[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Language contact in the ancient world has been a popular subject over the past decades, with Greco-Latin bilingualism claiming the lion’s share, although other ancient languages too have gradually come to the forefront, often in relation to Greek and/or Latin. On the other hand, Greek intralinguistic contact phenomena (cross-dialectal interference, leveling, koineization, etc.), have received some scholarly attention as well, though to a lesser extent.[1]
The current volume, the proceedings of a 2021 (online) international conference with the same name, covers both language and dialect contact phenomena –cf. also the aspect of writing– with Greek being in focus in all of them. The volume contains fifteen studies (plus an introduction) –seven in French, seven in English, and one in Spanish– and is divided into three parts of unequal size: 1. Language contact involving Greek and other languages; 2. Diffusion of script and language contact; 3. Dialect contact within Greek.
The short, yet informative introduction by Alcorac Alonso Déniz and Enrique Nieto Izquierdo presents some key issues and lays out the aims of the volume, followed by substantial bibliography.
The first two papers explore language contact on the northern shores of the Aegean. Dan Dana offers an overview of language and cultural contacts in eastern Macedonia, i.e., the area between the Thermaic Gulf and the River Strymon. Dana argues that the Thracian onomastic stock in Macedonia was larger than usually assumed and highlights some problems of the hitherto research, stressing with reason that language, ethnicity and cultural identity have no direct correspondences. Onomastic evidence from the area in question is case in point: inscriptions show that people of the same family can have names of a different linguistic background.
Paloma Guijarro Ruano focuses on the interaction between Greek and Thracian in Aegean Thrace. The author highlights aptly the challenges one is faced with in attempting etymological interpretations or in discussing morpho-/phonological aspects of names in the context of language contact, such as the odd borrowed names of the ΑΠΟΛΟΔΟΡΕ type, which is interpreted by Guijarro Ruano as a case of a borrowed vocativus pro nominativo.
Sophie Minon draws on Dana’s classification of Thracian onomastics in the context of language contact (suffixed names, cover names, [semantic] calques, hybrids), with an aim to offer a useful taxonomy/typology of Greek personal names relating to quasi-homonymous names in other languages: e.g., Iranian names rendered as Greek Ἀρταξέρξης, Μιτροβάτης, Ἁβροκόμης or even names like Lycian Arma ‘(Luwian) lunar god’, which was often related to quasi-homonymous Ἑρμῆς in Greek (cf. also the possible impact of Mysio-Phrygian Ἕρμος).[2]
Florian Réveilhac investigates a similar topic, namely Greek and Lycian ‘cover names’ (Fr. ‘noms d’assonance’ or ‘noms à double entrée’). The author examines in depth ca. 15 ‘cover names’ which he allocates to three distinct categories: common Greek names that relate to Lycian names/stems, e.g., Gk. Ἐρπίς (cf. ἐλπίς ‘hope’) ~ Lyc. stem Hrppid(e)– (cf. Lyc. hrppi– ‘on, for’); local Greek names that appear to correspond to Lycian names/stems, e.g., Gk. Κυδαλίης (cf. κῦδος ‘glory’) ~ Lyc. Xudalijẽ- ‘swift’; pseudo-Greek names like Ὀρνίμυθος and Κτασάδας, which must be acclimatized Lycian names.
In his study, Antoine Viredaz (103-125) discusses three (possible) loanwords in the Doric dialect of Tarentum in S. Italy. Of these, however, only ῥογός ‘granary’, a form resembling Lat. rogus ‘(funeral) pile (of wood)’, is a safe case, apparently borrowed from a language in Sicily or south Italy (‘Siculi’ ?). By contrast, Tarentian Δίς ‘Zeus’ and Messapian zis ‘Jupiter’ are likely to be two independent forms, while νοῦμμος, which is often related to Latin nummus ‘coin, money’, must ultimately go back to νόμος ‘law, custom, usage, etc.’ or the adjective νόμιμος ‘legitimate (sc. money)’, as Andreas Willi has already proposed[3].
Finally, Laura Nastasi examines Greco-Roman bilingualism in Roman Corinth in the form of six inscriptions, five in Greek and one in Latin (probably 2nd c. AD).[4] The focus is on topics pertaining to ‘Roman Greek’ (that is, Greek showing “forms of interference from Latin”[5]): naming formula, clause-final position of the main verbs, placing of τε in an unusual position, and finally, the use of the definite article. The discussion is well-grounded, though the last two points are difficult to demonstrate with certainty.
The second part consists of two papers focusing on the interrelation between script and language contact. Philippa Steele looks into writing variation and linguistic contact in Greece and Cyprus in the first half of the first millennium BCE. The author argues that a reconstructed proto-Greek alphabet in the sense of a linguistic tree model in not feasible, while the relationship between alphabetic variation and dialectal diversity, notably in the form of different phonological inventories is complex: no (e.g., two signs for sibilants), partial (e.g., letter signs depicting aspiration) or close phonological correspondence (e.g., letters depicting the quality of long vowels). Cyprus in particular calls into question the concept of writing standardization while it provides clues about of the possible impact of the Greek alphabet on the Cypriot syllabary, i.e., the letter Χ may have impacted the Cypriot syllabic x- signs.
Julián Méndez Dosuna revisits the different names and respective phonological values of the Greek letter X: chi (/kh/) in the ‘dark blue’ alphabet (or ‘Milesian’ = ‘Euclidian’ (Attic) alphabet) but xi /ks/ in the ‘red’ alphabet (cf. Adolf Kirchhoff’s color-coded taxonomy).[6] The author presents the difficulties arising from the various hitherto phonetic explanations (voice onset delay, airflow turbulence, etc.) and argues for a palaeographic explanation: the letter X derived from the Phoenician samek letter, having initially had a /ks/ value, while the /kh/ value developed later, probably out of ΧΣ clusters through an reinterpretation /kss/ > /kh-s/ (with sigma, or its equivalent san letter considered pleonastic at the former stage). In general, the problem, as the author too concedes, is too complex but the argumentation is overall plausible.
The third part consists of seven papers focusing on dialectal contact in ancient Greece. Lucien van Beek re-examines the origins of the athematic infinitive endings -μεναι and -ν in Lesbian. The author questions established views (e.g., conflation -μεν + -ναι, remodeling -ην > -ν, but also earlier borrowing from Eastern Ionic), and argues for two Proto-Greek endings, *-men (ablauting stems) and *-hen (non-ablauting stems, notably verba vocalia). The argumentation is generally compelling, yet at times somewhat speculative, e.g., Homeric διδοῦναι is analyzed as a conflation (cf. aorist inf. δοῦναι, phrase (δῶρα) διδοῦσιν) rather than a metrically lengthened διδόναι. Van Beek concludes that some Homeric -μεν infinitives are archaisms while others are due to the impact of Ionic. The broader implication is that some features of Lesbian that are usually attributed to contacts with East Ionic must be dated to a time before the migration to Lesbos when ‘pre-Lesbian’ speakers where in contact with South Greek speakers somewhere in central Greece.
The next paper by Olga Tribulato investigates a well-known topic, i.e., the use of -εσσι datives (plural) in Greek, though this time exclusively in the context of Sicilian Doric. Tribulato examines systematically attestations in Sicilian literary and epigraphic texts and concludes that the -εσσι datives are neither imports from mainland Greece nor due to the impact of Syracuse; by contrast, they seem to relate to high-register speech in literature and official prose, but also to possible prosodic effects.[7]
María-Luisa del Barrio Vega looks into the names of two Doric months (in Corinth, Epidaurus, Megara, and their colonies): Πεδα-/Πετα-γείτνιος (-υος) and Βαδρόμιος (cf. Attic Μεταγειτνιών and Βοηδρομιών). The author accepts older views about the possible Attic origin of these Doric names (after 1200 BCE) and suggests that the preposition/prefix πετά came about through contamination (cf. πεδά, μετά), although Πεταγείτνιος could alternatively have been an original Doric variant (next to Mεταγείτνιος), while Πεταγείτνυος (Rhodes, Kos and Kalymnos) could have arisen thanks to some other month name. The second month name, Βαδρόμιος (/τρόμιος), shows traits of possible Aeolic influence on its first morpheme while the second morpheme (-τρόμιος) may have derived through phonological change, folk etymology or under the influence of the previous month Πεδα-/Πετα-γείτνιος.
The short paper by Jaime Curbera will be of interest to a broader readership. The author examines the etymology of the name Φρύνη and its cognates, proposing that the primary meaning of the root has to do with a scary folk figure rather than with the meanings ‘toad’ or ‘brown(ish)’ (color), which are secondary. The discussion is exciting and full of interesting details (epigraphic, etymological, literary, folklore-related) but as the author too admits the issue can hardly be considered settled.
Alain Blanc offers a fine study of the odd name Τελλη(ν), which appearsin inscriptions from Delphi. The authors argues convincingly that the form Τελλη in Delphi must be the adapted form of an archaic, originally oxytone hypocoristic name Τελλεί (gen. Tελλίος) in Boeotian. On the other hand, the form Τελλήν is a remodeling of the name according to names in -ην that were originally common in Corinthian colonies of S. Illyria (Apollonia, Epidamnos). These were innovations and derived from -εας names (e.g., Νικήν < Νικέας), once again through remodeling, rather than from -ευς names as other scholars have argued.
Enrique Nieto Izquierdo examines in another well-argued onomastic study feminine names in -ε(ι)α from the Doric islands of S. Aegean. These names with a non-sigmatic/-verbal stem evolved into -η forms through contraction, e.g., Διαγορεία > Διαγορέα > Διαγόρη. The author argues convincingly that this was a rather archaic suffix with a penultimate accent—unlike names like Ξενοκράτεια whose quasi-identical -ε(ι)ᾰ suffix allowed an antepenultimate accent—and related originally to patronymics (and possessives) in -ειος, -α, -ον.
The final paper by Alcorac Alonso Déniz revisits intradialectal variation in archaic Crete (7th – 5th c. BCE). The author analyzes in an exhaustive manner various dialectal traits (isoglosses) and concludes that archaic Cretan Doric must be perceived as a continuum rather than a uniform dialect. Hence, he largely rejects past views whereby intradialectal differences were often interpreted by invoking an ‘Achaean’ substrate; he argues instead that most phenomena may be interpreted either as phonological changes (e.g., preposition ἐν > ἰν) or by means of analogy (e.g., the innovative forms θιήϊος, θῖνος ‘divine’). The argumentation is generally compelling, even though some points are open to discussion, e.g., whether nom. pl. τρέες ‘three’ in Cretan is an analogical formation (p. 299) or an archaism (< IE *treyes) as often maintained.
The volume concludes with a general index and an index verborum (but no index locorum).
Editing has been efficient, with extremely few typos and other infelicities noticed.[8] For the print edition, the publisher has opted for a large book size and a somewhat small font size, neither of which will probably look ideal to a number of readers.
In conclusion, this volume contains a number of worthwhile studies on Greek language and dialect contact from several parts of the broader Greek world—a panoramic, if selective, view that offers geographic and thematic breadth without lacking linguistic depth—with a special contribution to the study of onomastics within this context, which is particularly welcome from a thematic point of view since this is hardly the norm in the literature. Overall, the studies included are generally characterized by the sober (re-)assessment of the available evidence rather than by the advancement of bold hypotheses for their own sake. The volume will draw the attention of people keen on language and dialect contact, but also those interested in the use of writing in the archaic Greek world, and beyond.
Disclaimer: The reviewer was a member of an honorary scientific committee set up on the occasion of the conference but had no involvement in it nor in the production of the volume.
Authors and Titles
Alcorac Alonso Déniz and Enrique Nieto Izquierdo, Avant-propos.
Part I. Contacts du grec ancien avec d’autres langues:
Dan Dana, La Macédoine orientale, espace de contacts linguistiques et culturels.
Paloma Guijarro Ruano, Onomastics and linguistic contact in Aegean Thrace.
Sophie Minon, Les noms interlinguistiques en Méditerranée antique. Taxinomie et phénoménologie de l’acculturation onomastique.
Florian Réveilhac, « As you like it » : les noms d’assonance lyciens-grecs. Esquisse d’une méthodologie.
Antoine Viredaz, Contacts linguistiques et emprunts lexicaux aux langues non grecques en dialecte tarentin.
Laura Nastasi, An example of “Roman Greek” from Isthmia? Greek and Latin in contact.
Part II. Diffusion des systèmes d’écriture et contacts linguistiques:
Philippa M. Steele, Greece and Cyprus. Regional approaches to the development of writing systems, traditions and practices.
Julián V. Méndez Dosuna, The X-files. The letter X in the local archaic Greek scripts.
Part III. Contacts interdialectaux en Grèce ancienne:
Lucien van Beek, Athematic infinitives in Lesbian, Homer and other Greek dialects. Innovations, archaisms or contact-induced borrowings?
Olga Tribulato, Analogical -εσσι datives in Sicilian Doric. Borrowing, independent development, or both?
María Luisa del Barrio Vega, Legado cultual y contacto lingüístico. Algunos menónimos del griego antiguo.
Jaime Curbera, Thoughts on Phryne’s name.
Alain Blanc, Les anthroponymes béotiens en -ει et le nom du Thébain Tellê dans les inscriptions de Delphes.
Enrique Nieto Izquierdo, Une isoglosse des dialectes doriens du sud-est de la mer Égée. L’extension du suffixe -εια dans l’onomastique.
Alcorac Alonso Déniz, E pluribus unum. Variation dialectale en Crète antique (VIIe-Ve s. av. J.-C.).
Notes
[1] See e.g. Clackson, J. 2015. Language and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Cambridge; Minon, S. (ed.) (2014). Diffusion de l’attique et expansion des koinai dans le Peloponnèse et en Grèce centrale. Genève.
[2] Note some recent titles: (1) Galoppin, Th. et al. (eds.) (2022). Naming and Mapping the Gods in the Ancient Mediterranean: Spaces, Mobilities, Imaginaries. Berlin – Boston, 2022; (2) Palamidis, A. and Bonnet, C. (eds.) (2024). What’s in a Divine Name?: Religious Systems and Human Agency in the Ancient Mediterranean, Berlin – Boston; (3) Gasparini, V., Alvar Ezquerra, J. and Bonnet, C. (eds.) (2025). My Name is Your Name: Anthroponyms as Divine Attributes in the Greco-Roman World. Berlin – Boston, 2025.
[3]A. Willi, Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien (8.‑5. Jh. v. Chr.), Basel 2008 (p. 142).
[4] The two abstracts (English, French) speak of five texts (p. 127), but they are in fact six.
[5] J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge 2003, p. 509
[6] A. Kirchhoff, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets, Berlin, Dümmler, 1877 (3rd ed.).
[7] Add to the bibliography cited by O. Tribulato: Capano, M and Bianconi, M. (2023), ‘The Ancient Greek datives in –essi: Contact or independent ‘innovations?’, Transactions of the Philological Society 121: 357-381.
[8] Note the following: p. 133: …since Roman governor [= governors] officially resided…; p. 136: …membership to…, …membership in… [= of]; p. 138: unconsciously [= subconsciously]; p. 171: articulatory weaking [= weakening]; p. 178: …the originally [ = original] sound value…; p. 178: (w/) [: add slash before w]; p. 202: (Table 3) τεθνάκην [= ἑστάκην]; p. 249: …Φρύνη was a [add: form (or similar)] based on…; p. 250, fn 35: …changed χάσματα in [= into] φάσματα…