This article should specify the language of its non-English content, using ((lang)), ((transliteration)) for transliterated languages, and ((IPA)) for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used. See why. (May 2019)
Reconstruction ofHellenic languages / Ancient Greek dialects
RegionSouthern Balkan Peninsula
  • c. 2200–1900 BC (appearance in the Greek peninsula)[1][2][3][4]
  • c. 1700 BC (diversification)[5]
Proto-Greek area of settlement (2200/2100-1900 B.C.) suggested by Katona (2000), Sakellariou (2016, 1980, 1975) and Phylaktopoulos (1975)
View about "Proto-Greek area" in the 3rd millennium BC, reconstructed by Vladimir I. Georgiev (1973 & 1981). The boundaries are based on the high concentration of archaic Greek place-names in the region in contrast to southern Greece which preserves many pre-Greek.[6][7] Modern consensus is that pre-Proto-Greek and other IE languages split from PIE only after 2500 BC, with proto-Greek forming in the proto-Greek area during the Early Helladic III period (c. 2200–2000 BC).[8]

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, Arcadocypriot, and 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 between 2200 and 1900 BC,[1][2][4] with the diversification into a southern and a northern group beginning by approximately 1700 BC.[5][9][10][11][12][13]


Proto-Greek emerged from the diversification of the late Proto-Indo-European language (PIE); a process whose last phase gave rise to the later language families and occurred c. 2500 BC.[14] Pre-Proto-Greek, the Indo-European dialect from which Proto-Greek originated, emerged c. 2400 – c. 2200 BC, in an area which bordered pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian to the east and pre-Proto-Armenian and pre-Proto-Phrygian to the west, at the eastern borders of southeastern Europe; according to the Kurgan hypothesis.[15][16] Speakers of what would become Proto-Greek, migrated from their homeland (which could have been northeast of the Black Sea), and reached Greece in a date set around the transition of the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age.[17] 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.[18] The characteristically Greek representation of word-initial laryngeals by prothetic vowels is shared, for one, with 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.[19]

According to Filos (2014), the emergence of Proto-Greek was a long and continuous linguistic evolution, as the predecessors of Greek speakers were migrating towards the outskirts of Greece, somewhere to the north(-west) of the Greek peninsula proper, where they eventually merged with pre-Greek populations to form the Proto-Greek language.[20] A. L. Katona (2000) places the beginning of the migration from Ukraine towards the south c. 2400 – c. 2300 BC. Their proposed route of migration passed through Romania and the eastern Balkans to the Evros river valley from where their main body moved west.[21] As such Katona as well as M.V Sakellariou agree that the main body of Greek speakers settled in a region that included southwestern Illyria, Epirus, northwestern Thessaly and western Macedonia.[22]

Older theories like those of Vladimir I. Georgiev placed Proto-Greek in northwestern Greece and adjacent areas (approximately up to the Aulon river to the north), including Parauaea, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania, as well as west and north Thessaly (Histiaeotis, Perrhaibia, Tripolis), and Pieria in Macedonia, during the Late Neolithic.[6][23][24][25] The boundaries are based on the high concentration of archaic Greek place-names in the region, in contrast to southern Greece which preserves many pre-Greek.[6] Radoslav Katičić considered these findings highly significant, and agreed that due to the minimal traces of pre-Greek toponymy in the region, Epirus and western Thessaly must have formed the region of concentration of Proto-Greek speakers, before their spread southwards.[26] However, the dating of proto-Greek in Bronze Age Greece is compatible with the inherited lexicon from the common Proto-Indo-European language, which excludes any possibility of it being present in Neolithic Greece.[27][28]

In modern bibliography, models about the settlement and development of proto-Greek speakers in the Greek peninsula place it in the region at the earliest around 2200–2000 BC, during the Early Helladic III.[2][1] Asko Parpola and Christian Carpelan (2005) date the arrival of Proto-Greek speakers into the Greek peninsula to 2200 BC,[4]: 131  while Carl Blegen (1928) dates it to c. 1900 BC.[1]


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.[5] 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.[9][10][11][12]

During this period of c. 1700 BC, South Greek-speaking tribes spread to Boeotia, Attica, and the Peloponnese, while North Greek was spoken in Epirus, Thessaly, parts of Central Greece, and perhaps also Macedonia.[29]


This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Proto-Greek is reconstructed with the following phonemes:

  1. ^ a b c d e Occurs geminated only as the result of palatalization ČČ < Cy; ť also occurs in the combination < py
  2. ^ a b c Exact phonetic value uncertain

Proto-Greek changes

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


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[31] 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:[30]

  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

See also: Laryngeal theory

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:


Consonants followed by consonantal *y were palatalized, producing various affricate consonants (still represented as a separate sound in Mycenaean) and geminated palatal consonants.[30] 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 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.[33]


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.[34] 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.[34] 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.[34]

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).[34]

Second palatalization

The second palatalization affected all consonants. It took place following the resolution of syllabic laryngeals and sonorants, and prior to Grassmann's law.

The following table, based on American linguist Andrew Sihler,[35] shows the outcomes of the second palatalization.

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

Sihler reconstructs the palatalized stops (shown in the above table as ) with a degree of assibilation and transcribes them as .[36]

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

Proto-Greek Attic Homeric West Ionic Other Ionic Boeotian, Cretan Arcadian Cypriot Lesbian, Thessalian Other
*pť pt
*t͡s after short vowel s[37] s, ss[37] s[37] tt[38][39] s[40] ss
final,[41] initial, after *n,[42]
after long vowel or diphthong[39]
*ťť medial intervocalic tt ss tt ss tt ss
*d͡z, *ďď zd dd[43] zd
*ľľ ll i̯l[44][45] ll
*ňň after α, ο i̯n unattested[45] i̯n
after ε, ι, υ ːn nn[46] ːn
*řř after α, ο i̯r
after ε, ι, υ ːr unattested[45] rr[46] ːr

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 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.[49] 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'.[50] The merger with *sd was probably post-Mycenaean, but occurred before the introduction of the Greek alphabet.[51]


Cowgill's law
This section needs expansion with: Proto-Greek reconstructed forms. You can help by adding to it. (August 2022)

In Proto-Greek, Cowgill's law[52] says that a former /o/ vowel becomes /u/ between a resonant (/r/, /l/, /m/, /n/) and a labial consonant (including labiovelars), in either order.


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).


Proto-Greek retained the Indo-European pitch accent, but developed a number of rules governing it:[53]

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.)



Proto-Greek preserved the gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and number (singular, dual, plural) distinctions of the nominal system of Proto-Indo-European.[56] 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.[53] 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.[53] It is thought that the syncretism between cases proceeded faster for the plural,[53] with dative and locative already merged as -si (the Proto-Indo-European locative plural having been *-su-).[57][53] This merger may have been motivated by analogy to the locative singular -i-.[53] Nevertheless, seven case distinctions are securely attested in Mycenaean in some domain, with the status of the ablative unclear.[58]

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").[53]

The superlative in -tatos becomes productive.[citation needed]

The peculiar oblique stem gunaik- "women", attested from the Thebes tablets is probably Proto-Greek. It appears, at least as gunai- in Armenian as well.[citation needed]


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


This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Proto-Greek inherited the augment, a prefix e-, to verbal forms expressing past tense. That feature is shared only with Indo-Iranian and Phrygian (and to some extent, Armenian), lending some support to a "Graeco-Aryan" or "Inner PIE" 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 the proto-language, 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.

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

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


Proto-Greek numerals were derived directly from Indo-European.[59]

See also


  1. ^ a b c d Drews, Robert (1994). The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East. Princeton University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-691-02951-2.
  2. ^ a b c West, M. L. (23 October 1997). The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Clarendon Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-159104-4. Archived from the original on 26 March 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2020. "the arrival of the Proto-Greek -speakers took place at various sites in central and southern Greece at the beginning and end of the Early Helladic III period.
  3. ^ Filos 2014, p. 175.
  4. ^ a b c Asko Parpola; Christian Carpelan (2005). "The cultural counterparts to Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan : matching the dispersal and contact patterns in the linguistic and archaeological record". In Edwin Bryant; Laurie L. Patton (eds.). The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Psychology Press. pp. 107–141. ISBN 978-0-7007-1463-6. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2020-08-21.
  5. ^ a b c Hajnal, Ivo (2007). "Die Vorgeschichte der griechischen Dialekte: ein methodischer Rück- und Ausblick". In Hajnal, Ivo; Stefan, Barbara (eds.). Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums, Freie Universität Berlin, 19.–22. September 2001 (in German). Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. p. 136. Archived from the original on 2021-10-28. Retrieved 2020-05-06.
  6. ^ a b c 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)."
  7. ^ Crossland, R. A.; Birchall, Ann (1973). Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean; Archaeological and Linguistic Problems in Greek Prehistory: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory, Sheffield. Duckworth. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-7156-0580-6. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2021-02-11. 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.
  8. ^ Anthony 2010, p. 82.
  9. ^ a b Hall, Jonathan M. (1997). Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-521-78999-8. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2021-02-11.
  10. ^ a b Woodard, Roger D. (2008). The Ancient Languages of Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-139-46932-6. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2021-02-11.
  11. ^ a b Horrocks, Geoffrey (2010). Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-4443-1892-0. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2021-02-11.
  12. ^ a b Parker, Holt N. (2008). "The Linguistic Case for the Aiolian Migration Reconsidered". Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. 77 (3). American School of Classical Studies at Athens: 443–444. doi:10.2972/hesp.77.3.431. ISSN 0018-098X. JSTOR 40205757. S2CID 161497388.
  13. ^ A comprehensive overview is in J. T. Hooker's Mycenaean Greece (Hooker 1976, Chapter 2: "Before the Mycenaean Age", pp. 11–33 and passim); 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).
  14. ^ Anthony 2010, p. 81.
  15. ^ Anthony 2010, p. 51.
  16. ^ Anthony 2010, p. 369.
  17. ^ Demand, Nancy (2012). The Mediterranean Context of Early Greek History. Wiley. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-4051-5551-9. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
  18. ^ 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."
  19. ^ Clackson 1995.
  20. ^ Filos 2014, p. 175: "The emergence of Proto-Greek happened during a long, continuous linguistic process which involved numerous changes in all major linguistic fields (→ phonology, morphology, → syntax, lexicon), as a migrating population of (soon-to-become) Greek speakers were en route to/on the outskirts of Greece, i.e., somewhere to the north(-west) of the Greek peninsula proper. But Proto-Greek was practically formed after the arrival of its speakers in Greece and their merger with pre-Greek populations (→ Pre-Greek Languages; → Pre-Greek Substrate), as is indicated, inter alia, by the high number of loanwords (e.g. sûkon 'fig') and suffixes (e.g. -nthos, -s(s)os/-ttos) which were borrowed into Proto-Greek (see (6), (7) below)."
  21. ^ 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-vallev (North-Eastern Greece). Here they turned to the West (A available)."
  22. ^ 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."
  23. ^ 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."
  24. ^ Coleman 2000, pp. 101–153.
  25. ^ Feuer, Bryan (2 March 2004). Mycenaean Civilization: An Annotated Bibliography through 2002, rev. ed. McFarland. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-7864-1748-3. Archived from the original on 26 March 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2020. Supports an interpretation of Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan theory involving the migration of a proto-Greek population which arrived in Greece during the Early Helladic period.
  26. ^ Katicic, Radoslav (2012) [1976]. Winter, Werner (ed.). Ancient Languages of the Balkans (Part 1). Trends in Linguistics: State-of-the-art Reports. Vol. 4. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 122–123. ISBN 978-3-11-156887-4.
  27. ^ Mallory, J.P. (2003). "The Homeland of the Indo-Europeans". In Blench, Roger; Spriggs, Matthew (eds.). Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations. Routledge. p. 101. ISBN 1-134-82877-2. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
  28. ^ Anthony 2010, p. 81.
  29. ^ 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."
  30. ^ a b c d e f g h Filos 2014, pp. 177–179.
  31. ^ a b c Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 227.
  32. ^ Filos, p. 178.
  33. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 190.
  34. ^ a b c d Sihler 1995, p. 191.
  35. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 189-196.
  36. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 192.
  37. ^ a b c Sihler 1995, p. 190.
  38. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 190, 205.
  39. ^ a b Woodard 1997, p. 95.
  40. ^ Skelton 2014, p. 34.
  41. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 205.
  42. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 190-191.
  43. ^ Skelton 2014, pp. 35, 39.
  44. ^ Skelton 2014, p. 35.
  45. ^ a b c Egetmeyer 2010, p. 123.
  46. ^ a b Sihler 1995, p. 195.
  47. ^ Lengthened -ei /eː/ due to Attic analogical lengthening in comparatives.
  48. ^ a b Sihler 1995, p. 194.
  49. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 191–192.
  50. ^ Sihler 1995, p. 194.
  51. ^ Teodorsson, Sven-Tage (1979). "On the Pronunciation of Ancient Greek Zeta". Lingua. 47 (4): 323–332. doi:10.1016/0024-3841(79)90078-0.
  52. ^ Sihler 1995, pp. 42–43.
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Filos 2014, p. 180.
  54. ^ Sihler 1995.
  55. ^ Sihler 1995.
  56. ^ Filos 2014, pp. 180–181.
  57. ^ Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 226.
  58. ^ Ramón, José Luis García (2017). "The morphology of Greek". In Klein, Joseph and Fritz (2017), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Page 654.
  59. ^ Filos 2014, pp. 182–183.


Further reading