Proto-Greek
Proto-Hellenic
Reconstruction ofHellenic languages / Ancient Greek dialects
RegionSouthern Balkan Peninsula
Eraestablishment (c. 3rd millennium BC); diversification (~1700 BC)[1]
Reconstructed
ancestor		Proto-Indo-European

The Proto-Greek language, also known as Proto-Hellenic, is the Indo-European language which was the last common ancestor of all varieties of Greek, including Mycenaean Greek, the subsequent ancient Greek dialects (i.e., Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric proper, Arcadocypriot, Northwest Greek, ancient Macedonian—either a dialect or a closely related Hellenic language) and, ultimately, Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek (along with its variants). Proto-Greek speakers entered Greece sometime during the European Bronze Age (c. 3rd millennium BC) with the diversification into a southern and a northern group beginning by approximately 1700 BC.[2][1]

Origins

Context

The evolution of Proto-Greek could be considered within the context of an early Paleo-Balkan sprachbund that makes it difficult to delineate exact boundaries between individual languages.[3] The characteristically Greek representation of word-initial laryngeals by prothetic vowels is shared, for one, by the Armenian language, which also seems to share some other phonological and morphological peculiarities of Greek; this has led some linguists to propose a hypothetically closer relationship between Greek and Armenian, although evidence remains scant.[4]

Estimates

Estimates for the introduction of the Proto-Greek language into prehistoric Greece have changed over the course of the 20th century. Since the decipherment of Linear B, searches were made "for earlier breaks in the continuity of the material record that might represent the 'coming of the Greeks'".[5] A Middle Bronze Age estimate, originally presented by C. Haley and J. Blegen in 1928, was altered to an estimate spanning the transition from Early Helladic II to Early Helladic III (c. 2400 – c. 2200/2100 BCE).[5] However, the latter estimate, accepted by the majority of scholars,[6][7] was criticized by John E. Coleman as being based on stratigraphic discontinuities at Lerna that other archaeological excavations in Greece demonstrated were the product of chronological gaps or separate deposit-sequencing instead of cultural changes.[8]

Models

In modern scholarship, different settlement models have been proposed regarding the development of Proto-Greek speakers in the Greek peninsula.[9]

Diversification

Ivo Hajnal dates the beginning of the diversification of Proto-Greek into the subsequent Greek dialects to a point not significantly earlier than 1700 BC.[1] The conventional division of the Greek dialects prior to 1955 differentiated them between a West Greek (consisting of Doric and Northwest Greek) and an East Greek (consisting of Aeolic, Arcado-Cypriot, and Attic-Ionic) group. However, after the decipherment of the Linear B script, Walter Porzig and Ernst Risch argued for a division between a Northern (consisting of Doric, Northwest Greek, and Aeolic) and a Southern (consisting of Mycenaean, Arcado-Cypriot, and Attic-Ionic) group, which remains fundamental until today.[29][30][31][32]

In Lucien van Beek's diversification scenario, South Greek-speaking tribes in c. 1700 BC spread to Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, while North Greek was spoken in Epirus, Thessaly, parts of Central Greece, and perhaps also Macedonia.[33]

For Christina Skelton, "[t]he state of the Greek dialects in the second millennium BCE is still controversial."[34]

Phonology

Phonemes

Proto-Greek is reconstructed with the following phonemes:[35]

Consonants

Type Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labiovelar Glottal
Nasal m n ɲ[a]
Plosive p b pʰ t d tʰ ť[a] ď[a] k g kʰ kʷ gʷ kʷʰ
Affricate ts[b] dz[b]
Fricative s h
Liquid l r ľ[a] ř[a]
Semivowel j ⟨y⟩ w

Vowels

Type Front Center Back
Close i ī u ū
Mid e ē ə[b] o ō
Open a ā
  • Diphthongs are ai ei oi ui, au eu ou, āi ēi ōi, and possibly āu ēu ōu; all are allophonic with the corresponding sequences of vowel and semivowel.
  • Exactly one vowel in each word bears a pitch accent (equivalent to the Attic Greek acute accent).

  1. Occurs geminated only as the result of palatalization ČČ < Cy; ť also occurs in the combination pť < py
  2. Exact phonetic value uncertain

Proto-Greek changes

The primary sound changes separating Proto-Greek from the Proto-Indo-European language include the following.

Consonants

Changes to the aspirates

Major changes included:

Grassmann's law was a process of dissimilation in words containing multiple aspirates. It caused an initial aspirated sound to lose its aspiration when a following aspirated consonant occurred in the same word. It was a relatively late change in Proto-Greek history, and must have occurred independently[37] of the similar dissimilation of aspirates (also known as Grassmann's law) in Indo-Iranian, although it may represent a common areal feature; the change may have even been post-Mycenaean.[36]

  1. It postdates the Greek-specific de-voicing of voiced aspirates.
  2. It postdates the change of /s/ > /h/, which is then lost in the same environment: ékhō "I have" < *hekh- < PIE *seǵʰ-oh₂, but future heksō "I will have" < *heks- < Post-PIE *seǵʰ-s-oh₂.
  3. It postdates even the loss of aspiration before *y that accompanied second-stage palatalization (see below), which postdates both of the previous changes (as well as first-stage palatalization).
  4. On the other hand, it predates the development of the first aorist passive marker -thē- since the aspirate in that marker has no effect on preceding aspirates.
Laryngeal changes

Greek is unique among Indo-European languages in reflecting the three different laryngeals with distinct vowels. Most Indo-European languages can be traced back to a dialectal variety of late Proto-Indo-European (PIE) in which all three laryngeals had merged (after colouring adjacent short /e/ vowels), but Greek clearly cannot. For that reason, Greek is extremely important in reconstructing PIE forms.

Greek shows distinct reflexes of the laryngeals in various positions:

Proto-Indo-European Greek Vedic Sanskrit Latin
*dʰh₁s "sacred, religious" θέσφατος (thésphatos) "decreed by God" धिष्ण्य (dhíṣṇya-) "devout" fānum "temple" < *fasnom < *dʰh̥₁s-no-
*sth₂-to- "standing, being made to stand" στατός (statós) स्थित (sthíta-) status
*dh₃-ti- "gift" δόσις (dósis) दिति (díti-) datiō

All of the cases may stem from an early insertion of /e/ next to a laryngeal not adjacent to a vowel in the Indo-European dialect ancestral to Greek (subsequently coloured to /e/, /a/, /o/ by the particular laryngeal in question) prior to the general merger of laryngeals:

A laryngeal adjacent to a vowel develops along the same lines as other Indo-European languages:

Palatalization

Consonants followed by consonantal *y were palatalized, producing various affricate consonants (still represented as a separate sound in Mycenaean) and geminated palatal consonants.[36] Any aspiration was lost in the process. The palatalized consonants later simplified, mostly losing their palatal character. Palatalization occurred in two separate stages. The first stage affected only dental consonants, and the second stage affected all consonants.

First palatalization

The first palatalization replaced post-PIE sequences of dental stop + *y with alveolar affricates:

Before After
*ty, *tʰy *t͡s
*dy *d͡z

The affricate derived from the first palatalization of *ty and *tʰy merged with the outcome of the inherited clusters *ts, *ds and *tʰs, all becoming *t͡s.[39]

Restoration

After the first palatalization changed *ty and *tʰy into *t͡s, the consonant *y was restored after original *t or *tʰ in morphologically transparent formations. The initial outcome of restoration may have been simply *ty and *tʰy, or alternatively, restoration may have yielded an affricate followed by a glide, *t͡sy, in the case of both original *t and original *tʰ.[40] Either way, restored *t(ʰ)y would go on to merge via the second palatalization with the reflex of *k(ʰ)y, resulting in a distinct outcome from the *t͡s derived from the first palatalization.[40] There may also have been restoration of *y after original *d in the same circumstances, but if so, it apparently merged with the *d͡z that resulted from the first palatalization before leaving any visible trace.[40]

However, restoration is not evident in Mycenaean Greek, where the reflex of original *t(ʰ)y (which became a consonant transcribed as ⟨s⟩) is consistently written differently from the reflex of original *k(ʰ)y (which became a consonant transcribed as ⟨z⟩ via the second palatalization).[40]

Second palatalization

The second palatalization took place following the resolution of syllabic laryngeals and sonorants, and prior to Grassmann's law. It affected all consonants followed by the palatal glide *y. The following table, based on American linguist Andrew Sihler,[41] shows the outcomes of the second palatalization:

Before (post-PIE) After
*py, *pʰy *pť
*ty, *tʰy (or *t͡sy) *ťť
*ky, *kʰy
*kʷy, *kʷʰy
(*d͡zy) *ďď
*gy
*gʷy
*ly *ľľ
*my, *ny *ňň
*ry *řř
*sy > *hy *yy
*wy *ɥɥ > *yy

Sihler reconstructs the palatalized stops (shown in the above table as *ť *ď) with a degree of assibilation and transcribes them as *č *ǰ.[42]

The resulting palatal consonants and clusters of Proto-Greek were resolved in varying ways prior to the historical period.[42]

Proto-Greek Homeric Attic West Ionic Other Ionic Boeotian, Cretan Arcadian Cypriot Lesbian, Thessalian Other
*pť pt
*t͡s final,[43] initial, after *n,[44]
after long vowel or diphthong[45]		 s
after short vowel s, ss[39] s[39] tt[46][45] s[47] ss[39]
*ťť medial intervocalic ss tt ss tt ss
*d͡z, *ďď zd dd[48] zd
*ľľ ll i̯l[49][50] ll
*ňň after α, ο i̯n unattested[50] i̯n
after ε, ι, υ ːn nn[51] ːn
*řř after α, ο i̯r
after ε, ι, υ ːr unattested[50] rr[51] ːr
*yy i̯

The restoration of *y after original *t or *tʰ (resulting in *ťť) occurred only in morphologically transparent formations, by analogy with similar formations in which *y was preceded by other consonants. In formations that were morphologically opaque, the restoration did not take place and the *t͡s that resulted from the first palatalization of *ty and *tʰy remained. Hence, depending on the type of formation, the pre-Proto-Greek sequences *ty and *tʰy have different outcomes in the later languages. In particular, medial *t(ʰ)y becomes Attic -s- in opaque formations but -tt- in transparent formations.

The outcome of PG medial *ts in Homeric Greek is s after a long vowel, and vacillation between s and ss after a short vowel: tátēsi dat. pl. "rug" < tátēt-, possí(n)/posí(n) dat. pl. "foot" < pod-. This was useful for the composer of the Iliad and Odyssey, since possí with double s scans as long-short, while posí with single s scans as short-short. Thus the writer could use each form in different positions in a line.

Examples of initial *t͡s:

Examples of medial *t͡s (morphologically opaque forms, first palatalization only):

Examples of medial *ťť (morphologically transparent forms, first and second palatalization):

For comparison, examples of initial *ť from *k(ʰ)y by the second palatalization:

For words with original *dy, no distinction is found in any historically attested form of Greek between the outcomes of the first and second palatalizations, and so there is no visible evidence of an opposition between *d͡z and a secondary restored cluster *d͡zy > *ďď. However, it is reasonable to think that words with *dy originally underwent parallel treatment to words with original *ty and *tʰy.[54] The reflex of *dy also merged with the reflex of *g(ʷ)y, with one of the two word-initial reflexes of PIE *y-, and with original *sd, as in PIE *h₃esdos/osdos > όζος 'branch' or PIE *si-sd- > ἵζω 'take a seat'.[53] The merger with *sd was probably post-Mycenaean, but occurred before the introduction of the Greek alphabet.[55]

Vowels

Cowgill's law

In Proto-Greek, Cowgill's law[56] states that a former /o/ vowel becomes /u/ between a resonant (/r/, /l/, /m/, /n/) and a labial consonant (including labiovelars), in either order.[57] Examples include:[57]

Note that when a labiovelar adjoins an /o/ affected by Cowgill's law, the new /u/ will cause the labiovelar to lose its labial component (as in Greek: núks and Greek: ónuks/ónukh-, where the usual Greek change */kʷ/ > /p/ has not occurred).

Prosody

Proto-Greek retained the Indo-European pitch accent, but developed a number of rules governing it:[58]

Post-Proto-Greek changes

Sound changes that postdate Proto-Greek, but predate the attested dialects, including Mycenaean Greek, include:

The following changes are apparently post-Mycenaean because early stages are represented in Linear B:

Note that /w/ and /j/, when following a vowel and not preceding a vowel, combined early on with the vowel to form a diphthong and so were not lost.

Loss of /h/ and /w/ after a consonant was often accompanied by compensatory lengthening of a preceding vowel.

The development of labiovelars varies from dialect to dialect:

The results of vowel contraction were complex from dialect to dialect. Such contractions occur in the inflection of a number of different noun and verb classes and are among the most difficult aspects of Ancient Greek grammar. They were particularly important in the large class of contracted verbs, denominative verbs formed from nouns and adjectives ending in a vowel. (In fact, the reflex of contracted verbs in Modern Greek, the set of verbs derived from Ancient Greek contracted verbs, represents one of the two main classes of verbs in that language.)

Morphology

Nouns

Proto-Greek preserved the gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and number (singular, dual, plural) distinctions of the nominal system of Proto-Indo-European.[61] However, the evidence from Mycenaean Greek is inconclusive with regard to whether all eight cases continued to see complete usage, but this is more secure for the five standard cases of Classical Greek (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative) and probably also the instrumental in its usual plural suffix -pʰi and the variant /-ṓis/ for o-stem nouns.[58] The ablative and locative are uncertain; at the time of Mycenaean texts they may have been undergoing a merger with the genitive and dative respectively.[58] It is thought that the syncretism between cases proceeded faster for the plural,[58] with dative and locative already merged as -si (the Proto-Indo-European locative plural having been *-su-.[62])[58] This merger may have been motivated by analogy to the locative singular -i-.[58] Nevertheless, seven case distinctions are securely attested in Mycenaean in some domain, with the status of the ablative unclear.[63]

Significant developments attributed to the Proto-Greek period include:

The Proto-Greek nominal system is thought to have included cases of gender change according to number, heteroclisy and stem alternation (ex. genitive form húdatos for húdōr "water").[58]

The peculiar oblique stem gunaik- ("women"), attested from the Thebes tablets, is probably Proto-Greek.

Examples of noun declension

*agrós, agrójjo (field), m.
Case Singular Dual Plural
Nom. *agrós < PIE *h₂éǵros *agrṓ < PIE *h₂éǵroh₁ *agrói < PIE *h₂éǵroes
Gen. *agróyyo < *h₂éǵrosyo *agróyyun < ? *agrṓn < *h₂éǵroHom
Dat. *agrṓi < *h₂éǵroey *agróyyun < ? *agróis < *h₂éǵromos
Acc. *agrón < *h₂éǵrom *agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁ *agróns < *h₂éǵroms
Voc. *agré < *h₂éǵre *agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁ *agrói < *h₂éǵroes
Loc. *agrói, -éi < *h₂éǵroy, -ey ? *agróihi < *h₂éǵroysu
Instr. *agrṓ < *h₂éǵroh₁ ? *agrṓis < *h₂éǵrōys
*pʰugā́, pʰugā́s (flight), f.
Case Singular Dual Plural
Nom. *pʰugā́ < PIE *bʰugéh₂ *pʰugáe < PIE *bʰugéh₂h₁(e) *pʰugái < PIE *bʰugéh₂es
Gen. *pʰugā́s < *bʰugéh₂s *pʰugáyyun < ? *pʰugā́ōn < *bʰugéh₂oHom
Dat. *pʰugā́i < *bʰugéh₂ey *pʰugáyyun < ? *pʰugáis < *bʰugéh₂mos
Acc. *pʰugā́n < *bʰugā́m *pʰugáe < *bʰugéh₂h₁(e) *pʰugáns < *bʰugéh₂m̥s
Voc. *pʰugā́ < *bʰugéh₂ *pʰugáe < *bʰugéh₂h₁(e) *pʰugái < *bʰugéh₂es
Loc. *pʰugā́i? < *bʰugéh₂i ? *pʰugā́hi < *bʰugéh₂su
Instr. *pʰugā́ < *bʰugéh₂h₁ ? *pʰugā́is < *bʰugéh₂mis
*dzugón, dzugójjo (yoke), n.
Case Singular Dual Plural
Nom. *dzugón < PIE *yugóm *dzugṓ < PIE *yugóy(h₁) *dzugá < PIE *yugéh₂
Gen. *dzugóyyo < *yugósyo *dzugóyyun < ? *dzugṓn < *yugóHom
Dat. *dzugṓi < *yugóey *dzugóyyun < ? *dzugóis < *yugómos
Acc. *dzugón < *yugóm *dzugṓ < *yugóy(h₁) *dzugá < *yugéh₂
Voc. *dzugón < *yugóm *dzugṓ < *yugóy(h₁) *dzugá < *yugéh₂
Loc. *dzugói, -éi < *yugóy, *-éy ? *dzugóihi < *yugóysu
Instr. *dzugṓ < *yugóh₁ ? *dzugṓis < *yugṓys

("Yoke" in later Proto-Hellenic and both Classical and Modern Greek is masculine due to a gender shift from *-ón to *-ós).

Pronouns

The pronouns hoûtos, ekeînos and autós are created. The use of ho, hā, to as articles is post-Mycenaean.

Pronoun Proto-Hellenic < PIE
I *egṓ < PIE *éǵh₂; (Homeric Greek egṓn < variant *eǵh₂óm)
You *tú < *túh₂
He *autós < *h₂ewtos (from *h₂ew, "again", and *to, "that")
She *autā́ < *h₂ewtéh₂
It *autó < *h₂ewtó
We two *nṓwi < ?
You two *spʰṓwi < ?
They (two) *spʰо̄é < ?
We *əhmé(e)s < *n̥smé (accusative of *wéy)
You (all) *uhmé(e)s < *usmé (accusative of *yúHs)
They (m.) ? (Attic Greek: autoí)
They (f.) ? (Attic Greek: autaí)
They (n.) ? (Attic Greek: autá)

Verbs

Proto-Greek inherited the augment, a prefix e-, to verbal forms expressing past tense.[64] That feature is shared only with Indo-Iranian and Phrygian (and to some extent, Armenian), lending some support to a "Graeco-Aryan" or "Inner Proto-Indo-European" proto-dialect. However, the augment down to the time of Homer remained optional and was probably little more than a free sentence particle, meaning 'previously' in Proto-Indo-European, which may easily have been lost by most other branches. Greek, Phrygian, and Indo-Iranian also concur in the absence of r-endings in the middle voice, in Greek apparently already lost in Proto-Greek.

The first person middle verbal desinences -mai, -mān replace -ai, -a. The third singular phérei is an innovation by analogy, replacing the expected Doric *phéreti, Ionic *phéresi (from PIE *bʰéreti).

The future tense is created, including a future passive as well as an aorist passive.[65] The future passive paradigm in Ancient Greek was marked by a suffix -θή- (-thḗ-), which may relate to the Proto-Indo-European suffix *dʰ-.[66] The aorist passive in -ή- (-ḗ-) ("ἐχάρην," "ekhárēn") may have emerged from the Proto-Indo-European stative morpheme *-eh₁, with aorist passives in -θή- developing as a later innovation.[67]

The suffix -ka- is attached to some perfects and aorists.

Infinitives in -ehen, -enai and -men are created.

Examples of verb declension

*ágō (I drive), thematic
Pronoun Verb (present)
I *ágō < PIE *h₂éǵoh₂
You *ágehi < *h₂éǵesi
He, she, it *ágei < *h₂éǵeti
We two *ágowos < *h₂éǵowos

(*ágowes, *ágowen)

You two *ágetes < *h₂éǵetes

(*ágetos, *ágeton)

They (two) *ágetes < *h₂éǵetes

(*ágetos, *ágeton)

We *ágomes < *h₂éǵomos

(*ágomen)

You (all) *ágete < *h₂éǵete
They *ágonti < *h₂éǵonti
*ehmí (to be), athematic
Pronoun Verb (present)
I *ehmí < PIE *h₁ésmi
You *ehí < *h₁ési
He, she, it *estí < *h₁ésti
We two *eswén? < *h₁swós
You two *estón < *h₁stés
They (two) *estón < *h₁stés
We *esmén < *h₁smós
You (all) *esté < *h₁sté
They *ehénti < *h₁sénti

Examples of adjectives

*néwos, -ā, -on (new)
Case

(plural)

PIE

(plural)

PE

(plural)

Nom. *néwos, néweh₂, néwom *néwos, néwā, néwon
Gen. *néwosyo, néweh₂s, néwosyo *néwoyyo, néwās, néwoyyo
Dat. *néwoey, néweh₂ey, néwoey *néwōi, néwāi, néwōi
Acc. *néwom, néwām, néwom *néwon, néwān, néwon
Voc. *néwe, néweh₂, néwom *néwe, néwa, néwon
Loc. *néwoy/ey, néweh₂i, néwoy/ey *néwoi/ei, néwai, néwoi/ei
Instr. *néwoh₁, néweh₂h₁, néwoh₁ *néwō, néwā, néwō
Case

(singular)

PIE

(singular)

PE

(singular)

Nom. *néwoes, néweh₂es, néweh₂ *néwoi, néwai, néwa
Gen. *néwoHom, néweh₂oHom, néwoHom *néwōn, néwāōn, néwōn
Dat. *néwomos, néweh₂mos, néwomos *néwois, néwais, néwois
Acc. *néwoms, néweh₂m̥s, néweh₂ *néwons, néwans, néwa
Voc. *néwoes, néweh₂es, néweh₂ *néwoi, néwai, néwa
Loc. *néwoysu, néweh₂su, néwoysu *néwoihi, néwāhi, néwoihi
Instr. *néwōys, néweh₂mis, néwōys *néwois, néwais, néwois

Numerals

Proto-Greek numerals were derived directly from Indo-European.[36]

Examples of numerals

Number PH PIE
One (1) *óynos *h₁óynos
Two (2) *dúwō *dwóh₁
Three (3) *tréyes *tréyes
Four (4) *kʷétwores *kʷetwóres
Five (5) *pénkʷe *pénkʷe
Six (6) *hwéks *swéḱs
Seven (7) *heptə́ *septḿ̥
Eight (8) *oktṓ *(h₁)oḱtṓw
Nine (9) *ennéwə *h₁néwn̥
Ten (10) *dékə *déḱm̥
One hundred (100) *hekətón *heḱm̥tóm or *h₁ḱm̥tóm

(*ḱm̥tóm: "100")

One thousand (1000) *kʰehliyoi *ǵʰesliyoy (< *ǵʰéslom, "1000")

See also

Footnotes

  1. Hajnal 2007, p. 136 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHajnal2007 (help).
  2. A comprehensive overview is in Oliver Dickinson's "The Coming of the Greeks and All That" (Dickinson 2016, pp. 3–21), J. T. Hooker's Mycenaean Greece (Hooker 1976, Chapter 2: "Before the Mycenaean Age", pp. 11–33 and passim), and in Bryan Feuer's annotated bibliography (Feuer 2004); for a different hypothesis excluding massive migrations and favoring an autochthonous scenario, see Colin Renfrew's "Problems in the General Correlation of Archaeological and Linguistic Strata in Prehistoric Greece: The Model of Autochthonous Origin" (Renfrew 1973, pp. 263–276, especially p. 267) in Bronze Age Migrations by R. A. Crossland and A. Birchall, eds. (1973).
  3. Renfrew 2003, p. 35: "Greek The fragmentation of the Balkan Proto-Indo-European Sprachbund of phase II around 3000 BC led gradually in the succeeding centuries to the much clearer definition of the languages of the constituent sub-regions."
  4. Clackson 1995.
  5. Coleman 2000, p. 104.
  6. Meier-Brügger 2017, p. 697 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMeier-Brügger2017 (help); citing Strunk 85–98, Panagl 99–103, and Lindner 105–108 in Bammesberger & Vennemann 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBammesbergerVennemann2003 (help).
  7. West 1997, p. 1: "[T]he majority view for the last twenty or thirty years has been that the arrival of the proto-Greek-speakers is signalled archaeologically by two waves of destruction which took place at various sites in central and southern Greece at the beginning and end of the Early Helladic III period. These waves seem now to be flattening out under critical scrutiny."
  8. Coleman 2000, pp. 106–107.
  9. Parpola & Carpelan 2005, p. 131.
  10. Heggarty et al. 2023, "A DensiTree showing the probability distribution of tree topologies for the Indo-European language family."
  11. Filos 2014, p. 175.
  12. Katičić 2012, p. 122.
  13. Demand 2012, p. 49.
  14. Anthony 2010, p. 81.
  15. Anthony 2010, p. 82.
  16. Anthony 2010, pp. 51, 369.
  17. Coleman 2000, p. 139ff.
  18. Katona 2000, p. 84: "The time of the departure of the Proto-Greeks semel is mid EH II (2400/2300 B.C.) (L and A available). Their route between Ukraine and Greece can be supposed to have led through Rumania and East Balkans towards the Hebros-valley (North-Eastern Greece). Here they turned to the West (A available)."
  19. Katona 2000, pp. 84–86: "Contacts must have existed, too, until 1900 B.C., when Western tribes lived in Epirus, Southwest Illyria and Western Macedonia, i.e. in the western neighborhood of the Ionians [...] The main body of the Proto-Greeks – as seen already in Sakellariou 1980 – had settled in southwest Illyria, Epirus, Western Macedonia, and northwestern Thessaly."
  20. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995, pp. 761–762.
  21. Drews 1994, p. 45ff.
  22. Dickinson 1999, pp. 97–107.
  23. Littauer & Crouwel 1996, p. 299.
  24. Georgiev 1981, p. 156: "The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αὐλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i. e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)."
  25. Georgiev 1981, p. 192: "Late Neolithic Period: in northwestern Greece the Proto-Greek language had already been formed: this is the original home of the Greeks."
  26. Coleman 2000, pp. 101–153.
  27. Mallory 2003, p. 101.
  28. Georgiev 1973, p. 248: "Thus in the region defined just above, roughly northern and north-western Greece, one finds only archaic Greek place-names. Consequently, this is the proto-Hellenic area, the early homeland of the Greeks where they lived before they invaded central and southern Greece."
  29. Hall 1997, p. 160.
  30. Woodard 2008, p. 52.
  31. Horrocks 2010, pp. 19–20.
  32. Parker 2008, pp. 443–444.
  33. van Beek 2022b, pp. 189–190: "In sum, the most likely scenario is as follows (see the tentative tree in Figure 11.1). In the first centuries of the second millennium, Proto-Greek was undifferentiated, although there was no doubt some variation, as well as affinities with other Balkan languages.37 Around 1700, South Greek-speaking tribes penetrated into Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, while North Greek was spoken roughly in Thessaly, parts of Central Greece, and further North and West (up to Epirus, and perhaps also Macedonia). During the early Mycenaean period, South Greek diverged by the assibilation of *ti, the simplification of word-internal *ts and *ss, and a number of morphological innovations.37 Scholars often date the immigration into the Peloponnese to the end of the third millennium, but I would prefer a later date coinciding with the beginning of Late Helladic, in the seventeenth century BCE (cf. Hajnal 2005). This would fit the linguistic data best, as reconstructible differences between South Greek and North Greek in the late Mycenaean period are relatively small."
  34. Skelton 2014, p. 5.
  35. Hamp 1960, pp. 187–203.
  36. Filos 2014, pp. 175–189, Section 4c.
  37. Fortson 2004, p. 227.
  38. Filos 2014, p. 178.
  39. Sihler 1995, p. 190.
  40. Sihler 1995, p. 191.
  41. Sihler 1995, pp. 189–196.
  42. Sihler 1995, p. 192.
  43. Sihler 1995, p. 205.
  44. Sihler 1995, pp. 190–191.
  45. Woodard 1997, p. 95.
  46. Sihler 1995, pp. 190, 205.
  47. Skelton 2014, p. 34.
  48. Skelton 2014, pp. 35, 39.
  49. Skelton 2014, p. 35.
  50. Egetmeyer 2010, p. 123.
  51. Sihler 1995, p. 195.
  52. Lengthened -ei /eː/ due to Attic analogical lengthening in comparatives.
  53. Sihler 1995, p. 194.
  54. Sihler 1995, pp. 191–192.
  55. Teodorsson 1979, pp. 323–332.
  56. Sihler 1995, pp. 42–43.
  57. Sihler 1995, p. 42.
  58. Filos 2014, p. 180.
  59. Sihler 1995, p. 238.
  60. Sihler 1995, pp. 236–237.
  61. Filos 2014, pp. 180–181.
  62. Fortson 2004, p. 226.
  63. Ramón 2017, p. 654.
  64. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995, p. 318: "Presumably of similar origin are the augmented verb forms of the early Indo-European languges. The prefixal augment *e- is the result of fusion of sentence-initial *e/*o with an immediately following verb: Gk. é-phere, Skt. á-bharat 'brought', Arm. e-ber, etc.".
  65. Rau 2010, p. 184.
  66. Luraghi, Inglese & Kölligan 2021, p. 353.
  67. Weiss 2010, p. 115.

References

Further reading