ydv.. . . But now we say Svd~. And there are a lot of other words of that sort”.

330

S.-T. Teodomon / On Ancient Greek zeta

the population, in contrast to the [dz] spoken by the majority. By the ‘new pronunciation’, in any case, the Koine pronunciation [z:], which is known to have spread in Attic by about 350 B.C., is most probably meant This change [dz] > [z: ] was parallel to Ionic [ts] > [s : ] which, as sugb:%ed above, may also have been Attic to a certain extent. Both changes may be supposed to have taken place earlier in Ionic than in Attic. In either [ts] > [s:] probably preceded [dz] > [z:] by a considerable space of time. It follows that there is no need for the theory proposed by Nagy (1970: 127) and accepted by Allen (1974: 155) that Attic [t :] and the supposed Attic [zd] were replaced by [s : ] and [z: ] respectively through influence from the Koine. If most speakers of classical Attic used the pronunciation [dz], as in Ionic, the change into [z:] was a normal Greek regressive assimilation, probably furthered by influence from Ionic. Ionic influence during the classical period is also the most probable cause of the victory of [s: ] over [t:] in Koine.

Regressive assimilation Matthews (1954/5: 80, n. 53) rightly emphasizes the general Greek tendency or regressive assimilation (see survey by Lejeune 1972 : 365-366). A change [zd] > [z:] is errpriori less probable than [dz] > [z], and it has not been demonstrated that such a change ever took place in Greek. The only cases of total progressive assimilation in sequences of a stop and a fricative are apparently [ts] > [t :] (in Boeotian and other dialects) and late Elean [St”] > [s:] (Lejeune 1972: 118, $110, n. 8). The simplification of the late Proto-Greek cluster *[3d3] was c.)mmon to all dialects. In some dialects, e.g. in Boeot.(-Thess.), Lat., Cret., 2qd El., the last fricative element was lost: *[3d3] > *[3d] > *[zd] > [d:j, while elsewhere the initial element disappeared:22 *[3d3] > *[d3] > [dz] > [z:].

he range of [zd] It appears that the occurrence of [zd] in historical Greek is reduced literary Lesbian, and to the theory of the grammarians. It is tempting surmise that this coincidence may be significant. It was perhaps only Lesbian that [zd] (< *[3d3]) was not assimilated into [d : ] but remained 22 The change *a&(uyw > av’~~uyos antedates this disappearance.

to to in in

S.-T. Teodorsson 1 On Ancient IGreek zeta

331

historical times. This unique value provoked the attention of the first grammarians and was thus integrated in the learned tradition.23 Transcriptions of foreign words into Greek were certainly seldom made by people lacking elementary insight into grammatical teachings. It is therefore only natural that Old Persian Artavazd~ and Semitic Aidtid appear in Herodotus as A~$~cc~os and A~c~)ToP, or that the name of the od Auratttazdii is rendered ‘li?p~~c?$ in Plato.

eferences Allen, WS, 1957/L Some problems of palatalization in Greek. Lingua 7, 113-133. Allen, WS., 1974. VOXGraeca. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge Univ. Press. Arena, FL, 1960. II valore di 5 nei vari diaietti greci. Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo, Classe

di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche 94, 513-553. Audo!!ent, _4., 1904. Defixionum Tabellae. Lutetiae Parisiorum: Fontemoing. Bailey, C.J.N., 1968. The pronunciation ofZeta in Ancient Greek. Papers from the Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society 4, 177-193. Bartonitk, A., 1961. Vyvoy konsonantickeho systemu v ieckych dialektech. (With an exhaustive summary in English.) Praha: Statni Pedagogicke Nakladatelstvi. Blass, F., 1888. Ueber die Aussprache des Griechischen. 3. Aufl. Berlin: Weidmann. Brandenstein, W., 195015.. Phonologische Bemerkungen zum Altgriechischen. Acta Linguistica 6, 31-46. Brugmann, K., 1897. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre der indogermanischen Sprachen I : 1 (Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen I). 2. Bearb. Strassburg: Trubner. Brugmann, K., 1913. Griechische Grammatik. 4. Aufl. von A. Thumb. (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft II : 1.) Miinchen : Beck. Buck, C.D., 1928. Introduction to the study of the Greek dialects. 2nd ed. Boston: Athenaeum Press. Curtius, G., 1879. Grundziige der griechischen Etymologie. 5. Aufl. von E. Windisch. Leipzig: Teubner. Diver, W., 1955. The problem of Old Bulgarian s’t. Wet Diver, W., 1958. On the prehistory of Greek consonantism. Word 14, l-25. Gonzalez de la Calle, P.U., 1948. Francisco de Vergara y la pronunciacibn de la z griega. Boletin de1 lnstituto Caro y Cuervo, Bogota, 4, 249-320. Graef, B., and E. Langlotz, 1933. Die Antiken Vasen van der Akropolis zu Athen II. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kretschmer, P., 1894. Die griechischen Vaseninschriften, ihrer Sprache nach untersucht. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. Lejeune, M., 1972. Phonetique historique du mycenien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Lupa$, L., 1972. Phonologie du grec attique. The Hague: Mouton. Matthews, W.K., 1954/5. The pronunciation of Attic Greek 5 in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. Lingua 4, 63-80. Meyer, G., 1896. Griechische Grammatik, 3. Aufl. Leipzig: Breitkopf & H&-tel. 23 The theory of 5,+a as equivalent to 08 is first found ;A:Aristotle, Metaph. I 9, 993 a 4, where it is 21~0suggested that this letter corresponded to an ‘unknown’ sound

332

S.-T. Teodorsson 1 On Ancient Greek zeta

Nagy, G., 1970. Greek dialects and the transformation of an Indo-European process. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univ. Press. Pisani, V., 1964. Zu griech. +a und zy zF. Glotta 42, 183-185. Schwyzer, E., 1939. Griechische Grammatik I. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II: I : 1.) Munchen: Beck. Teodorsson, S.-T., 1974. The phonemic system of the Attic dialect 400-340 B c. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 32.) Giiteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Teodorsson, S.-T., 1977. The phonology of Ptolemaic Greek. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 36.) Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Teodorsson, S.-T., 1978. The phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic period. (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 40) Giiteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothobxgensis. Teodorsson, S.-T., 1979. Phonological variation in Classical Attic and th? development of Koine. Glotta 57 (in press). Witton, W.F., 1898. On -z%- and -Z-. The American Journal of Philology 19, 420-436.