Don Ringe’s “The Linguistic roots of Ancient Greek” is a useful handbook of the major developments of Greek from its ancestor language Proto-Indo-European (PIE) down to roughly the 5th c. BCE. It puts special emphasis on the relative chronology of changes in phonology and morphology and in many cases aims at giving complete sets of pertinent cases for a specific phenomenon (e.g., on p. 120f. a list all certain cases of the development of labiovelar + /i̯/), similar to the author’s treatment of Germanic in From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (2nd ed. 2017). This is a welcome difference from many other treatments in the field of historical linguistics where claims about the frequency and token-type relationship of a certain phenomenon are often left unsubstantiated and behind an “etc.” there might lurk only two other instances or two hundred or two thousand. Beyond this general approach, there is a yet closer connection to Ringe’s book on Germanic in the chapter laying out the basic features of PIE (ch. 2, comprising 83 pages) which is in principle identical with chapter 2 of Ringe 2017, with some changes due to recent research; so readers of Ringe (2017) might rather refer to Ringe (2024) from now on.
The following chapters treat the most important phonological developments of Proto-Greek (ch. 3, pp. 88-172), its inflectional morphology (ch. 4, pp. 173-261), the initial diversification of Greek dialects and the question of their subgrouping (ch. 5, pp. 262-294), specific features of Attic-Ionic (ch. 6, 300-311), late innovations shared across most of the Greek dialect continuum (ch. 7, 312-327), features of Greek syntax (ch. 8, 328-335), and lexicon (ch. 9, including remarks on derivational morphology, pp. 336-342), followed by a bibliography (pp. 343-360) and detailed indices (Greek, PIE, and other languages, pp. 343-403). Thus the main focus is put on the developments in Proto-Greek (180 pages) as against the internal history of the Greek dialects (80 pages) and the ancestor language PIE (80 pages). As the author states in the introduction, the book is not intended to be a comparative and historical grammar of Greek, but a book parallel to his work on Germanic (Ringe 2017), tracing the development of Ancient Greek and attempting “to figure out which changes happened when.” The targeted readership are, according to Ringe, “colleagues, students, and interested amateurs who have learned at least some Greek and internalized the basic concepts of linguistics.” (p. 1). The book does indeed require a certain knowledge both of general linguistic terminology, Indo-European studies and Greek philology. Greek is not transliterated, and the book deviates from standard Greek orthography in spelling the “spurious diphthongs” (the results of the contraction of two e’s/o’s) with epsilon / omikron and circumflex accent, which is consistent in itself, but might confuse some readers at first when seeing forms like p. 89 “Att. ὀστο̃ν” instead of ὀστοῦν. Another deviation from what one finds in most other handbooks is that the augment is written as a separate word in reconstructed forms, e.g. p. 91 “*é h1ludhed” ‘(s)he came’, based on the idea that this was originally an independent evidential marker; accordingly, reconstructed imperfects are translated as “it is said that [x was the case]”, e.g. p. 91 “PIE *é h2aǵed ‘it is said that (s)he was leading/driving (Skt ājat ‘(s)he drove’).” As for Indo-European, in many instances only reconstructed forms are given (e.g. p. 9 *ḱenk– and *ku̯eḱ-, p. 12 with a list of PIE roots possibly containing the root vowel /a/), but not the data that these reconstructions are based on, and hence it might prove difficult for non-specialists to follow the argumentation without the help of further literature such as LIV², NIL, etc.). Being intended as a handbook, there is usually no discussion of alternative views on specific phenomena, and the reader must be aware that there is a filter here, as announced at the beginning (p. 2): “Conclusions that are almost universally accepted in the field … have not been referenced. Since this is intended to be a handbook, I have often omitted discussion of alternative opinions; in particular, arguments based on etymologies which I do not accept have mostly been passed over in silence.” Maybe it would have been useful to add a section “further reading” at the end of each chapter in order to give interested readers some indications of further discussions around problematic phenomena and different explanations; e.g. in the exposition of the PIE phonological system and the reconstruction of palatals, velars and labiovelars, R. writes (p. 8) “That PIE possessed stops of all three types is no longer controversial.” followed by a reference to C. Melchert’s papers on the representation of these stop in Luwian (before front vowels, cf. Melchert 1987, 2012). It might be useful for readers to get an idea of the preceding discussion in the field, when just one, or two series were proposed, e.g. by reference to Clackson’s introduction [Clackson 2007: 49–53], and earlier studies like Meillet 1894 and Lubotsky 2001 (cf. also Kölligan 2023). Similarly, regarding the question of the representation of laryngeals in word-initial position before resonants, the presentation of Rix’ Law (#h1/2/3RC- > #e/a/oRC-, cf. Rix 1970) on pp. 96–99 does not include the more recent discussion about whether it operated before nasals – Rix himself withdrew this idea based on the (doubtful) equation Lat. ēnsis ‘sword’ : Palaic ḫašira– ‘dagger’ — , cf. Nikolaev (2005, 2007); and while it may not be communis opinio, the idea of “laryngeal breaking” in Greek does have a number of adherents and might have been worth a note or reference to point interested readers to this discussion (ch. 3.2.3, cf. e.g. Olsen 2009). On the other hand, the reduction to the author’s views provides a consistent picture of the development of Greek, with only few points of hesitation as e.g. in the case of the development of initial *r-: on p. 109 ῥίμφα ‘lightly, swiftly’ is mentioned as possible cognate of OHG ringi ‘slight’, PIE *ringu̯h–, which would show that there is no prothetic vowel before *r– in Greek, while p. 110 fn. 12 it is suggested for ἐρέφω, ὄροφος that “this root might have begun with *r-, in which case the initial vowels would be prothetic.” There are few statements that one might find too short to represent the facts adequately, e.g., when on p. 113 it is said that syllabic *m̥ and *n̥ in Mycenaean “is variably written a and o word-finally after m” (as in pe-mo, pe-ma, cf. Alphabetic Greek σπέρμα), where one might add the case of a-re-pa-zo-o /aleiphadzohos/ beside a-re-po-zo-o /aleiphodzohos/ (cf. a-re-pa-te /aleiphatei/ < *-n̥t-; cf. Docs3 237) or p. 146 where regarding remnants of word-final stops beside Lesb. ὄττι ‘whatever’ < *i̯od-ku̯id one might also mention τίπτε = Lat. quippe from *ku̯id-pe. Quite short is also the remark on p. 181 about /h/ in ἁμαρτάνω from the root *h2mert– explained as having /h/ “apparently […] by lexical analogy” but the source remains unclear. On p. 242 in the discussion of Greek γυνή, γυναικός the cognate Phrygian and Armenian forms could have been mentioned (Phryg. ACC κναικαν, GEN κναικο[ς], Arm. kin, pl. kan-ay-k‘ etc.), and some more comment would have been welcome for the reconstruction of the imperatives θές, δός as *θεθj, *δόθj, apparently as sandhi-variants of *θέθι, δόθι before vowels. While this is the standard explanation for πρός from *proti̯, one wonders if these imperatives were proclitics or why the antevocalic position would have been generalized. With regard to Myc. qa-si-re-u (p. 249/250) the explanation as “the title of a subordinate ruler” gives a slightly misleading impression (cf. also p. 337: “baron or the like”), cf. Docs3 1019 “‘chief’, used of local headmen, some and perhaps all in charge of workgroups, not sovereign.” In the discussion of the personal pronouns p. 259 the reconstruction of 1SG.ACC as *eme/me (also p. 74/75) is perhaps not the solution all scholars would agree on. Personally, the reviewer would rather assume the spread of e– from the NOM *(h1)ég(o)h2 through the paradigm as it happens in later Greek also in the other persons (σύ → ἐσύ etc.). In the Swadesh list of the Greek lexicon (pp. 338-342) cross-references might have been useful, e.g., on ἀποθνήσκω ‘die’ which is listed among the forms with uncertain etymology, but which occurs in many passages in the book where a connection with PIE *dhenh2– ‘run away’ is mentioned (in the index ἀποθνήισκει refers to p. 341 only, under θνᾱσκ/θνησκ/θνεισκ- reference is made to 12 passages in the book). At the end (p. 342) there is a short mention of substrate words in Greek, and here, too, some references to other works might have been useful (cf. e.g. Kölligan/Dieu 2023). A number of sections present useful summaries of recent research, e.g., that of Barber (2013) on Siever’s Law in Greek (pp. 153-157), of Kostopoulos (2022[2023]) on the development of the clusters *t(h)i̯ and *k(h)i̯ (pp. 158-167), and Probert (2006) on Greek accent. The author does not force solutions where the data are not sufficient, e.g., regarding the question of the generalization of /hu-/ (ὑ-) (p. 151–152) or the problem of e-o-metathesis in cases like Myc. re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo beside λούω, θρώσκω, ἔθορε from PIE *dherh3-, etc. (p. 293).
In the bibliography some references refer to earlier editions and it might have been useful to indicate the more recent ones, such as Rix 1992 beside Rix 1976, in addition to Chantraine 1963 and 1973 (Grammaire homérique, vol. II and I [5th ed.] respectively) Chantraine/Casevitz 2013, 2015 and Schmitt 2007 beside Schmitt 1981.[1]
References
Barber, Peter J. 2013. Sievers’ Law and the History of Semivowel Syllabicity in Indo-European and Ancient Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1973/2013. Grammaire Homérique. Tome I: Phonétique et morphologie. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée par Michael Casevitz. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1963/2015. Grammaire Homérique. Tome II: Syntaxe. Nouvelle édition revue et corrigée par Michael Casevitz. Paris: Klincksieck.
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics : an introduction. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kölligan, Daniel. 2023. « ἈKINHTA KAI KEKINHMENA: notes sur les études d’Antoine Meillet sur le grec et l’indo-européen* », Études de lettres 322, 17‑42. https://doi.org/10.4000/edl.6948.
Kölligan, Daniel and Dieu, Éric. 2023. ‘Greek Lexicon and Etymology’. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0398.
Kostopoulos, Georgios. 2022[2023]. “Notes on stop palatalization in Greek.” Revue de philologie 96,1, 159–193.
LIV² = Rix, Helmut. 2001. LIV, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben : die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Lubotsky, Alexander. 2001. “Reflexes of Proto-Indo-European *sk in Indo-Iranian”, Incontri Linguistici 24, 25-57.
Meillet, Antoine. 1894. «De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-européennes», Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 8, 277-304.
Melchert, H. Craig. 1987. “PIE velars in Luvian”, in Watkins, Calvert (ed.). Studies in memory of Warren Cowgill. Berlin: De Gruyter, 182-204.
Melchert, H. Craig. 2012. “Luvo-Lycian Dorsal Stops Revisited”, in Sukač, Roman & Ondřej Šefčík (eds.). The sound of Indo-European 2. Papers on Indoeuropean phonetics, phonemics and morphophonemics. Munich: LINCOM, 206–218.
Nikolaev, Alexander S. 2005. “K dejstviju zakona Riksa v drevnegrečeskom jazyke”, in N. N. Kazanskii & E. R. Kriuchkova (eds.). Hr̥dā́ mánasā: sbornik statei k 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia professora Leonarda Georgievicha Gertsenberga = Hr̥dā́ mánasā: studies presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on the occasion of his 70-birthday. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 38–72.
Nikolaev, Alexander. 2007. ‘The Name of Achilles’,in George, Coulter et al. (eds.). Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective. Cambridge Classical Journal, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 162–173.
NIL = Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger, & Carolin Schneider. 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 2009. “The conditioning of laryngeal breaking in Greek”, in Lühr, Rosemarie & Ziegler, Sabine (eds.). Protolanguage and prehistory: Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Krakau, 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 348–365.
Probert, Philomen. 2006. Ancient Greek accentuation: synchronic patterns, frequency effects, and prehistory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Ringe, Donald A. 2017. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd edition. Oxford ; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rix, Helmut. 1970. “Anlautender Laryngal vor Liquida oder Nasalis sonans im Griechischen”, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 27, 79-110.
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1981. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. 2., Durchges. Aufl. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Notes
[1] There are few typos. P. 7 “Meier-Brugger (2010)” instead of “Meier-Brügger (2010)” as spelt correctly in the bibliography; p. 71 Fn. 67 “*toh1 → *toh1“; p. 112 “stáh3-t” (and further forms in the same paragraph) instead of “steh2-t” etc.; p. 112 “Zῆν-a ‘Zeus'”; p. 143 “εὕν” → “εὕε̄ν”; p. 301: in the inscription of Nikander empty box instead of box with a crossbar; p. 324: wrong reference to “4.2.6 (vi) ” → “4.2.6 (v) “; p. 331: “vr̥ṅdhi” instead of “vr̥ṇdhi”.