The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval by Theodore Markopoulos


27583d89907a37e-261x361.jpeg Author Theodore Markopoulos
Isbn 9780199539857
File size 1MB
Year 2009
Pages 288
Language English
File format PDF
Category culture


 

The Future in Greek ‘‘Something there is in beauty which grows in the soul of the beholder like a Xower: fragile—and imperishable.’’ Stephen Donaldson, ‘‘The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever’’ The Future in Greek From Ancient to Medieval T H E O D O R E M A R KO P O U LO S 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Theodore Markopoulos 2009 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–953985–7 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Contents Abbreviations List of Tables List of Figures Preface 1 Introduction: aims, theory, and method 1.1 Theoretical preliminaries 1.1.1 Grammaticalization from diVerent perspectives 1.1.2 The notion of futurity 1.1.3 Auxiliary verbs and ‘‘periphrasis’’ 1.2 Main aims of the study 1.3 Corpus: problems and methodology 1.4 The structure of the book 2 Classical Greek (5th–3rd c. bc): the origins Introduction 2.1 ººø =  ‚ºº + InWnitive: future-referring AVC (?) 2.2  ‚åø = ¯r å + InWnitive: possession and ability 2.3 (¯ )Łºø + InWnitive: future-referring alternative? 2.4 Classical Greek: a summary 3 Hellenistic–Roman Greek (3rd c. bc–4th c. ad): proliferation of AVCs Introduction 3.1 ººø =  ‚ºº + InWnitive: relative stability 3.2  ‚åø = ¯rå + InWnitive: from ability to futurity 3.3 ( E)Łºø + InWnitive: volition, futurity, and new developments 3.4 Conclusions: the interaction of three AVCs 4 Early Medieval Greek (5th–10th c. ad): the misty transition Introduction 4.1 ººø + InWnitive: apparent stability 4.2  ‚åø + InWnitive: the dominant AVC vii ix xi xiii 1 2 2 8 11 13 14 18 19 19 20 33 38 45 46 46 47 60 73 84 87 87 88 94 vi Contents 4.3 ¨ºø + InWnitive: remaining under shadow 4.4 Conclusions: FCs and registers 5 Late Medieval Greek (11th–15th c. ad): the dominance of a single AVC Introduction: texts and methodology 5.1 High registers and specialization: the case of ººø=ºº 5.1.1 The early stages 5.1.2 The later stages 5.1.3 Conclusions: the status of ººø 5.2  ‚åø + InWnitive / subordinate clause: future-reference and modality 5.2.1 The early stages 5.2.2 The later stages 5.2.3 ‘‘˝ åø + InWnitive’’: new evidence and a new interpretation 5.2.4 Conclusions: åø AVC and futurity 5.3 ¯r åÆ + InWnitive: modality and pluperfect 5.4 The case of Łºø: untangling the evidence of dominance 5.4.1 The early stages 5.4.2 The later stages 5.4.3 The emergence of ‘‘Ł  ’’: phonological reduction and language contact 5.4.4 Summary: the story of Łºø 5.5  „ŁºÆ + InWnitive / clause: conditionals and volition 5.6 Conclusions: future reference in LMG 6 Conclusions 6.1 Methodology of historical linguistic investigations 6.2 Theoretical implications: typological predictions and frameworks 6.3 Three answers—and some further questions Appendix: Abbreviations of texts Bibliography Primary sources Secondary sources Name Index Subject Index 104 113 115 115 121 121 124 136 140 140 145 149 155 156 164 165 173 186 208 209 223 225 225 229 232 234 243 243 271 283 286 Abbreviations (see Appendix for text abbreviations) ACC Accusative adv adverb AG Ancient Greek AOR Aorist (Perfective Past) AVC Auxiliary Verb construction cl clitic co-ref co-reference disj disjoint reference EMG Early Medieval Greek FC Future-referring construction FUT Future GEN Genitive H–RG Hellenistic–Roman Greek IMP Imperative IMPER Imperfective IND Indicative INF InWnitive LMG Late Medieval Greek NOM Nominative OCS Old Church Slavonic OPT Optative OV Object-Verb PASS Passive PCIPLE Participle PER Perfective viii Abbreviations PERF Perfect PERS Person PL Plural PLUPERF Pluperfect prep preposition PRES Present PRET Preterite (Imperfective Past) prt particle rel relative SING Singular SUBJ Subjunctive TAM Tense-Aspect-Modality V Verb VO Verb-Object List of Tables 2.1 The paradigm of 3rd person singular of º ø (¼undo, dissolve) in AG 20 2.2 Token frequency of the forms of future-referring ººø 23 2.3 Linear order of ººø + InWnitive 27 2.4 Linear order of volitional ðKÞŁºø + InWnitive 28 2.5 Type of inWnitival complement of ººø 28 2.6 Aspectual readings of ººø AVC 30 2.7 ð ¯ÞŁºø + InWnitive in AG 41 3.1 Forms of ººø in H–R times (non-papyri) 48 3.2 Forms of ººø in H–R times (papyri) 49 3.3 Linear order of ººø + Inf. in H–R times (non-papyri) 52 3.4 Linear order of ººø + Inf. in H–R times (papyri) 52 3.5 Type of inWnitival complement of ººø (non-papyri) 53 3.6 Type of inWnitival complement of ººø (papyri) 53 3.7 Pattern of complementation for Kº Çø (non-papyri) 56 3.8 Pattern of complementation for Kº Çø (papyri) 56 3.9  ‚åø AVC in the H–R period (non-papyri) 63 3.10  ‚åø AVC in the H–R period (papyri) 67 3.11 Volitional ðKÞŁºø in the H–R period (non-papyri) 74 3.12 Volitional ðKÞŁºø in the H–R period (papyri) 76 3.13 The ðKÞŁºø AVC in the H–R period 83 3.14 Properties of AVCs in H–R Greek 85 4.1 InWnitival complementation of ººø (non-papyri) 90 4.2 InWnitival complementation of ººø (papyri) 90 4.3 Complementation of Kº Çø (papyri) 93 4.4 Complementation of Kº Çø (non-papyri) 93 4.5  ‚åø + InWnitive in EMG 101 4.6 ¯rå + InWnitive in EMG 103 4.7 Complementation of volitional Łºø in EMG 104 4.8 ¨ºø AVC in EMG 111 x List of Tables 5.1 ººø in 14th-c. literary texts 126 5.2 ººø in 15th-c. literary texts 132 5.3 The åø AVC in 14th-c. literary texts 146 5.4 ‘‘˝ åø + InWnitive’’ construction in 14th-c. literary texts 150 5.5 The råÆ AVC in 14th-c. literary texts 159 5.6 ¨ºø + InWnitive in 14th-c. literary texts 175 5.7 ¨ºø + Finite complementation in 14th-c. literary texts 175 5.8 The XŁºÆ AVC in 14th-c. literary texts 213 List of Figures 2.1 Aspect and InWnitive in the ººø AVC 31 3.1 Token frequency of the forms of ººø 49 3.2 Adjacency in ººø AVC 52 3.3 Development of Inf. complementation of ººø AVC 54 3.4 Ability / possibility and futurity 69 4.1 Token frequency of future reference in the åø AVC 101 4.2 ¨ºø complementation 105 5.1 The complementation of ººø AVC 134 5.2 Token frequency of FCs in LMG (14th c.) 174 5.3 The sequence of developments of the Łºø AVC 209 This page intentionally left blank Preface This book is a revised and extended version of my Ph.D. dissertation, submitted to and approved by the University of Cambridge (July 2006). A lot of people have contributed to the Wnal shaping of my ideas in one way or another. First of all, I am profoundly grateful to my Ph.D. supervisor, GeoVrey Horrocks, who, with his great knowledge and enquiring mind, has been a great source of inspiration, help, and encouragement. I would also like to thank Peter Mackridge, Torsten Meissner, and two anonymous reviewers, for providing me with detailed comments on the contents of the thesis, which have proven to be particularly helpful. Although they may not wholly agree with what is written here, they have greatly contributed to a better understanding and treatment of the issues discussed in the book. A very warm ‘‘thank you’’ goes to David Holton, for all his support during my stay in Cambridge, Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, for showing great conWdence in me, Tina Lentari, for all her help and especially for showing me why manuscripts are better than editions, Amalia Moser, for encouraging me to study in Cambridge, and AmWlochios Papathomas, for getting me acquainted with the various electronic sources of the papyri. For various comments and discussions, I would like to thank Dora Alexopoulou, Napoleon Katsos, Ian Roberts, Anna Roussou, and Christina Sevdali. I would also like to thank Theocharis Detorakis, Giannis Mavromatis, Stavros Skopeteas, and Marina TerkouraW for helping me assemble a greater amount of material. I have also greatly beneWted from comments I received from the audiences of the 6th, 7th, and 8th International Conferences in Greek Linguistics, the Linguistics seminar of the Faculty of Classics (University of Cambridge), and the Modern Greek seminar of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages (University of Cambridge), whom I would like to thank here. Finally, a warm ‘‘thanks’’ should go to the staV of the Research Centre of the History of Greek Law (Academy of Athens), as well as to the staV of the Benaki Museum Library (Athens), for letting me consult their archives. I would also like to thank all the academic staV (including Ph.D. students) at the Greek section of the Department of Linguistics and Philology, University of Uppsala, where the book took its Wnal shape, for their warm support and encouragement from the Wrst moment of my arrival in Sweden. Particularly, I would like to express my gratitude to Ingela Nilsson, for all her help, Jan Olof Rosenqvist, for his excellent co-operation, and Eva Nystro¨m, for her xiv Preface warm welcome to Uppsala. Finally, many thanks are also due to Johan Heldt, for his crucial technical support when needed. A special thanks should go to John Davey and Chloe Plummer from Oxford University Press, for their constant encouragement and support through all the stages of publication of the book. This research has been Wnancially supported by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation, the Onassis Foundation, the Cambridge European Trust, Trinity College, the Faculty of Classics (University of Cambridge), and a STINT scholarship. I would like to thank my friend, Michalis Kalamaras, who, throughout the years, has helped me shape my ideas about language and society. I would also like to thank all my friends in Cambridge, and especially Napoleon Katsos, Marios Mavrogiorgos, and Christina Sevdali for bearing with me on an everyday basis, and for some beautiful memories. Finally, Vangelis Tolis has always been there when I needed him, and has strengthened my belief in friendship. My parents have always shown me what parental love means. This book is dedicated to them and to my dear brother, Philippos, his wife Maria, and my wonderful niece Nefeli. And to Maria, for being a rose in a winter garden, always. Theodore Markopoulos Uppsala, January 2008 1 Introduction: aims, theory, and method This is an investigation on the development of the notional category ‘‘Future’’ in Greek as manifested in three future-referring ‘‘periphrases’’, mainly from the post-classical (3rd c. bc) to the Late Medieval period (15th c. ad). The diachronic investigation of a grammatical category of Greek, supposedly one of the most studied languages in the world, might seem superXuous at Wrst glance. But this impression is not well grounded, for two reasons: Wrst, because the great majority of the extant investigations belong to the paradigm of ‘‘traditional grammar’’, predating modern linguistic theories, and may thus be found inadequate in various respects; and secondly, because all these studies are not equally distributed along the time axis of Greek: speciWcally, while Classical and Modern Greek (and Hellenistic–Roman Greek to a lesser extent) have attracted the interest of many scholars, Medieval Greek has remained hitherto largely unexplored. The focus of this investigation, the category of Future, constitutes one of the best exempliWcations of these problems. With regard to the extant literature, the only specialized treatment of this grammatical category in the post-classical period (Ba˘nescu, 1915) was written in a strictly philological context, without the help of modern linguistic tools, and at a time when many texts of the Medieval (and also of the Hellenistic) period remained unpublished, thus rendering the corpus quite limited from today’s perspective. Apart from this monograph, there exist two types of relevant studies. On the one hand we have historical grammars of Greek (e.g. Jannaris, 1897, Schwyzer, 1950–71, Horrocks, 1997, among others), which contain various comments on the development of future-referring constructions, but their necessarily broad character does not allow them to go into much detail: to these we may add investigations of speciWc periods of Greek (e.g. Browning, 1983 for Medieval Greek and Christidis, 2007 for Classical and Hellenistic Greek), which again are of a similar character to the grammars of broader scope. On the other hand, there are also investigations of speciWc future-referring constructions (e.g. Magnien, 1912 for the ancient 2 The Future in Greek synthetic Future Tense and Joseph & Pappas, 2002 for the Łºø ‘‘periphrasis’’), though these are still quite scarce and usually do not attempt to incorporate their analysis in the wider picture of the ‘‘system’’ of future reference for any particular period. As can be seen, the research undertaken hitherto regarding the category ‘‘Future’’ in Greek leaves a lot to be desired. This book aims Wrst and foremost to eliminate these gaps in our understanding of the development of this grammatical category in Greek, investigating speciWcally those periods that are least known and well studied, i.e. the Hellenistic–Roman and the Medieval period. In order to understand the origin of the state of aVairs obtaining in the Hellenistic–Roman period, the classical period (5th–4th c. bc) will also be brieXy investigated. The current examination focuses on the three major future-referring ‘‘periphrastic constructions’’ that emerged and / or were established in these periods, namely ‘ººø / åø / ðKÞŁºø + InWnitive / complement clause’. Before presenting the main issues addressed in the book, however, the theoretical framework of this investigation will be Wrst discussed, followed by some considerations related to the notion of futurity and to the status of the term ‘‘periphrasis’’. 1.1 Theoretical preliminaries 1.1.1 Grammaticalization from diVerent perspectives The emergence of new future-referring constructions (FCs) out of lexical verbs, typically conveying notions such as volition, movement or obligation (e.g. Bybee & Pagliuca, 1987: 109), is commonly regarded as a prototypical case of grammaticalization, i.e. of a process through which formerly lexical elements acquire a grammatical meaning or elements of an already partly grammatical character become even more grammatical. Even though the Wrst deWnition of grammaticalization as a distinct process can be traced back not only to Meillet (1912), as is commonly assumed to be the case, but also to the leading Neogrammarian Paul (cf. Itkonen, 2005: 109–10), it is in the last two decades that it has attracted most interest, especially from scholars working in a functional–typological perspective (cf. for example, Lehmann, 1995, Hopper & Traugott, 1993, 2003, Haspelmath, 1999b, and Heine, 2003), though not exclusively, as we shall see below. Recently, there has been criticism of the assumption that grammaticalization constitutes a theory of language change in its own right (cf. for example, the collection of papers in Campbell, 2001), even though Traugott (1999) and Heine (2003) correctly point out that the term ‘‘theory’’ has seldom been used by those actually working on grammaticalization. This investigation of the developments of the Greek FCs is phrased in terms of the Introduction 3 functional–typological perspective of grammaticalization, which is considered to be a type of process rather than a theory sensu stricto. This process does not aVect lexical elements but rather constructions: for instance, it would be meaningless to say that the English verb ‘‘have’’ is grammaticalized, without specifying the context of grammaticalization, since ‘‘have’’ can convey diVerent meanings depending on its complement and the construction it is found in (e.g. ‘‘I have to go’’ ¼ obligation, ‘‘I have gone’’ ¼ perfect). In other words, it has been correctly stressed that grammaticalization can only occur in a speciWc context involving a string of lexical elements, a construction, and not isolated lexical elements (cf., for example, Fischer, 2007: 59). In this investigation, any mention of grammaticalized elements should be taken to mean elements participating in a grammaticalized construction. Even the assumption of grammaticalization as a distinct process rather than a theory has not remained impervious to criticism, since it has been argued (cf., for example, Joseph, 2001a, 2004) that all phenomena usually considered as instances of such a process can be analyzed and well understood without it. But there are two reasons why this criticism is probably exaggerated. First, the great majority of cases of grammaticalization involve the cooccurrence of diVerent phenomena across grammatical levels (semantic ‘‘bleaching’’, phonological erosion, syntactic irregularities), a fact that was emphasized by Lehmann (1995) and has hitherto remained largely undisputed, although there exist obviously instances where the correlation between the diVerent types of change is not fully observed. Since this combination of phenomena is, to my knowledge, peculiar to grammaticalization, it is only reasonable to assume that grammaticalization constitutes a distinct process rather than an epiphenomenon, crucially combining together convergent developments at diVerent levels of grammar. Secondly, grammaticalization studies (e.g. Heine, 1993, Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca, 1994, Kuteva, 2001, Heine & Kuteva, 2002) have shown that the constructions that are Wnally grammaticalized belong to speciWc cognitive domains and follow distinct cognitive paths: for instance, verbs denoting movement to a place can come to denote movement towards a more abstract goal, and subsequently become future-referring forms. Importantly, this type of investigation accounts for the repetitive patterns of change observed in the languages of the world, manifested by the grammaticalization of similar elements (semantically speaking) time and again. Without this notion of cognitive paths and cognitive sources of change, we would be at a loss to explain the repetition of speciWc patterns of language change. Arguably, such a systematic account is preferable to the one appealing to randomness. 4 The Future in Greek This investigation follows largely the ‘‘(conceptual) transfer – context’’ (Heine, 2003: 586–8) or ‘‘metonymic-metaphorical’’ model of grammaticalization (Heine, Claudi & Hu¨nnemeyer, 1991: 13), according to which both the cognitive sources and the speciWc linguistic context constitute integral parts of one and the same overall process. In other words, without ignoring the importance of speciWc cognitive sources for subsequent developments (notably, the ‘‘metaphorical transfer’’ to a diVerent cognitive domain), the equally important role of speciWc contexts in order for certain changes to take place in the diachrony of the FCs will also be highlighted (cf., for example, Traugott & Dasher, 2002 for a recent application of this model). However, this will be coupled with careful attention to the particulars of the ‘‘grammatical systems’’ associated with the FCs, that is to the formal (but not necessarily formalized) properties of the FCs in question. This is in accordance with Fischer’s (2007: 82) plea for historical linguists to ‘‘give equal weight to form and function’’. So, the current investigation intends to underline all diVerent factors (semantic, pragmatic / contextual, functional, formal and sociolinguistic, cf. further below) that might be at play at the diachronic development of the FCs. It has been widely documented that, despite all possible facilitating factors, grammaticalization might not occur or, to be more precise, there is no predictability concerning the occurrence and the Wnal outcome of any grammaticalization process; what can be more or less predicted is the development of the construction being grammaticalized and its passing through various, largely predictable, stages (cf. Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca, 1994). The lack of predictability might seem a drawback for a framework seeking to account for language change; but I would argue that this is not so, basically because speakers change their language, and the outcome of the actions of rational agents cannot be predicted in any absolute way. This has been already argued for language change (cf. mainly Itkonen, 1983, 2005). One cannot predict what will happen but only explain what happened a posteriori. Therefore, no theory should aim to predict language change but simply provide an understanding of the mechanisms used by speakers to shape their language and point out the main tendencies observed in language change. There are two main assumptions associated with the study of grammaticalization: the unidirectionality and the gradualness of grammatical change. The former implies that a lexical element that is being grammaticalized cannot become again an independent element; this alleged property has sparked great controversy (cf., for example, Janda, 2001 for criticism and counter-examples) and, even though it seems that it cannot be taken as an absolute, it nevertheless represents a very strong Introduction 5 tendency, as even the strongest critics of grammaticalization admit (cf., for example, Newmeyer, 2001: 213). Unidirectionality partly refutes the ‘‘no-prediction’’ principle mentioned above, but only regarding the stages of development, not its occurrence or its outcome, as clariWed. Actually, functionalists should feel more at ease knowing that unidirectionality represents a tendency instead of an absolute principle, since this complies well with the overall preference of tendencies instead of absolutes (cf., for example, Dryer, 1998). As to what constrains the availability of ‘de-grammaticalization’, no consensus exists. A possible suggestion would be to look into the often neglected factor of phonological erosion. It looks only plausible that elements participating in a grammaticalized construction can be put to uses ‘‘less grammatical’’ only if they are not so phonologically eroded as to have lost their paradigmatic association with fully articulated elements. Obviously, further research is required before we have any concrete results on the issue. Regarding the gradualness of change, this has been denied mainly by scholars working in the generative framework (cf., for example, Lightfoot, 1999), who favor a theory of catastrophic change. According to the generative view, change in a speaker’s grammar can only take place instantaneously, while the diVusion of the change in the whole population of the language is gradual. This follows from the view of language as an internal ‘‘organ’’ of the individual, and not as a means of communication or anything similar of a collective nature. This continuing debate cannot be evaluated here: suYce it to say that I do not subscribe to the catastrophic view of language change and to the generative diachronic investigation in general, for reasons stated further below. For this investigation, gradualness is a property of language change evident in the diachrony of all FCs. Both properties (unidirectionality and gradualness) are implemented in the notion of a ‘‘cline’’, i.e. the pathway of change that the various lexical elements follow. In the case of the verbal domain, the ‘‘Verb-to-aYx’’ cline is of the following form (Hopper & Traugott, 1993: 108): Full verb > Auxiliary Verb > Clitic > AYx. According to what has been said above, it follows that a cline does not imply that all verbs starting to follow this pathway will necessarily reach the end and become aYxes but simply how the process will continue to develop, if it develops. The passing from one stage to another is manifested in a variety of parameters related to the semantic, pragmatic, morphosyntactic as well as phonological properties of the elements involved. Not all practitioners of grammaticalization framework are in agreement over the exact nature of these parameters, but according to a recent formulation (Heine & Kuteva, 2005: 15) they should look like the following:

Author Theodore Markopoulos Isbn 9780199539857 File size 1MB Year 2009 Pages 288 Language English File format PDF Category Culture Book Description: FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrDiggMySpaceShare The future has exercised students of Modern Greek language developments for many years, and no satisfactory set of arguments for the development of the modern form from the ancient usages has ever been produced. Theodore Markopoulos elucidates the stages that led up to the appearance of the modern future in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. He does so by focussing on the three main modes of future referencing (‘mello’, ‘echo’, and ‘thelo’). He discusses these patterns in the classical and Hellenistic-Roman periods, the early medieval period (fifth to tenth centuries), and the late medieval period (eleventh to fifteenth centuries). The argument is supported by reference to a large and representative corpus of texts (all translated into English) from which the author draws many examples. In his conclusion Dr Markopoulos considers the implications of his findings and methodology for syntactic and semantic history of Greek.     Download (1MB) Theodoret of Cyrus Modern European Tragedy : Exploring Crucial Plays A Student Handbook of Greek and English Grammar Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics The Ancient World Load more posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *