Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T11:20:44.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MODAL PARTICLE IN GREEK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2016

Stephen Colvin
Stephen Colvin*
Affiliation:
University College, London
*
*E-mail: s.colvin@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five forms of the modal particle are attested in ancient Greek (ἄν, κε, κεν, κᾱ, and κ’). This article argues that ἄν is an inherited particle, and that the k-forms were the result of reanalysis of prevocalic οὐκ and εἰκ (i.e. εἰκ was reanalysed as εἰ κ’), supported by the vestiges of an old topicalising/conditional force of the IE particle *kwe (which appears elsewhere in Greek as connective τε). The attested forms in Greek grew out of *kwe in contexts where an adjacent u caused the labiovelar *kw > k (West Greek κᾱ was influenced by indefinite *kwā). The form κεν is a creation of epic diction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Classical Journal , Volume 62 , December 2016 , pp. 65 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016. Published by Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Cited

Ashby, W. J. (1981) ‘The loss of the negative particle ne in French: a syntactic change in progress’, Language 57.3, 674–87.Google Scholar
Bérard, V. (1933) Homère: L'Odyssée, Chants i–vii, Paris: Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Bers, V. (1984) Greek poetic syntax in the classical age, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Bertocchi, A. and Maraldi, M. (2011) ‘Conditionals and concessives’, in Baldi, P. and Cuzzolin, P. (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Volume iv, Berlin, 93–194.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic constraints on relevance, Oxford.Google Scholar
Brixhe, C. (2006) ‘Remarques sur les origines “éoliennes” du dialecte béotien’, in Brixhe, C. and Vottéro, G. (eds.), Peuplements et genèses dialectales dans la Grèce antique, Nancy.Google Scholar
Buck, C. D. (1955) The Greek dialects, 2nd edn, Chicago.Google Scholar
Chadwick, J. (1956) ‘The Greek dialects and Greek prehistory’, G&R 3, 38–50.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1953) Grammaire homerique. Volume ii, Paris.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1973) Review of Ruijgh (1971), Revue de Philologie 47, 319–23.Google Scholar
Clark, B. (1993) ‘Relevance and “pseudo-imperatives”’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 79–121.Google Scholar
Collinge, N. E. (1985) The laws of Indo-European, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, S. C. (1999) Dialect in Aristophanes, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cowgill, W. (1960) ‘Greek οὐ and Armenian oc ’, Language 36, 347–50.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. (1997) ‘Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination’, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 195–218.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1957) ‘Aristophanes 1938–1955’, Lustrum 2, 52–112.Google Scholar
Dubois, L. (1986) Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, 3 vols., Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Dunkel, G. E. (1990) ‘Jacob Wackernagel und die idg. Partikeln *só, *ke, *kem und *an ’, in Eichner, H. and Rix, H. (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, Wiesbaden, 100–30.Google Scholar
Engelmann, H. (1976) Die Inschriften von Kyme, Bonn.Google Scholar
Forbes, K. (1958) ‘The relations of the particle ἄν with κε(ν), κα, καν’, Glotta 37, 179–82.Google Scholar
Gallavotti, C. (1992) ‘La congiunzione εἰκ da Empedocle a Callimaco e il nesso ΕΙΚ ΑΝ in Arcadia’, Helikon 32, v–xlvii.Google Scholar
García-Ramón, J.-L. (1975) Les origines postmycéniennes du groupe dialectal éolien (Suppl. Minos 6), Salamanca.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. (2006) ‘Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: phylogeny and chronology’, in Forster, P. and Renfrew, C. (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, Cambridge, 139–51.Google Scholar
Gerö, E.-C. (2000) ‘The usage of ἄν and κε in Ancient Greek: towards a unified description’, Glotta 76, 177–91.Google Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. L. (1882) ‘Studies in Pindaric Syntax i: The Conditional Sentence in Pindar’, AJPh 3, 434–55.Google Scholar
Gonda, J. (1954) ‘The history and original function of the Indo-European particle k u e, especially in Greek and Latin’, Mnemosyne (4th ser.) 7, 177–214.Google Scholar
Gonda, J. (1975) Review of Ruijgh (1971), Mnemosyne 28, 299–301.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. W. (1875) Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb, Boston.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. (1952) Theocritus, 2nd edn, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1978) ‘Conditionals are topics’, Language 54.3, 564–89.Google Scholar
Hajnal, I. (2004) ‘e-ke-qe oder e-ke? – Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in den mykenischen Palastarchiven’, in Krisch, T. et al. (eds.), Analecta homini universali dicata: Festschrift O. Panagl, Stuttgart, 233–51.Google Scholar
Heisserer, A. J. and Hodot, R. (1986) ‘The Mytilenean decree on concord’, ZPE 63, 109–28.Google Scholar
Hodot, R. (1990) Le dialecte éolien d'Asie: la langue des inscriptions, viie s. a.C.–ive p.C., Paris.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. (1997) The laws of the Hittites, Leiden.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. (2006), ‘Studies in the Hittite particles ii: On some uses of -KAN’, in Carruba, O. (ed.), Per una grammatica ittita, Pavia, 137–52.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A. and Melchert, H. C. (2008) A grammar of the Hittite language. Part i: Reference grammar, Winona Lake, IN.Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. (1996) ‘On condition …: aspect and modality in the history of Greek’, PCPS 41, 153–73.Google Scholar
Jamison, S. W. and Brereton, J. P. (2014) The Rigveda: the earliest religious poetry of India, Oxford.Google Scholar
Janko, R. (1994) The Iliad: a commentary. Volume iv, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jones, B. (2012) ‘Relative chronology and an “Aeolic phase” of epic’, in Andersen, Ø. and Haug, D. (eds.), Relative chronology in early Greek epic poetry, Cambridge, 44–64.Google Scholar
Klein, J. S. and Condon, N. L. (1993) ‘Gothic -u(h): a synchronic and comparative study’, TPhS 91, 1–62.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J. N. (1967) ‘The modal particles an, ke(n), ka ’, AJPh 88, 45–56.Google Scholar
Leumann, M. (1950) Homerische Wörter, Basel.Google Scholar
Lillo, A. (1993) ‘El uso de τε épico y su relación con la partícula modal’, in Crespo, E. et al. (eds.), Dialectologica Graeca, Madrid, 209–20.Google Scholar
Molinos Tejada, M. T. (1992) ‘La particule κα dans la littérature dorienne’, REG 105, 328–48.Google Scholar
Monro, D. B. (1891) A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, Oxford.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, A. (1977) Review of Ruijgh (1971), CR 27, 55–9.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, A. (1992), ‘Mycenaean, Arcadian, Cyprian and some questions of method in dialectology’, in Olivier, J.-P. (ed.), Mykenaika (BCH suppl. 25), Paris, 415–32.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. (2014) ‘Two new poems by Sappho’, ZPE 189, 32–49.Google Scholar
Palaima, T. G. (2000) ‘Θέμις in the Mycenaean lexicon’, Faventia 22, 7–19.Google Scholar
Palmer, L. R. (1980) The Greek language, London.Google Scholar
Parry, M. (1932) ‘Studies in the epic technique of oral verse-making ii: The Homeric language as the language of an oral poetry’, HSCP 43, 1–50. Repr. in Parry, A. (ed.), The making of Homeric verse: the collected papers of Milman Parry, Oxford (1971), 325–64.Google Scholar
Patri, S. (2003) ‘La syntaxe de *-k w e «si, et» en novgorodien et en vieux slave, topicalisation et connectivité’, IF 108, 279–304.Google Scholar
Pokorny, J. (1959) Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern.Google Scholar
Risch, E. (1955) ‘Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht’, MH 12, 61–76. Repr. in Kleine Schriften, Berlin (1981), 222–35.Google Scholar
Ruijgh, C. J. (1971) Autour de ‘TE épique’, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ruijgh, C. J. (2011), ‘Mycenaean and Homeric language’, in Duhoux, Y. and Davies, A. Morpurgo (eds.), A companion to Linear B, Louvain, ii.253–98.Google Scholar
Ruipérez, M. S. (1987) ‘Subjunctive forms in Mycenaean texts’, in Ilievski, P. and Crepajac, L. (eds.), Tractata Mycenaea, Skopje, 323–31.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. (1908) ‘Ein dorisches Komödienbruchstück’, RhM 63, 329–40.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. H. (1990) Lysistrata: edited with translation and notes, Warminster.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, O. (1985) ‘The syntax, meaning and origin of the Indo-European particle *kwe ’, in Fs. H. Gipper, Baden Baden, ii.247–75. Repr. in Scripta minora (ed. Considine, P. and Hooker, J. T.). Volume i, Innsbruck, 1987, 365–95.Google Scholar
Threatte, L. (1980) The grammar of Attic Inscriptions i: Phonology, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ventris, M. and Chadwick, J. (1956) Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Von der Mühll, P. (1984) Homeri Odyssea, 3rd edn, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Voskos, I. and Knapp, A. B. (2008) ‘Cyprus at the end of the Late Bronze Age: crisis and colonization or continuity and hybridization?’, AJA 112, 659–84.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. (1926) Vorlesungen über Syntax. Volume i, 2nd edn, Basel.Google Scholar
West, M. L. (1973) ‘Greek poetry 2000–700 BC’, CQ 23, 179–92.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (1993) ‘Linguistic form and relevance’, Lingua 90, 1–25.Google Scholar