αμέτι μουχαμέτι: Syntax

We saw in the last post the evidence for the development of αμέτι μουχαμέτι in the 19th century, from the Ottoman Turkish ümmet-i Muhammed "nation of Muhammed", to the Modern Greek "come hell or high water". We can already get a fair idea of how the meaning shifted, from the examples Vasilis Orfanos produced—and which I will keep citing, following the numbering in the last post. I did not yet finalise my take on how the change in meaning happened—and, more interestingly, when.

I won't do that this post either, because instead I want to look at how not just the semantics, but the syntax of the expression changed. Like the semantics, I will claim that the syntax of this expression, like that of so many others, changed through an iteration of reanalysis and extension: hearers reinterpret an expression in an ambiguous context, assigning it a new structure—and then they extend that new structure to novel contexts, where the old interpretation could not be used. The reanalysis brings the new structure into being, but only the extension makes the structure visible, as an unambiguous addition to the language.

So it was with the semantics of the expression—through sentences where the Ottoman warcry was reinterpreted as an expression of bloodymindedness, as I will try to walk through. So it is was, at least for the most part, with the syntax. There is a change at the end where the extension may not have been out of an ambiguous context, but a more abstract jump—which is perfectly possible, but not what I prefer. But let's get there slowly.

A good deal of the change in the syntax of αμέτι μουχαμέτι had already happened in Ottoman Turkish. Originally, of course, ümmet-i Muhammed was just a noun phrase, and we see that meaning literally in (1, 5):

• Τον κύριο παρακάλεσαν να κάμη μερχαμέτι, Και να τους κάμη ολουνούς του Μουχαμέτ’ ουμμέτι "They begged the Lord to show compassion, and to make them all Muhammad's nation".

Ottomans addressed groups of Muslims as ümmet-i Muhammed, which makes the expression a vocative. The salient example of this, of course, is the warcry to Muslim troops. I claimed (2) was the first example of this, but the syntax is darker than that. But the warcry is clearly there in (4, 6, 8, 9, 13)

• ιμέτι, Μωχαμέτη, ’Σ τον ντιν ντουσμάνη σήμερα να κάμωμεν γαϊρέτι, "Nation of Muhammad! Today against the infidel enemy we shall show endurance."

Extension can't be usefully shown here, because this is still a noun phrase. The next function is too close to disentangle as well: as an exclamation. When troops are being addressed, as in (4), it is ambiguous whether ümmet-i Muhammed is an exclamation or a vocative. The extension happens when there are no troops being addressed, so the expression no longer makes sense as a term of address.

That extension is clearly what Ali Pasha used, when ümmet-i Muhammed is an exclamation of surprise or dismay, not an address to troops (3):

Ορίστε, λεγ’ Αλήπασας, ιμέτι Μουχαμέτη, Χαΐρι δεν εχούμε ’μεις εφέτ’ απ’ το ντουβλέτι, "'See,' Ali Pasha says, 'By the Nation of Muhammad! We're not seeing any joy from the government this year!'"

The late exclamations of dismay attributed to Ottomans (14, 15) also fall under this class. We would also see the warcry as an exclamation instead of a vocative, if it were used in addressing someone other than troops, or in a way otherwise incompatible with vocatives.

• In an example like "Ümmet-i Muhammed! Today you will die, infidels!", ümmet-i Muhammed would not be used to address Muslims.
  
• Kolokotronis, by nominalising the cry, is treating it as something said, which is more consistent with an exclamation than an address (7): και με το αμέτ μουχαμέτ ώρμησαν κατά των ιδικών μας, "with an Amet Moukhamet they rushed onto our men".
  
• The song on Xopateras (11) treats Ümmet-i Muhammed! as the same kind of phrase as SubhanAllah "Glory to Allah!", and it is not followed by a command.
  
• The song on Tryfitsos (16) joins Ameti mou Khameti to the next sentence with "and"—which is inconsistent with a vocative: αμέτι μου χαμέτι και ο Τρυφίτσος είν κιοσές που μας-ε παίζει μπέτι, "Ameti mou khameti, and Tryfitsos is the one who is firing at our chests." That cannot be interpreted as "Oh Nation of Muhammad!—And Tryfitsos is firing at us."

The Greek expression, with its notion of obstinacy, clearly came from the warcry and not the cry of despair. What's critical for the next reanalysis is that the expression is an exclamation—which allows it to turn up in a broad range of contexts. In several instances of the warcry, the exclamation introduces a commitment to do something:

• (4) Nation of Muhammad! Today against the infidel enemy we shall show endurance.
  
• (6) Nation of Muhammad! Fortify the place boldly.
  
• (13) Nation of Muhammad! We will burn them down.

If Greeks no longer understood ümmet-i Muhammad, and distorted it to αμέτι μουχαμέτι, the exclamation could be reinterpreted as an adverbial phrase: "definitely, at any cost, come hell or high water"; so "at any cost, we will burn them down!" It would help such an interpretation along, that one of the phrases likely to have been conflated with ümmet-i Muhammad was μα το Μουχαμέτη "by Muhammad"—which also can be used to expressed commitment.

The adverbial interpretation helps when the expression turns up in indirect speech, where the vocative cannot, and even the exclamation is problematic. That indirect speech use seems to me to motivate (2) and (10)—(10) more clearly than (2):

• (2) τους Τούρκους όλους λάλει· όλοι τους –­ ουμέτι Μουαμέτη –­ ας δράμουν στην μητρόπολι "Tell all the Muslims: all of them—Nation of Muhammad—should run to the cathedral":
  
  • Interpreted as apposition: "all of them, namely the Nation of Muhammad, should run": noun phrase
    
  • Interpreted as indirect speech, quoting exclamation: "Tell all the Muslims: 'Nation of Muhammad! All of you should run to the Cathedral'" A vocative could not be so quoted: "Troops! All of you should run to the Cathedral!" cannot be rendered as "Tell the soldiers, all of them—??Troops!—should run to the Cathedral." So ümmet-i Muhammad no longer has vocative force.
  
  
• (10) Όλοι τους ωρκισθήκανε αμέτι Μουχαμέτη, στο Μεσολόγγι να εμβούν, να κάμουν κιαμέτι "They all swore, 'Nation of Muhammad!', to enter Messolonghi and cause havoc." It is impossible for 'Nation of Muhammad' here to be a vocative: this is quoting the Muslims' oath, "Nation of Muhammad! We will enter Messolonghi and cause havoc!", with 'Nation of Muhammad' treated as an exclamation.

But while (10) makes sense as quoting Muslims crying "Nation of Muhammad!", embedding an exclamation in indirect speech is a very odd thing to do. Any exclamations in indirect speech should be coming from the speaker, not those quoted. An exclamation like "onwards!", though, can be reanalysed as an adverbial phrase, "crying 'onwards'"—or "as if crying 'onwards'"—or, for that matter, "at any cost".

That interpretation is more comfortable with (10): "They all swore, 'Nation of Muhammad!', to enter Messolonghi and cause havoc" > "They all swore, crying 'Nation of Muhammad!'", or "They all swore, in a 'Nation of Muhammad!' way", or "They all swore, at any cost to enter Messolonghi."

We have now arrived at the Modern Greek expression, which is adverbial. We have also arrived at the meaning of the Modern Greek expression, which derides obstinacy: αμέτι μουχαμέτι means, ultimately, "in such a bloodyminded way, you'd think he was urging Muslims into battle". But for that intepretation to be possible, people had to be using "Nation of Muhammad!" in Greek in indirect speech, and no longer as a vocative.

By (12, 17, 19) we clearly have extension to a context where both the vocative and the exclamation are impossible, and indeed to a context where there can be no reference to Muslim troops at all. This can be straightforwardly read as adverbial use, in the modern sense:

• (12) αλλά ο Γαρδικιότης είναι Αμέτ Μουαμέτ κατά του στραβού, "but Gardikiotis is bloodymindedly against the blind man."
  
• (17) ο Αλικιάδης είχεν απόφασιν, “Αμέτ Μουαμέτ”, να βάλη τη δουλειά εμπρός, "Alikiadis had decided, bloodymindedly, to go ahead with the venture."
  
• (19) ήρθε αμέτι μουhαμέτι να μαλώση, "he came bloodymindedly intending to fight."

The expression did not stop as an adverb, however. Recall that αμέτι μουχαμέτι is used in the following ways in Modern Greek:

• as an adverb generally: τα 1.280.000 ευρώ πρέπει να γίνουν, αμέτι μουχαμέτι, ποδηλατόδρομος, "The 1.28 million euros must be spent come hell or high water for a bicycle path" (αμέτι: 11700 hits on Google)
  
• θέλει αμέτι μουχαμέτι accusative NOUN OR να VERB, "he wants, ameti moukhameti, NOUN/ to VERB" (θέλει/ήθελε αμέτι: 122 hits on Google)
  
• βάλθηκε αμέτι μουχαμέτι να... "he has set himself ameti moukhameti to..." (βάλθηκε αμέτι: 4 hits on Google)
  
• το έχει αμέτι μουχαμέτι να... "he has it ameti moukhameti to..." (έχει/είχε αμέτι: 11 hits on Google)
  
• το έχει βάλει αμέτι μουχαμέτι να... "he has set it ameti moukhameti to..." (έβαλε/'βαλε/έχει βάλει/είχε βάλει αμέτι: 3021 hits on Google)
  

Using αμέτι μουχαμέτι with θέλω "to want" can be explained with an adverbial meaning: "he wants, bloodymindedly, a raise"; Η Ντόρα ήθελε αμέτι μουχαμέτι να πάει για τις υπογραφές, "Dora wanted, bloodymindedly, to go get the signatures". And that use of θέλω can be traced back to quotations of the warcry: αμέτι Μουχαμέτι, θα μπούμε στο Μεσολόγγι "Nation of Muhammad! We shall enter Messolonghi" > ήθελαν «αμέτι Μουχαμέτι» να μπούνε στο Μεσολόγγι "they wanted 'Nation of Muhammad!' to enter Messolonghi" > "they wanted, bloodymindedly, to enter Messolonghi."

The same holds for βάλθηκε, "he set himself/herself": Υπουργός τότε ο πολλά βαρύς και όχι Βασίλης Κοντογιαννόπουλος […], ο οποίος βάλθηκε αμέτι μου χαμέτι μου να μεταρρυθμίσει την Παιδεία, "The minister at the time was the dour-as-black-coffee Vasilis Kontogiannopoulos […] who set himself, bloodymindedly, to reform Education" (blacksad)

But the main use with a verb is with and το έχει βάλει "he has set it"—with το έχει "he has it" (18) trailing far behind:

• (18) το είχεν αμέτ Μωαμέτ, να γίνη δήμαρχος, "he had it amet Moamet to become mayor."
  
• Ο Υπουργός Δημοσίων Έργων […] το έβαλε αμέτι μουχαμέτι να τον εκτρέψει, "The minister of Public Works has set it ameti moukhameti to derail him."

These instances are not adverbs: ??"he had it bloodymindedly to become mayor", ??"he set it bloodymindedly to derail him".

What these expressions do sound like though, is (το) είχε σκοπό να..., το 'βαλε σκοπό να... (έχει/είχε σκοπό: 1,021,000 hits on Google; έβαλε/'βαλε/έχει βάλει/είχε βάλει σκοπό: 135,600 hits on Google), "has/sets purpose to = intends to". In other words, αμέτι μουχαμέτι is behaving, in its usage after βάζω and έχω, like the noun σκοπός, "purpose"—which means that αμέτι μουχαμέτι has been reanalysed as a noun.

Other nouns have already fitted into this template: έχει/είχε καημό να "sorrow = yearning to" (4340 hits), έχει/είχε βάλει καημό να (2 hits); έχει/είχε άχτι να "spite to" (534 hits), έχει/είχε βάλει άχτι να (4 hits). There would be a simple reason of analogy for αμέτι μουχαμέτι to fit this noun template: it looks like a neuter noun. In fact, αμέτι μουχαμέτι > ümmet-i Muhammed looks like the neuter noun άχτι "spite" < ahd "oath, promise". And άχτι is primarily used with the verb έχω "have" and βγάζω "take out".

Unlike σκοπός, καημός, and άχτι, the expression αμέτι μουχαμέτι is mostly associated, so Google has it, with βάζω "set"—particularly with the perfect το έχει βάλει (1940 of the 3020 hits). One explanation for that is another analogy—with βάζω όρκο "to set an oath = to swear" (and not *έχω όρκο): ümmet-i Muhammed was understood to be an oath, explicitly so in (10). But that does not explain by itself why βάζω "set" was associated with an adverb "bloodymindedly": "he set it bloodymindedly" doesn't quite make sense.

(17) provides one ambiguous context which explains this reanalysis: ο Αλικιάδης είχεν απόφασιν, “Αμέτ Μουαμέτ”, να βάλη τη δουλειά εμπρός, "Alikiadis had a decision, bloodymindedly, to go ahead with the venture" (adverb) > "Alikiadis had a decision, an 'Amet Mouamet', to go ahead with the venture" (noun). In other words, αμέτι μουχαμέτι was reanalysed as a noun in apposition with "decision"—another word for "decision". The punctuation, if it is Papadiamantis', supports that—αμέτι μουχαμέτι was still more like an interjection than an adverb, and its separate intonation makes it look like apposition.

Maybe, but the reanalysis looks unconvincing to me: appositions are a bit too learnèd to be plausible here. The best I can come up with is the construction έβαλε να... "he set out to": έβαλε να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set out to make coffee". Combined with αμέτι μουχαμέτι, the construction becomes έβαλε, αμέτι μουχαμέτι, να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set out bloodymindedly to make coffee", which can be reanalysed as "he set a purpose to make coffee". Once that reanalysis happened, the clitic object could be added in, by analogy:

• έβαλε σκοπό να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set a purpose to make coffee" = "he intended to make coffee"
  
• το 'βαλε σκοπό να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set it a purpose to make coffee" = "he intended to make coffee"
  
• το 'βαλε όρκο να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set it an oath to make coffee" = "he swore he'd make cofee"
  
• έβαλε, αμέτι μουχαμέτι, να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set out, bloodymindedly, to make coffee" > έβαλε αμέτι μουχαμέτι να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set a bloodyminded intent to make coffee"
  
• το 'βαλε αμέτι μουχαμέτι να φτιάξει καφέ, "he set it a bloodyminded intent to make coffee"—by analogy with το 'βαλε σκοπό and το 'βαλε όρκο

We may not need to find an ambiguous sentence to explain το 'βαλε αμέτι μουχαμέτι. It may merely be an analogy straight from το 'βαλε όρκο "he set it an oath" and το 'βαλε σκοπό, with αμέτι μουχαμέτι sounding like a noun to replace όρκο and σκοπό, but as a conceptual leap rather than a shift latent in context.

At any rate, αμέτι μουχαμέτι is acting like the noun σκοπό "purpose" in the βάζω/έχω … να construction—but the noun analysis has not undergone further extension. αμέτι μουχαμέτι is not used in the contexts that σκοπός is:

• Ο σκοπός είναι να δούμε νέες ιδέες, "the intention is for us to see new ideas"; *το αμέτι μουχαμέτι είναι να δούμε νέες ιδέες
  
• Έχει καλό σκοπό, "he has good intentions"; *έχει καλό αμέτι μουχαμέτι
  
• Η θεωρία του σκοπού της ζωής, "the theory of the purpose of life"; *η θεωρία του αμετιού μουχαμετιού της ζωής
  
• Έρανος με σκοπό να αγοραστεί δορυφόρος, "a fundraiser with the intention of buying a satellite"; *έρανος με αμέτι μουχαμέτι να αγοραστεί δορυφόρος
  

Using αμέτι μουχαμέτι as the noun "purpose" in general sounds absurd for now. But in Turkish, "he set it Nation of Muhammad to make coffee" sounds absurd. (Try it out: Kahve yapmak için, ümmet-i Muhammed o yerleştirilir. It would be less absurd, if I actually knew any Turkish...) Syntactic change is possible, if people see a point in it; and we can't rule out future extension of the construction, along the path it has started. ...Read more

A Turkish etymology for both α and σιχτίρ?

Language advisory

In the last obscenity-filled post on this blog, Pierre left a comment on α σιχτίρ "fuck off", which is derived from Turkish:

The Turkish is sıçdırmak ( ﺼﭽﺩﺭﻣﻕ ) with a chim, rather than a kha, and it gets "shit" right back into the context. Actually, it is a causative form and means "to make (someone? / yourself?) shit" and it appears to be imperative. My guess is that "ey sıçdır" is all Turkish and means "Go take a shit."

In fact, there really is a Turkish verb sikmek "to fuck" ("Turkic cognates include Azeri sikmək and Uzbek sikmoq"), and this discussion thread goes through the diffusion of siktir into the Balkans and Armenian.

What I did *not* know from the thread though, is that the interjection siktir in Turkish has a variant hassiktir. And that makes me look at the α in α σιχτίρ, and speculate whether it too is Turkish in origin—and not Ancient Greek, as is normally assumed.

α in α σιχτίρ or ά γαμήσου corresponds to get in get fucked or get lost. It's a hortative particle, and I think what is commonly assumed about its origin is wrong.

Modern Greek has four similar hortative particles.

• άμε is a verb in origin; it's derived from Classical ἄγωμε "let's go", but in Modern Greek is used as "go!", as an exhortation. We know that because in Early Modern Greek, ἄγωμε was used to mean "go!" instead of "let's go": (ἄγωμε μὲ τὴν κάμηλον τὴν μακροσφονδυλάτην "go with the long-neckled camel!", Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds 768)
  
• άντε has been argued (tortuously) to be a verb in origin as well: ἄγε δή "go indeed!" The etymology makes no sense, and though the Triantaphyllides dictionary vacillates, and the other dictionaries are unrepentant, the obvious derivation is from the Turkish exclamation haydi. (I have 12 pages of an uncompleted paper arguing this; there are straightforward cognates throughout Turkic, and in Russian and Ukrainian via Tatar.) Notwithstanding its origin, άντε does act in some ways as a verb, including picking up a plural ending (άντεστε), and taking subjunctive complements (άντε να δεις "go to see, go and see")
  
• The other two particles are άι ~ άει and α. They are assumed to be related; this is the entry from the Triantaphyllides dictionary on the pair:
  

  α² & άι interj.: before exclamation (cf. άντε); depending on context and intontation expresses (a) indignation, annoyance, dismissal; "go, get": (with an imperative or να + subjunctive with a comparable meaning) α/άι πνίξου / παράτα μας / χάσου / να χαθείς "go drown! / go leave us alone! / get lost!" / || (with σε "to", article and noun) α/άι στην ευχή / στο διάβολο / στο καλό "to the blessing! / to hell! / to the good!". α/άι στη δουλειά σου "to your business": "mind your own business, continue what you are doing". || friendly reproach: ~ να χαθείς! "get lost!" (b) exhortation: Άι στο καλό, παιδί μου, και πρόσεχε "go to the good (farewell), my child, and be careful": go on, go to the good [= farewell]. || wondering about what will happen: α/άι να δούμε πώς θα τα βγάλουμε πέρα "let's see how we get through this". α/άι να δούμε τι θα γίνει "let's see what will happen". [α: truncation of άι· άι: άε < Ancient ἄγε "onwards!" (imperative of ἄγω "go") deleting intervocalic [ɣ] and diphthongised]
  

  
  (It's α², to distinguish it from the interjection "ah!", α¹.)
  

Now, unlike άμε and άντε, άι and α do not act like independent verbs. They are prefixed to imperatives, which means they are not verbs with a dependent verb: they are acting like interjections—or serial verbs. άμε can't precede an imperative; άντε can, because άμε is not an interjection and άντε is. (άι and α do precede the subjunctive as well, but the subjunctive is also used as a gentler command; so it's consistent with άι and α behaving as interjections.)

• άμε/άντε/*άι/*α να δεις ποιος είναι "go to see who it is"
  
• *άμε/άντε/άι/*α δες ποιος είναι "go, see who it is"

They also cannot appear on their own as verbs (or for that matter as interjections): they must always introduce something.

• άμε/άντε/*άι/*α "go on!"

And άι/α has no flexibility with what prepositions it can take: it cannot take από "from", meaning "go past":

• άμε/άντε/*άι/*α από την αγορά "go past the market"

The only prepositional phrase άι/α can take is σε "to" with a definite article:

• άμε/άντε/άει/α στο διάολο "go to the devil" (to hell)

Surely that means άι/α is behaving like a verb here? Well, no. If it is a verb, why the constraint on having a definite article?

• άμε/άντε/*άι/*α σε κανένα μπουντρούμι "go to a dungeon"

Now, it turns out that you can use σε phrases with a definite article on their own, as an oath, a blessing or curse, hoping that someone ends up there. You can't leave the article out if you do that: it won't be the same oath:

• στο καλό!/στο διάολο! "to the good" (farewell), "to the devil"
  
• *σε καλό!/*σε διάολο! "to good" (farewell), "to a devil"

These expressions of course imply "go!", but they have still settled into a template of requiring a definite article, and expressing wishes. άι/α is being prefixed to those established expressions: that does not mean it is acting as a real verb. You can't use άι/α before στο if an oath is *not* involved:

• άμε/άντε/άι/α στο διάολο "go to the devil"
  
• άμε/άντε/??άι/*α στο γιατρό "go to the doctor"

Which suggests that, whatever άντε was originally, it is now (also) a verb; and whatever άι used to be, it is now not behaving as a verb, but just an exclamation, a particle introducing verbs and oaths.

In fact, that's reason enough to suspect άι did not start out as a verb at all, but as an interjection—such as, say, I dunno, the Turkish interjection hay. The thing is though, there are several instances from the Historical Dictionary of Modern Greek (Modern dialect dictionary) of "missing link" particles in dialect, between the verb ἄγε and άι:

• Leucas: άγε, Lesbos: άγι, Sikinos: έγε
  
• Cyprus: άγι̮α
  
• Thessaly, Cephallenia, Cyme, Leucas, Siphnos etc. άε
  
• Maina: χάε

Still, multiple causation does happen, and the very similar exclamation hay! may have encouraged άγε > άι to be restricted to exclamation-like use.

But there's something interesting about the Triantaphyllidis definition. In all its examples but one, it uses άι and α interchangeably. All the examples I've given have been interchangeable as well, although I hesitated over ??άι/*α στο γιατρό "go to the doctor". The one time Triantaphyllidis does not use α but only άι, is in the following pair:

• *άμε/*άντε/άι/α στο καλό "oh, to the good" (euphemism for "oh, to the devil" = "well I'll be! what the deuce!")
  
• άμε/άντε/άι/*α στο καλό "go to the good" (= "farewell")

στο καλό is ambiguous between a literal blessing, and a euphemistic curse. άι can be used both the bless and to curse. α is not used to bless: only to curse. Curses such as can be found at slang.gr:

• α σιχτίρ "get fucked!"
  
• α γαμήσου "get fucked!"
  
• α να χαθείς "get lost!"
  
• α στο διάολο "go to hell!" > ασταδγιάλα ~ ασταδιάλα
  
• α να σε γαμήσω "I'm gonna fuck you!" (not as foreplay, but as one man threatening another—hence the joke reply given there by Vrastaman, "I'd rather we just stay friends".)
  

  There's a further complication that the phrase is actually used as a deferred threat: "A peculiar expression said (usually twice) instead of 'I will fuck you' during stand-offs, but usually with a desire to avoid trouble with someone who is trouble anyway. Like 'count yourself lucky', but leaving everything open, especially if the other talks back." (Halikoutis) (Pritsapirdulas adds in comments: "We also say it (1) when something is broken and we can't fix it; (2) when we react to something startling us.") But a curse it still is.

  
  
• α πάγαινε ~ α πάαινε ~ ρε α πάαινε "get lost", where Standard Greek has retained this dialectal imperative "be going" only in the context of this curse:
  

  ρε α πάαινε: an abbreviated form of the expression "pardon me sir/madam, could you possibly relocate yourselves a smidgeon in the opposite direction from me? I thank you in advance for your understanding." It is used to show beyond doubt that the speaker is not disposed to be serviceable towards his interlocutor, and that the discussion is probably coming to its definitive conclusion right about now:
  

  —Pardon me sir, could you please park a bit further on, so my car can fit in too?
  —Ρε α πάαινε, wanting to park, no less! As if you had a car back in your village, you FUCKING HILLBILLY! (acg)

So α is used consistently in contexts reminiscent of α σιχτίρ "get fucked!" I suspect now that Greeks heard both hassiktir and siktir, reanalysed the former as a sixtir, and related the a back to άι—but only in contexts to do with cursing, like the original hassiktir. This would have been helped along by the existence in Greek of α¹, the interjection "ah!"

• In the expression α γεια σου "ah your health!" ~ α μπράβο "ah bravo" = "that's more like it!", it's not immediately obvious which of the two α is involved; it could be either the pure exclamation α¹ ("aha! that's more like it!"), or the hortative α² (ά μπράβο = άντε μπράβο: "go on! that's more like it!") The restriction of α otherwise to curses makes me suspect the former, but I'm being schematic there.

...Read more

Maximus of Gallipoli: linguistic commentary

I posted an excerpt of the 1638 New Testament translation by Maximus of Gallipoli last week. I've been rather busy and will continue to for at least a fortnight, and the promised linguistic commentary on the text has held me up from writing other stuff. Well then, here it is. It's a lot of information, and may lapse into being dry, but if you're looking at some indication of how Greek has changed between 70 and 1638—and more to the point, between 1638 and 2010, this might get you started.

What is interesting to see is that quite often, Modern Greek has evolved backwards since 1638: expressions that were acceptable in print then are ineptly folksy or even unheard of nowadays. That's because Contemporary Standard Modern Greek (which I keep abbreviating as CSMG) has been profoundly affected by Puristic Greek, and its studied avoidance of hitherto colloquial forms. To the extent, as you'll see, of banishing words spoken since Homer, precisely because they had had the bad taste of surviving in use in the vernacular.

Phonology

The aphaeresis of Modern Greek (deleting initial unstressed/e, o, i/) hasn't been followed consistently in this text: εβγαίνοντας for Modern βγαίνοντας (1) (the Ancient is ἐκβαίνοντος, so this isn't an obvious archaism); οπού for Modern που (often; που only in 14); ετούτος (2, 4, 7, 9, still heard on occasion), ειπέ (4), ημπορούν (9), υπάγουν (11), ειπείτε (11), ιδείτε (14), εγκαστρωμένες (17), οπίσω (16), ημέρες "days" (17, 19, 20, may be archaism), ολιγόστευσε (20), ειπεί (21), and augments: ερωτούσαν (3), εδιάλεξε (20), εκόντεψε (20).

The aphaeresis resulted in some forms alternating o- for ε-: ομπροστά "before" (9) < Ancient ἔμπροσθεν, in CSMG just μπροστά. Unstressed initial ε- is assimiliated to απάνου "on" < ἐπάνω (2); the text also has αναντίαν (Ancient and CSMG εναντίον) "against" (9).

There are final /n/s throughout the text that CSMG would drop. This happens throughout published Early Modern Greek, and does not necessarily mean they were a feature of the spoken language.

Διατί "because" and δια "for" appear in their ancient forms, whereas in CSMG they are reduced to γιατί, για ([jati, ja]—i.e. the initial /ð/ has been deleted). Not necessarily an archaism.

The /ɣm/ cluster is simplified to /m/ in διαλεμένους "elect" (20, 22); in CSMG this is no longer allowed because of Puristic influence (Google: διαλεμένους::διαλεγμένους : 123::1670—the instances of διαλεμένους are almost all citations of Makriyannis).

Morphology: Inflection

Δες (1) for "look!" is a surprise: the shibboleth of Thracian Greek (including Constantinopolitan) is that their aorist of είδα has a [j], διές. Maximus may have been nudging his Greek in a more standard direction, realising that διές was a localism.

Τες (2, 17, 19) as the accusative plural feminine article is an older form, now mostly displaced by τις. (Google τες γυναίκες::τις γυναίκες "the women": 1190::411,000, and the hits for τες on the first page are older literature or dialect).

Modern Greek often changes -ω at the end of adverbs to -ου, though in CSMG this is stigmatised: απάνου "on" (2, 12) < ἐπάνω, Modern επάνω ~ απάνω ~ πάνω.

τίποτες "something" (15) has an added final /s/, by analogy with other adverbs ending in -ες. τίποτες is now considered dialectal, but turns up online enough to suggest some more general non-standard use (Google: 23,500 τίποτες to 4,610,000 τίποτα, 8,650,000 τίποτα)

The genitive is used after adverbs, where CSMG would use από "from": αγνάντια του ιερού "opposite the temple" (3). (I discuss the odd πέτρα απάνου την πέτραν below.)

The imperative ειπέ "say!" (4) is Ancient, and common in Early Modern Greek; CSMG has gone to πες, with -ες imperatives formed for a small class of monosyllabic verb stems. We have already seen δες "look!" follow that same new pattern (1).

A third member of the class is μπες "go in"; its subjunctive is now μπει, dropping its original unstressed /e/ (εμπεί < ἐμβῇ). This text has the regularised accentuation έμπει (15), so that the /e/ is not dropped. CSMG has not taken up this innovation, but other dialects have, and it seems to have some non-standard use online (971 hits on Google, not all of them literary.)

The Mainland 3rd pl present ending -ουν (for Ancient and Cretan -ουσι) is used: θέλουν "will" (4, 6), λέγουν "they say" (6), ημπορούν (9), υπάγουν (11), παραδώσουν (11), πλανούν (22), σύρουν (22)—but θέλουσι "will" (6, 8, 22), απολογηθούσι (9), φεύγουσιν (14). Using the two variants in the same sentence with the same verb (6) is nothing unusual: Modern Greek had not yet been standardised.

The plural σύγχυσες "confusion" (8) uses a first declension plural on what was historically a third declension noun in -ις. This usage is nowadays lambasted as "extremist Demotic", and only Psichari's circle supported it in recent times. But this usage merely reflects what had happened in the vernacular, with the third declension eliminated in all contexts and replaced by the first declension. (ερημώσεως "desolation" (14), OTOH, is in the Ancient 3rd declension.) The CSMG situation, with 1st declension singular and 3rd declension plural for historical -ις nouns, reflects an awkward compromise: people resisted making -ις nouns consistently 1st declension in CSMG, because they are mostly abstract nouns, and hence learnèd. Noone blinks at the plural ράχες of the non-learnèd ράχη < ῥάχις "back".

Early Modern Greek formed its first declension masculine plural as -άδες: αυθεντάδες (9). CSMG has rolled this plural back in favour of generalising the feminine plural -ες, although -άδες survives in colloquial use. The rollback is only 20th century, and indeed the Puristic plural in -αί held out for a long time in spoken use—with -άδες felt too colloquial for words like "professor", and -ες too artificial.

Different dialects of Greek have moved -εω verbs across to the -αω paradigm to different extents, so an -εω in the text which is an -αω verb in CSMG does not prove archaism. The text has the original -εω forms for λαλείτε "speak" (11, but this rarely goes to λαλάτε: Google 5360::747); and for παρακαλείτε "ask" (18: παρακαλείτε::παρακαλάτε Google 22,200::44,000, and the former count includes a lot of Ancient Greek)

Morphology: Stems

The aorist γένει "happen" (4, 7) survives in dialect, but CSMG has made the stem consistent with the present stem, and uses γίνει. (The resulting ambiguity is dealt with in a curious way: the present is middle voice, the past is active; so Ancient γίγνομαι, ἐγενόμην is now γίνομαι, έγινα. There is no Aorist Middle in Modern Greek, but the normal outcome would have been to switch to the Aorist Passive, as in κοιμῶμαι, ἐκοιμησάμην "sleep" > κοιμάμαι, κοιμήθηκα.)

The text already uses the modern είναι "is", rather than Early Modern έναι.

The aorist πλανέσει (5) for Ancient πλανήσει (6) is a vernacular change first seen in φορέσω "wear"; the verb does not seem to be used in colloquial CSMG in the aorist.

κάμει "does" (7, 22) is a Modern sense (the ancient verb κάμνω means "to toil"); its /m/ variant is no longer used, and CSMG instead uses κάνω.

πάγει "take, go" (9) still has its original /ɣ/ < ὑπάγει "lead"—so υπάγουν (11). Ιn Modern Greek /ɣ/ is deleted between a vowel and a verb ending. So also λέγει "he says" (1), which in colloquial CSMG is λέει, and φυλάγετε "guard" (9) (Ancient φυλάσσετε, the -γ- is analogical from the aorist φυλάξω). Ιn CSMG φυλάγετε is further reduced to φυλάτε. (Dropping the /ɣ/ turns -αγω verbs into -αω verbs.) The form λέγει at least is still acceptable in CSMG because it was in Puristic; πάγει has no such warrant, and is not now used.

The future construction permits the survival of the Early Modern Greek infinitive of "be", είσται (11, 13). This has not survived into CSMG: the perfect tenses still use an infinitive-equivalent, but είμαι does not form a perfect in CSMG (*έχω είσται "I have been"), because the perfect needs an aorist (perfect) infinitive, and "be" is imperfective.

Syntax

The adverbial participle is used productively: Και εβγαίνοντας από το ιερόν ο Ιησούς "and as Jesus was coming out of the temple" (1). My own hunch is that this was not the most vernacular syntax possible, and that explicit conjunctions were more colloquial; but that's a hunch, and the participle is still around in that role. (The adjectival active participle OTOH is now ossified, surviving only in lexicalised noun. So η μαυροφορούσα "black-wearing (woman)" does not imply a masculine ο *μαυροφορόντας.)

Maximus of Gallipoli was a speaker of Northern Greek, so he used the accusative instead of the genitive for indirect objects: λέγει τον "told him" (1, 2)

The text uses the Finite θέλω + Infinitive Verb construction (2, 4, 6, etc) to express the future, and the corresponding Finite Imperfect ήθελα + Infinitive (20) to express conditionals. The Modern construction with θα + Finite Verb dates from around 1700. The alternate future with μέλλω "is destined to" is also used (4), but should be taken as an archaism. The colloquial future έχει να "it has to" (19) is now used almost always as it is here, in the fixed expression έχει να γίνει "there will be", predicting something momentous positively or negatively.

The earlier να future may be lingering in να μην μεριμνάτε πρωτύτερα τι να ειπείτε "don't study ahead of time what you might (will) say" (11); in CSMG this would θα πείτε. The subjunctive used instead does make sense in CSMG, but CSMG treats such indirect questions as indicative, and the brevity of να may have helped it survive here. There is an even stronger survival in μηδέ να γένει "and nor will there be" (19): CSMG does not allow a subjunctive ("??nor might there be"), and the survival may be a fixed expression involving "nor".

In Modern Greek, απάνω "on" is an adjective, and can only act as a preposition by combining it with σε "to": έθνος απάνου εις άλλο έθνος "nation on to other nation = nation against nation" (8). πέτρα απάνου την πέτραν "a stone on a stone" (2) is treating απάνου as a preposition on its own; that's odd enough I suspect an error. Ancient Greek did treat ἄνω as a preposition, and Kriaras' dictionary of Early Modern Greek has some comparable instances with επάνω—but they all take a genitive, which makes them archaisms: this takes an accusative, making it a Modern preposition.

The text has a subjunctive relative clause, indicating intensional reference (the clause defines what is referred to), as is common in Modern Greek (and indeed Ancient too): πέτραν οπού να μην χαλασθεί "(any) stone which will not be ruined" (2), as distinct from "a stone which will not be ruined".

Subjunctive relative clauses take να in Greek, as the class of connectives that can precede a subjunctive verb is limited. In (11), the relativiser οπού introduces a subjunctive directly: εκείνο οπού σας δοθεί "that (anything) which is given to you". This usage turns up before the modern standard, but is quite rare in CSMG. A reason the construction may formerly have been more common is that Early Modern Greek and dialect allow οπού as a headless relativiser, "whoever" (surviving in CSMG only in the proverbial οπού φύγει φύγει "whoever leaves, leaves = it's everyone for himself"). Headless relativisers are intrinsically intensional, so they naturally take the subjunctive.

Adding αυτός "he" to the archaic absolute participle καθεζόμενος "sitting" (3) is awkward, but done to avoid a hanging participle in Greek: Ancient Greek allowed participial clauses to have different subjects from the main clause, and that's what Maximus is translating (καθημένου αὐτοῦ), but Modern Greek does not.

The phrase έστοντας να "being to" (5) as a vague temporal or causal connective is common in Early Modern Greek. It has vanished without a trace in Modern Greek, as indeed has the participle έστοντας; Modern Greek only uses όντας, reformulated based on Ancient Greek via Puristic.

οπού is used to indicate result (consequential) (19), but without a correlative in the preceding clause: Διατί θλίψις έχει να γένει εκείνες τες ημέρες, οπού… "for there will be a sorrow in those days, [such] that…". Arguably the correlative is supplied immediately afterwards, οπού τέτοια δεν έγινεν "that such has not happened"; but CSMG requires a preceding correlative, so this phrase sounds odd. (Dialect does not, and indeed Cretan even allows a truncated απού phrase as an exclamation: είναι ωραίο απού! "it is [so] pretty that…!"—Cf. New Zealand English sweet as!)

The counterfactual conditional εάν ο Κύριος δεν ολιγόστευσε τες ημέρες εκείνες "If the Lord had not made the number of those days smaller" (20) uses the aorist. In CSMG this cannot be a counterfactual: it would be a real condition, "if the Lord hasn't made…", and the counterfactual would have to be in the imperfect (εάν ο Κύριος δεν λιγόστευε). So the CSMG distribution of conditional tenses took a while to stabilise—as I already noted with Chantakites.

Lexicon

I'm only going to list the deviations from CSMG here:

αμή "but" (7, 13) is no longer used; CSMG instead uses μα (< Italian ma) or Ancient αλλά (11).

μηδέ "nor" (19) has been displaced in CMSG by μήτε, thanks to Puristic: μηδέ is tagged in dictionaries as "folksy". Both connectives are of Homeric pedigree, and it's likely that Puristic wanted to avoid μηδέ precisely because it had survived better in the vernacular. (Three citations of μήτε in Kriaras' dictionary of Early Modern Greek, over 150 of μηδέ.)

Modern readers may be surpised by the low register of σίχαμα for "abomination" (14); but that notion of low register is an artifice of Greek diglossia. If the translation is into the 17th century vernacular, σίχαμα is the right rendering for Koine βδελυγμία—Puristic has made people fussier. The same holds for εγκαστρωμένες "pregnant" (17): it is now felt to be vulgar, but the now "proper" έγκυος is unyieldingly Ancient, with its insistence on not having a distinct feminine ending (*η έγκυα), and it is ineligible for vernacular use.

The text uses γρικά (14) for "understand". The sense survives in dialect, alongisde its primary reading "hear". The connection is that the verb had generalised in meaning from "hear" to "sense"—hence Anglo-Australian comedians making fun of Greek migrants who "can hear the smell", conflating the senses of γρικώ. Nikos Papandreou romantically fancies this is synaethesia; no, just semantic change, and Googling tells me it's happened in Nigerian and Ghanaian English as well. (Etymologically, the verb seems to derive from ἀγροικέω "to be in the farmhouse", e.g. "to listen out for thieves in the farmhouse".) The verb, and its polysemy, are absent from CSMG.

δώμα "roof" (15) is now rare, displaced by the Puristic οροφή and στέγη. φευγατίον "fleeing" (18) is no longer used. (3 instances in Google: two from the 19th century, one from a movie script portraying pre-WWII old men.)

εκόντεψε (20) is used to mean "shorten", rather than its CSMG meaning "approach". The two meanings are related: the adjective κοντός is "short", the adverb κοντά is "short distance away = close by".

The exclamation να "lo!" (21) is Modern, first attested in the Ptochoprodromos cycle; it has not been pointed out often enough that, despite its conventional (and phonologically odd) derivation from ἤν, it sounds suspiciously like Slavic na "ibid." (Joseph, B.D. 1981. On the Synchrony and Diachrony of Modern Greek na. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 7:139-154.)

Phrases

τι λογής "what kind of" survives as a colloqualism; to modern ears it sounds odd in an exclamation—the Modern language would just use τι on its own. In Cypriot, the equivalent ίντα λοής has become so routine, it has evolved into ίνταλος "how?"

The idiomatic έχετε τον νουν σας (5) "have your mind" means "watch out"; it is still in use.

του λόγου σου "of your word/account" is a circumlocution for "you", used as a polite indirect reference, and nowadays mostly ironic, or emphatic: "as for you, for your part". As used here (9), it is emphatic, and reflexive (φυλάγετε εσείς του λόγους σας, corresponding to Koine βλέπετε δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐαυτούς). The text as given has an accusative plural for λόγους, but a genitive singular article του: "the.gen.sg words.acc.pl your.acc.pl"; the expression in CSMG can only be του λόγου σας, with "of [your] word" staying in the genitive. This is likely Maximus trying to make sense of the formulaic expression, and putting "word" in the plural to agree with the people it refers to: the two phrases sound the same.

του λόγου μου "of my word/account" is the same circumlocution for "I", again nowadays used ironically or emphatically, "for my part". As used here (9), it is literal: δια λόγου μου "for my word = on my account" (Koine ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ).

κάμει χρεία "it makes use = it is necessary" (7) has been displaced in CSMG by χρειάζεται, which is a Modern coinage, or είναι ανάγκη "it is a need" (10).

σημεία και τέρατα "signs and portents" (22) is proverbial in Modern Greek, and I don't think Maximus could have got rid of it if he tried.

Learnèd forms

Phonology: the text is not leaping to use the Modern cluster dissimilations: χαλασθεί (2), έλθει "come" (6), συγχυσθείτε (7), κηρυχθεί (10), αδελφός (12), κτίσεως (19), έκτισεν (19), πιστεύσετε (21). The lack of contraction in παιδία (12, CSMG παιδιά [peˈðja]) may also be an archaism; φευγατίον "fleeing" (18) is not an ancient word, but could easily be a hypercorrection.

Biblical and religious names don't follow Modern phonology, and the conservative influence of the Church has meant they almost never do—it's an act of self-conscious rebellion to do otherwise, and Maximus was not Psichari: Ιησούς "Jesus" (1), Ελαιών "Olives" (3), Ιάκωβος "James" (3), Ιωάννης "John" (3), Ανδρέας "Andrew" (3), Πνεύμα "Spirit" (11), Δανιήλ "Daniel" (14).

Noun Inflection: first declension accusative μαθητάς (1), ακοάς (7)—but the Modern inflection appears on ετούτες τες μεγάλες οικοδομές (2). The first declension nominative πείναι (8), ψευδοπροφήται (22), but αρχές (9), and indeed the seemingly überdemotic σύγχυσες, avoiding the third declension, in the same sentence as πείναι (8).

There are several third declension forms: βασιλείς (9)—the vernacular plural is βασιλιάδες, with the colloquial 1st declension plural already discussed. We have also already noted the third declension ερημώσεως (14). έθνη (10): neuters in -ος were typically switched to second declension in the vernacular, to the extent they survived at all (τὸ πέλαγος > ο πέλαγος). χειμώνος (18), θλίψις (19), κτίσεως (19).

Verb Inflection: the internal augment in απεκρίθη (2); the middle participle καθεζόμενος (for Modern active κάθοντας—note that the participle is active, but the indicative is still middle κάθομαι); the distinct subjunctive 2nd pl ακούσητε "you hear" (7); the ablaut aorist in δαρθεί "be beaten" (9).

Lexicon: διδάσκαλε for δάσκαλε "teacher" (1); οικοδομήματα "buildings" (1), κατά μόνας "in private" (3; the Koine has a different archaism, κατ' ἰδίαν), κατά τόπους "in places" (8, taken from the Koine), adverbial πρώτον (10, CSMG πρώτα); έως "until" (13, 19), κτίσεως "creation" (19), σάρξ "flesh" (20: had been displaced by κρέας "meat" in the vernacular, has come back through Puristic).

Ιερόν "holy place" for "temple" is the Koine word in the original, although the modern (Christianised) vernacular wouldn't have offered a useful alternative; the Modern ναός "temple" is itself Koine instead of Attic νεώς, but is just as learnèd. (Koine took up the Doric form, because the Attic phonetic change that switched Ionic /neːos/ to /neoːs/—the "Attic declension"—was too much of an anomaly to survive.)

The text consistently uses archaic εις "to" instead of Modern σε.

A passive is used for τελειώνω "complete > finish": τελειωθούν (4), following the middle συντελεῖσθαι of the Koine. Modern Greek only uses the active for the verb, both in its transitive and intransitive meaning.

θέλει σηκωθεί X απάνου εις Y "X will rise up against Y" (8, 12) is a translationism (Koine ἐγερθήσεται X ἐπὶ Y), especially in its use of "on".

The declinable relativiser ο οποίος (19, 20) is not an archaism, being modelled on Italian il quale, but it is learnèd, and is used sparingly compared to οπού.

εις το να πλανούν "towards that they should deceive" (22) puts a preposition and article in front of a subjunctive, clearly calquing the ancient articular infinitive (Koine πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν). CSMG allows such constructions, and there is enough precedent to suggest the construction may have been vernacular; but they are most productive in high register, and the use of εις here does not make sense in CSMG. (Indeed CSMG would be more confortable with the original προς.)

Mark 13:1-22.

1 Και εβγαίνοντας από το ιερόν ο Ιησούς, λέγει τον ένας από τους μαθητάς του: «Διδάσκαλε, για δες, τι λογής πέτρες, και τι λογής οικοδομήματα!»
2 Και απεκρίθη ο Ιησούς και λέγει τον: «Βλέπεις ετούτες τες μεγάλες οικοδομές; Δεν θέλει απομείνει πέτρα απάνου την πέτραν οπού να μην χαλασθεί».
3 Και καθεζόμενος αυτός εις το όρος των Ελαιών, αγνάντια του ιερού, τον ερωτούσαν κατά μόνας, ο Πέτρος και ο Ιάκωβος και ο Ιωάννης και Ανδρέας:
4 «Διδάσκαλε, ειπέ μας πότε θέλουν γένει ετούτα; και τι είναι το σημάδι όταν μέλλουσιν ετούτα όλα να τελειωθούν;»
5 Και ο Ιησούς, έστοντας να τους αποκριθεί, άρχισε να τους λέγει: «Έχετε τον νούν σας να μην σας πλανέσει κανένας.
6 Διατί πολλοί θέλουσιν έλθει εις το όνομά μου να λέγουν ότι “Εγώ είμαι [ο Χριστός]„, και θέλουν πλανήσει πολλούς.
7 Και όταν ακούσητε πολέμους και ακοάς πολέμων, μην συγχυσθείτε· διατί κάμει χρεία να γενούσιν ετούτα—αμή ακόμη δεν είναι το τέλος.
8 Διατί θέλει σηκωθεί έθνος απάνου εις άλλο έθνος· και βασιλεία απάνου εις άλλην βασιλείαν· και θέλουσι γένει σεισμοί κατά τόπους· και θέλουσι γένει πείναι και σύγχυσες.
9 Ετούτα είναι αρχές των πόνων. Και φυλάγετε εσείς του λόγου σας· διατί θέλουν σας παραδώσει εις τα συνέδρια, και εις τες συναγωγές θέλετε δαρθεί· και θέλουν σας πάγει [42] ομπροστά εις τους αυθεντάδες και βασιλείς δια λόγου μου, εις μαρτυρίαν αναντίαν τους. [43]

• [42] ή θέλετε σταθεί
• [43] ήγουν να μην ημπορούν να απολογηθούσι

10 Και ανάγκη είναι να κηρυχθεί πρώτον το ευαγγέλιον εις όλα τα έθνη.
11 Και όταν σας υπάγουν να σας παραδώσουν, να μην μεριμνάτε πρωτύτερα τι να ειπείτε, μηδέ μελετάτε· αλλά εκείνο οπού σας δοθεί εκείνην την ώραν, τούτο λαλείτε· διατί δεν θέλετε είσται εσείς οπού λαλείτε, αλλά το Πνεύμα το Άγιον.
12 Και θέλει παραδώσει αδελφός τον αδελφόν εις τον θάνατον· και ο πατέρας το παιδί του· και τα παιδία θέλουν σηκωθεί απάνου εις τους γονείς τους και θέλουν τους θανατώσει.
13 Και θέλετε είσται μισημένοι από όλους δια το όνομά μου· αμή όποιος υπομείνει έως το τέλος, εκείνος θέλει σωθεί.
14 Και όταν ιδείτε το “σίχαμα της ερημώσεως„, εκείνο οπού είπεν ο Δανιήλ ο προφήτης, να στέκει εκεί οπού δεν πρέπει (εκείνος οπού το διαβάζει, ας γρικά), τότε εκείνοι που είναι εις την Ιουδαίαν ας φεύγουσιν εις τα βουνά.
15 Και εκείνος οπού είναι απάνου εις το δώμα, ας μην κατέβει εις το σπίτι του μηδέ να έμπει μέσα να πάρει τίποτες από το σπίτι του.
16 Και εκείνος οπού είναι εις το χωράφι, ας μην γυρίσει οπίσω να πάρει το ρούχον του.
17 Και αλίμονον εις τες εγκαστρωμένες και εκείνες οπού βυζάνονται εκείνες τες ημέρες.
18 Και παρακαλείτε να μην γένει το φευγατίον σας [εις την ώραν] του χειμώνος.
19 Διατί θλίψις έχει να γένει εκείνες τες ημέρες, οπού τέτοια δεν έγινεν από την αρχήν της κτίσεως, την οποίαν έκτισεν ο Θεός, έως τώρα, και μηδέ να γένει.
20 Και εάν ο Κύριος δεν ολιγόστευσε τες ημέρες εκείνες, δεν ήθελε σωθεί καμία σάρξ· αλλά δια τους διαλεμένους τους οποίους εδιάλεξε εκόντεψε τες ημέρες.
21 Και τότε, εάν σας ειπεί κανένας: “Να, εδώ είναι ο Χριστός„ ή “Να, εκεί [είναι]„, μην τον πιστεύσετε.
22 Διατί θέλουσι σηκωθεί ψευδόχριστοι και ψευδοπροφήται και θέλουσι κάμει [44] σημεία και τέρατα, εις το να πλανούν και να σύρουν (αν ήτον δυνατόν) και τους διαλεμένους.»

• [44] ήγουν δώσει

...Read more

Chantakites: Linguistic analysis

As I promised, I'm going to walk through the linguistic particularities of Manuel Chantakites' letter. This is pretty usual in the philological editions of Early Modern texts: there'll be a couple of pages in the preface enumerating linguistic oddities, working their way up from phonology through to syntax (and not getting far beyond syntax, or a 19th century understanding of linguistics). To Greek speakers this may well be obvious—no edition would go into this much detail. But particularly because of the Cretan dialect involved, I might as well go all the way through.

In the following, CSMG = Contemporary Standard Modern Greek. The sentence references to the text (repeated at the end) are given in brackets.

Phonology: There are a lot of final n's, as was the case throughout transcriptions of Modern Greek until the past century. This does not necessarily mean they were pronounced, or they were not. CSMG has dropped a lot of final n's, although there is still variability and debate about it. But final /n/ is dropped in αν "if" before consonants, where CSMG would retain it (7, 8, 18).

Final euphonic /n/ has extended analogically to infinitives, giving the innovating είσταιν (7) "to be" alongside είσται (9) (Classical εἶσθαι, with the regular vernacular sound change /sθ/ > /st/.)

πίκρα "bitterness", πικραίνω "to embitter" has been metathesised to πρίκα, πρικαίνω (2, 3, 4). That kind of metathesis is common (/#pr/ is easier than /-kr-/); I've even heard αρθιμός for αριθμός. CSMG has done away with these by etymological spelling.

γλήγορος "fast" for γρήγορος < ἐγρήγορος "alert" is common in non-standardised Greek. By contrast, the etymological αδέλφια, αδελφήν "siblings, sister" (13, 14) have not shifted to the Modern αδέρφια, αδερφή.

Clitic pronouns can have euphonic final /e/: τηνε "her" (to avoid final /n/ before a consonant) (2). In CSMG, that is now restricted to song lyrics, but it is still a prominent feature of Cretan.

/evo/ verbs display an epenthetic gamma: γυρεύγεις for γυρεύεις "you seek" (2). This is routine in non-standardised variants of Modern Greek.

Some of the routine aphaeresis of Modern Greek has not happened in this text, although as usual it's hard to know whether that's because the spelling is being archaic, or the change hadn't happened yet. So επρίκανες for πίκρανες "you embittered" (2), εδική for δική "proper" (3), ωσάν for σάν "as, when" (2), οπού for που "relativiser" (3). (But the Modern Cretan for που is απού, so the initial vowel was retained.) OTOH, νοίκια > ενοίκια "rents" (2), και εθάρρουν (4) vs. και θάρρουν (9).

By contrast, the text shows some instances of και "and" with the same initial vowel, οκαί (2, 8, 18). This was a short-lived innovation in Early Modern Greek, and it showed that forms like οπού and που coexisted—so that οκαί::και was remodelled by analogy to οπού::που.

Ancient χρυσοχόος "goldsmith" has been rendered as χρουσοχός (20): the variant χρουσός for χρυσός is entrenched in unstandardised Greek, and the hiatus of /oos/ has been eliminated. CSMG has reintroduced the ancient form.

Morphology: The stressed augment of ήμαθα "I learned" (16), ήκαμες "you did" (9), and ήλεγες "you were saying" (16, 17) are /i/ rather than /e/. The spelling analyses it as a "double augment", which occasionally turns up in Ancient Greek (mostly because the verb had a variant with an initial vowel already.) The /i/ augment has become regular in Modern Eastern Cretan, and this seems to be the start of it; it is still not regular, given έκαμα "I did" (3), έμαθα "I learned" (5). The augment of ήκουσα "I heard" (2) (Ancient ἤκουσα, Modern άκουσα) should be interpreted the same way, rather than as an archaic survival.

έναι (19) for "is" is transitional between ἔνι "is in", which is common in Early Modern Greek and underlies Cypriot έν, and CSMG είναι, which has levelled the stem to the other present tense persons (είμαι, είσαι, είναι).

εθάρρουν "I trusted" (4) retains the ancient imperfect ending, as does Modern Cretan. CSMG uses the Northern Greek ending -ούσα.

The genitive κυρού of κύρης > κύριος "master = father" (21) can be explained through the occasional Byzantine variant κυρός.

The infinitive survives only in restricted roles—here, only in the future construction θέλω + Infinitive (7, 8, 11). This future construction is contrasted with the literal meaning of θέλω "I want", which takes the subjunctive (18, 19).

The future construction of CSMG, θα + Subjunctive, has two antecedents in Early Modern Greek: either Conjugated θέλω + Infinitive Verb, or Infinitive θέλει + Conjugated Subjunctive (θέλω έλθει(ν), θέλει έλθω "I will come"). The CSMG construction comes from the second structure: θέλει έλθω > θέλει να έλθω (with the verb dependency explicitly as a subjunctive) > θε να έλθω > θα έρθω. Modern Cretan retains the first structure, with the main verb preposed: έλθει(ν) θέλω > να έρθει θέλω (with the infinitive reinterpreted as a subjunctive). Chantakites has the earlier infinitival construction, both in normal ordering (θέλω είσταιν "I will be" 7) and with the characteristically Cretan preposing (έλθει θέλω " I will come" 8, εγνωρίσει θέλω "I will know" 10)

The conditional construction, which parallels the future but uses past tenses on the main verb, is also present: ήθελεν είσται "would be" (9).

Lexicon: The letter uses πατέρας for "father" (1, 2, 16): it's the reflex of ancient πατήρ, and the neutral CSMG word. The marginal note to his wife at the end uses the Cretan word κύρης, "lord" (21). That suggests Manuel is being formal and aloof when addressing his father. The same goes for μητέρα "mother" (1) vs. μάννα "mum" (21).

Ξέρω "I know" is in its older form, ηξεύρω (< ἐξεύρω "I find out") (2, 16).

Σώνει "it saves" has the older meaning "it suffices" here (CSMG would used φτάνει) (3).

Θαρρώ "I have courage; I trust" has come to mean "I think, I reckon" in CSMG. The letter illustrates how this may have happened (4): "I have courage in you" > "I trust in you" > "I trust in you to make this happen" > "I trust that this will happen" > "I reckon that this will happen".

καύχα "girlfriend" (9) is no longer in use.

τυχαίνω "happen, happen by accident" (9) is used to mean "be appropriate".

άματα "when" (4) is a variant of άμα "when, as soon as" < ἅμα "together". The -τα suffix occurs with other Early Modern adverbs: αντίκρυ-τα "opposite", δίχωσ-τα "separately", είμη-τα "otherwise", and is an analogy with other adverbs ending in -τα (έπειτα "afterwards", ανεθάρρετα "bravely").

φλογοτομάς (4) is a folk-etymological recast of φλεβοτομάς "you cut your veins" after φλογο- "flame". The emotive context may have influenced this.

μηδέν "nothing" is used for μην "not (subjunctive), lest" (4). This corresponds to the use of ουδέν "nothing" instead of ου "not (indicative)" (9), which has resulted in CSMG δεν "not" (17) by aphaeresis.

CSMG οι δικοί μου "my own ones" means "my relatives"; this expression is already present as τους εδικούς μου όλους "all my relatives" (15). The letter rearranges Det Adj N Poss to Det Adj Poss N for emphasis, as CSMG allows: τους καλούς μου εδικούς και τους καλούς μου φίλους "my good friends and my good relatives" (11). But while CSMG allows τους καλούς μου φίλους, it does not allow *τους καλούς μου δικούς. This shows that οι δικοί μου has since been lexicalised, and the possessive can no longer be separated from the noun.

Dialect lexicon: πολλά is Cretan for πολύ "very" (2, 13, 14); the neuter plural used as an adverb is in fact the regular formation in CSMG (e.g. καλά "well"), and the standard language is archaic in retaining the neuter singular for πολύ.

Κατέχω "I possess" has supplanted ξέρω "I know" in Cretan; both are used here (οκαί κατέχεις καλά "and you know well") (3).

τίβοτας (16) is Cretan for τίποτε "anything"; it has developed in Modern Cretan into τίβοτσι.

τεσταμέντο (19) is of course an Italian loanword; Modern Cretan used the Turkish loanword βασιγιέτι (vasiyet).

χέρα "hand" (20) is the expected reflex of Ancient χείρ; it looks in CSMG like an augmentative (contrasted with χέρι < Ancient diminutive χέριον), but is in fact the normal Cretan word.

Syntax: The surname is treated as an apposition: τον Μανοήλ τον Χαντακίτην, "the Manuel the Chantakites" (1). That is a feature of colloquial Greek to this day, and it shows that First Name–Surname is not treated as a single unit.

Indirect objects appear in the genitive, as is common in southern Greek dialect and CSMG. This extends to full nouns, as in γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια "you seek rents [to] your daughter-in-law" (2). While the phrase is still possible in colloquial Greek, it is on the decline: for full nouns the standard language prefers explicit prepositions, in this case γυρεύεις από τη νύφη σου νοίκια "you seek rents from your daughter-in-law". The other instance, πέψε το του κυρού μου και της μάννας μου "send it to my father and mother" (21) sounds less strange in CSMG.

Cretan often uses genitive (= dative) indirect objects where CSMG uses accusative direct objects; this is regarded as an archaism. An instance here is ευχαριστώ σου πολλά (10), "I thank you a lot", where CSMG has σε ευχαριστώ πολύ.

Clitic object pronouns moved from postverbal in Ancient Greek to preverbal in CSMG. There is a cline across Modern dialects as to how prevalent this is, and Cretan allows both placements. This text reflects that: πολλά με επρίκανες "you have embittered me a lot" (2), τούτον σου θυμίζω "I remind you of this" (7), but ευχαριστώ σου πολλά "I thank you a lot" (10).

I've already posted about the strange-looking use of να in ήκουσα να γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια "I heard that you were seeking rents from your daughter-in-law" (2), and ήλεγες να εβγάλεις την νύφην σου "you were saying that you would kick your daughter-in-law out" (16).

One of the more distinctive features of this text is the use of και "and" to introduce not just new sentences, but verb complements. Again, this is a colloquial feature of Modern Greek (and other Balkan languages), largely curtailed in the standard, which would use ότι instead. So: κατέχεις καλά και μεγάλην πρίκαν της έκαμα εγώ "you know well that I have embittered her greatly" (3); ήμαθα και ήλεγες "I have learned that you have been saying" (16)

The letter uses the counterfactual conditional construction αν A όχι και (αν) B "if A, no and (if) B" (18), or όχι και (αν) B αμέ αν A "no and (if) B, but if A" (9), meaning "even if A, let alone if B". A is the counterfactual, exaggerated condition; B is the condition that actually applies, and which A exaggerates: "even if she were my whore, let alone my wife", "even if I had thousands of thousands, let alone what little I do have". This not survived into Modern Greek, which uses όχι on its own to introduce the actual condition as a small clause, without its own verb, and uses the explicit contrastive αλλά (ούτε) να "but (not even) that (= if)" to introduce the exaggerated counterfactual. So it is closer to όχι και (αν) B αμέ αν A as in (9):

• ότι όχι και ήτονε γυναίκα μου, αμέ αν ήθελεν είσται καύχα μου (lit. "that no and she were my wife, but if she would be my whore") > όχι γυναίκα μου, αλλά ούτε πουτάνα μου να ήταν (lit. no my wife, but not even my whore if she were"), "even if she were my whore, let alone my wife"
  
• αν έχω χίλιες χιλιάδες δουκάτα, όχι και α δεν έχω τίβοτας > ??αν έχω όχι τίποτα, αλλά και χιλιάδες δουκάτα "If I have not nothing, but thousands of ducats"

Moreover, the Modern expression is explicitly counterfactual, so (18) would in fact be αν είχα όχι τίποτα, αλλά και χιλιάδες δουκάτα, "If I had not nothing..." The older construction is not as fixed. Consistent with the use of αν rather than subjunctive να in the counterfactual, the old expression allows a conditional tense: αν ήθελεν είσται "if she would be", Modern αν θα ήταν, να ήταν.

ωσάν "as" is used anaphorically (5): έκαμες ωσάν ήθελες, "you did as you wanted [to do]". In Modern Greek, σαν cannot be used anaphorically, and όπως "as" would be used instead.

The ancient use of genitive after prepositions survives, possibly still in colloquial use, possibly as a learnèd construction: από χολής μου πολλής "from my great vexation" (8), ο Θεός μετά σας "God with you" (12). But the latter is a translation of the Ancient ὁ Θεὸς μεθ’ ἡμῶν, and contrasts with the modern με την χέραν μου "with my hand" (20), with its truncated Modern form με.

The expected article is omitted before "hands" in καταφιλώ χέρια της και τα πόδια της "I kiss her hands and feet" (14), though it is used before "feet". There's no clear reason for the inconsistency, and I think it a lapse. The omitted article in ωσάν άλλα πράγματα "like (the) other things" (18) is also odd.

The free word order of Και τούτον θέλω το γράμμα "and this _i I want the letter _i" (19) is unusual for Modern Greek.

Archaisms: Very few, and where you'd expect them. The date is in the dative: μηνί Μαγίω = μηνὶ Μαΐῳ "in the month of May" (22). The archaic δέ "but" has redundantly attached itself to όμως "but" (12), and ομοίως "likewise" also looks formulaic. The addressing of the latter has the formal πατέραν and μητέραν, and also the archaic spelling υιόν [ion] instead of γιον [jon] "son" (1)—though we don't have a diplomatic transcription, so we don't know if Manuel would have used a more modern rendering anyway. The reduplicated perfect ανωγεγραμμένος "aforesigned" (20) is formulaic (though contrasted with the dialectal με την χέραν μου "with my hand").

Discourse: The epistolary command ήξευρε ότι "Know (this), that…" is used a couple of times (2, 16). The modern verb does not have an imperative (*Ξέρε ότι), but its subjunctive equivalent can still be used with the same meaning (να ξέρεις ότι, "you should know that…")

(1) Εις τον πατέραν μου και την μητέραν μου πολλά προσκυνήματα από εμέναν τον υιόν σας τον Μανοήλ τον Χαντακίτην.

(2) Ήξευρε, πατέρα, ότι πολλά με επρίκανες, ωσάν ήκουσα να γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια και να τηνε πρικάνεις. (3) Και σώνει την η εδική μου πρίκα οπού της έκαμα (οκαί κατέχεις καλά και μεγάλην πρίκαν της έκαμα εγώ). (4) Και εθάρρουν εις εσέναν, άματά ’μουν μιαν φοράν το παιδίν σου και εξενιτεύτηκα, να φλογοτομάς το αίμα σου να ποτίζεις την νύφην σου και ποτέ πρίκαν να μηδέν έχει από σένα. (5) Και εγώ έμαθα ότι έκαμες ωσάν ήθελες. (6) Και δοξάζω τον Θεόν. (7) Και τούτον σου θυμίζω, ότι, α δώσει ο Θεός, γλήγορα θέλω είσταιν αυτού· (8) οκαί, αν εμίσσεψα από χολής μου πολλής, έλθει θέλω, α δώσει ο Θεός. (9) Και θάρρουν ότι όχι και ήτονε γυναίκα μου, αμέ αν ήθελεν είσται καύχα μου, ουδέν ετύχαινεν να κάμεις ωσάν μού ’παν ότι ήκαμες. (10) Και ευχαριστώ σου πολλά. (11) Και, α δώσει ο Θεός να έλθω και εγώ αυτού, εγνωρίσει θέλω τους καλούς μου εδικούς και τους καλούς μου φίλους. (12) Όμως δε ο Θεός μετά σας.

† (13) Όλα μου τα αδέλφια πολλά καταφιλώ. (14) Και το περιπλέον την σπλαχνικήν μου αδελφήν την κερ-Αντωνίαν την Μαρμαράδαιναν πολλά καταφιλώ χέρια της και τα πόδια της. (15) Ομοίως και τους γαμπρούς μου και τους εδικούς μου όλους.

† (16) Ήξευρε, πατέρα, ότι ήμαθα και ήλεγες να εβγάλεις την νύφην σου από τα σπίτια της, α μου έρθει τίβοτας. (17) Κ’ ήλεγες το θέλημά σου. (18) Και εγώ λέγω, οκαί αν έχω χίλιες χιλιάδες δουκάτα, όχι και α δεν έχω τίβοτας, θέλω να είναι όλα εδικά της, τόσο σπίτια, ωσάν άλλα πράγματα. (19) Και τούτον θέλω το γράμμα να έναι τεσταμέντο και ό,τι γράφω να έναι στερεόν.

(20) Εγώ ανωγεγραμμένος Μανουήλ ο χρουσοχός έγραψα με την χέραν μου.

(21) († Τούτον, ωσάν το αναγνώσεις, πέψε το του κυρού μου και της μάννας μου.)

† (22) Εγράφη μηνί Μαγίω εις την πρώτην.

...Read more

Generalised use of να in Early Modern Greek

I've been reluctant to write this post for a couple of reasons:

1. It requires dropping a moderate amount of linguistic science;
   
2. I'm not prepared to do either the research or the bibliographic survey to back it up;
   
3. It's probably already been worked out by the Grammar of Mediaeval Greek people.

If the latter is the case, then it won't be the first time Notis is more up to date than I am. But I'll write, and I'll see who bites.

In a previous post, I mentioned that I'd like to do a detailed linguistic survey of the 1420 letter by Manuel Chantakites, and how its language differs from contemporary standard Greek (and for that matter contemporary Cretan). Readers remarked that the letter was remarkably readable. But there is one feature of the text that, although readable, is emphatically absent from contemporary Greek. It has to do with how να is used.

You can no longer say sentences like this:

• ωσάν ήκουσα να γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια, "when I heard that you are asking for rent from your daughter-in-law" (Manuel is not physically present)
  
• ήμαθα και ήλεγες να εβγάλεις την νύφην σου από τα σπίτια της, "I have learned you've been saying that you would kick your daughter-in-law out of her houses"

The phrases would now be:

• σαν άκουσα πως/ότι γυρεύεις από τη νύφη σου νοίκια
  
• έμαθα πως έλεγες πως/ότι θα βγάλεις τη νύφη σου από τα σπίτια της.

I'm going to work through why this is an oddity, and what I think has happened. I am also going to tie it in to another expression which is just as impossible in Modern Greek:

• Τότε να είδες τα βουνά, να είδες και τους κάμπους / να είδες και τα δάσητα, να είδες τας λαγκάδας, "You should have seen the mountains and the prairies! You should have seen the forests and ravines!" (Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds 103-104)

Modern Greek would use after να not the perfective past (the aorist indicative, historically), but the imperfective past (the imperfect indicative, historically):

Τότε να έβλεπες τα βουνά, να έβλεπες και τους κάμπους / να έβλεπες και τα δάση, να έβλεπες τις λαγκάδες

And I'm going to claim these differences are related.

It will take a lot less time to say this if I presuppose you're all linguists, which you're not; I'm going to give the opaque summary here, and the semantics lesson under the fold.

Early Modern Greek να appears to have been used more broadly as a complementiser than its current distribution associated with events and dubitatives, contrary to its purposive etymology and indeed the further restriction on factual complements in Modern Cretan. This may be associated with a temporary generalisation of να to more "indicative" contexts, e.g. as a future marker, and its use with the historical indicative aorist in optative as well as evidential contexts.

Understood? No? Well, let's walk through this.

In Modern Greek, να is the main subjunctive marker; historically it is derived from ἵνα "in order to". να has displaced the Ancient infinitive, so verbs with να appear where Ancient Greek used the subjunctive, the optative, or the infinitive. One of its main functions, just like the infinitive's, is to introduce complements of verbs: phrases that are the objects of verbs. ("I like to watch", Μου αρέσει να κοιτάζω, φιλῶ βλέπειν).

But whereas the Ancient infinitive could introduce a broad range of complements, να is more restricted. Like the English infinitive, it mostly introduces events, things that happen; and unlike a lot of "indirect discourse" Classical infinitives, it does *not* introduce facts or propositions, pieces of knowledge. Those instead are introduced by ότι or πως. (Some complements also have που or και or nothing, but I don't want to get distracted.) So:

• Άρχισα να διαβάζω, "I began to study"
  
• Θέλω να διαβάσει, "I want him to study"
  
• Σε διατάζω να διαβάσεις, "I command you to study"
  
• Λέει πως διαβάζει, "He says he's studying"
  
• Νομίζω πως διαβάζει, "I think he's studying"

In fact, by switching between να and πως, you change whether a fact or an event is involved, and thereby you change the meaning of the verb. Which is pretty common across languages:

• Τον άκουσα να βρίζει, "I heard him swear" (I perceived an event)
  
• Άκουσα πως έβριζε, "I heard that he swore" (I perceived a claim = proposition, and not an event)
  
• Του είπα να διαβάσει, "I told him to study" (I spoke an event—which is reintepreted to: I commanded an event)
  
• Λέω να διαβάσω, "I'm considering studying" (lit. "I say that I should study": I spoke an event I will carry out—which idiomatically means I'm thinking aloud about doing an event, I'm making a commitment)
  
• Ξέρω πως διαβάζω, "I know that I'm studying" (I know a fact)
  
• Ξέρω να διαβάζω, "I know how to study" (I know an event—I know how to make the event happen)

There is an exception in Modern Greek where να can introduce a proposition. That means putting a proposition in a grammatical context which doesn't fit propositions; and the context is expressing doubt about the proposition:

• Πιστεύω πως διαβάζει, "I think that he's studying"
  
• Πιστεύω να διαβάζει, "I *think* that he might be studying"

You can't do that with more certain verbs: ??Ξέρω να διαβάζει, "I know that he might be studying". (Works in English, not in Greek.) And that exception makes sense because of comparable constructions, where the να-clause introduces an inference, rather than a certain fact—i.e., again, a proposition:

• Πρέπει να διαβάσει, "He must study" (an event that must happen)
  
• Πρέπει να διάβασε, "He must have studied" (a proposition that must be true)
  
• Να διαβάζει; "Might he be studying?"

The doubting clauses and the inferences are all tied together by the tenses they allow. Normally, να introduces a present imperfective or present perfective—the historical present subjunctive and aorist subjunctive. It can introduce the present imperfect—the historical imperfect indicative—in contexts much like the English conditional and the Classical optative: wishes, counterfactual conditions, future-in-past:

• Αχ να διάβαζε! "If only he'd study"
  
• Αν διάβαζε, θα πρόκοβε "If he'd study, he'd get ahead"
  
• Μου είπε πως θα διάβαζε "He said he'd study (= was going to study)"

I'm treating the future marker θα as an extension of να: it is derived from θέλω να "I want to" (like English will), and has similar tense restrictions.

The past perfective—the historical aorist indicative—is normally too "indicative" to appear with να. As it turns out, it never appears with events:

• *Άρχισα να διάβασα
  
• *Θέλω να διάβασε
  
• *Σε διατάζω να διάβασες

It only appears with propositions put in doubt, and inferences (which are intrinsically doubtful):

• Πιστεύω να διάβασε, "I think he might have study"
  
• Πρέπει να διάβασε, "He must have studied"
  
• Να διάβασε; "Might he have studied?
  
• Μου είπε πως θα διάβασε "He said that he will have studied (= must have) studied)"

So this is a reinterpretation of να, away from events and into doubtful propositions. We could speculate that the shift of πρέπει "must", from obligation to inference (deontic to epistemic), came first, because it would explain the shift from event to proposition; but the Ancient subjunctive also conveyed this sort of doubt as a main clause. Typically introduced by μη, but then the Modern equivalent is typically introduced by μήπως:

• μὴ ἀγροικότερον ᾖ τὸ ἀληθές εἰπεῖν: μήπως να 'ναι πιο αγροίκο να πούμε την αλήθεια: "it might be too rude to speak the truth"
  
• εἴπωμεν ἢ σιγώμεν; να μιλήσουμε ή να σιωπήσουμε; "should we speak or keep silent?"

So it could also be an inherited pattern. The tense usage though is an innovation: there's nothing in Ancient Greek to suggest using an "indicative" tense here.

The distribution of ότι/πως vs. να in complements—ότι/πως for facts and propositions, να for events—is pretty stable across Greek dialect. I don't know of any instances where να picks up more than doubtful propositions. In Modern Cretan at least, even that exception is rolled back: "He must be studying" is Πρέπει πως διαβάζει, just like Νομίζω πως διαβάζει and Ξέρω πως διαβάζει (I think/I know that he is reading). So in Cretan, the analogy has gone the other way: analogy has switched "must" from events to propositions, and analogy shifts its following complementiser from the event marker to the proposition marker.

And if you're historically minded, you can find justification for the distribution in the etymology of να: its ancestor ἵνα "in order to" introduced events, things you intended to do. The restriction of the past perfective is also neat, and this all suggests a clearcut system in place since the beginning of Early Modern Greek.

The examples at the start of the post (remember?) do not. The verse from the Quadrupeds shows the past perfective used with wishes, where Modern Greek would use the "optative" past imperfective:

• Τότε να είδες τα βουνά, να είδες και τους κάμπους / να είδες και τα δάσητα, να είδες τας λαγκάδας, "You should have seen the mountains and the prairies! You should have seen the forests and ravines!"

But that breaks the neat association between the indicative tense and doubt. The wish it introduces is still a proposition that hasn't happened, but doubt is not the point of a wish, and Modern Greek doesn't make that extension. Which means that the Modern restriction wasn't always in place: Early Modern Greek didn't distinguish between wishes and doubts, both could take a past tense after να, imperfective or perfective.

Chantakites' letter points to another breakdown. I've seen similar breakdowns in the Chronicle of the Morea, with ότι να used where Modern Greek uses just ότι (on which more below); but Chantakites' letter is more persuasive because its Greek really does look more unforced. And what Chantakites does is break down the Modern distinction between perceiving an event, with να, and perceiving a fact (second hand), through πως. Manuel is miles away from Crete, but

• ωσάν ήκουσα να γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια, "when I heard that you are asking for rent from your daughter-in-law"

In Modern Greek, you can only use να after "hear" if you're directly perceiving an event: σαν σε άκουσα να γυρεύεις από τη νύφη σου νοίκια, "when I heard you ask(ing) for rent from your daughter-in-law". And you'd have to insert the direct object, σε "you": the syntax of the dependent clause is different, its subject is raised to become the object of the main verb, expressing perception ("I heard him ask" = "I heard the event in which he asked", "I heard him while he was asking"). Whereas what Chantakites said treats να just like ότι, with no raising of the subject.

What's going on? I think there's a hint in the other instance:

• ήμαθα και ήλεγες να εβγάλεις την νύφην σου από τα σπίτια της, "I have learned you've been saying that you would kick your daughter-in-law out of her houses"

The letter has some instances of what was to become the Modern Greek future construction, εγνωρίσει θέλω "to know I want" > θέλω να γνωρίσω "I want to know" > θα γνωρίσω "I will know" (and Modern Cretan να γνωρίσει θέλω). But that was the start of the future construction: until then in Early Modern Greek, as I've mentioned in earlier posts, the future was expressed with να.

• Michael Glycas: ὁ βασιλεὺς φιλάνθρωπος καὶ νὰ σὲ συμπαθήσῃ, "the kindly emperor's gonna pardon you"
  
• Continuators of Scylitzes: Ἐγὼ σὲ ἔκτισα, φοῦρνε, καὶ ἐγὼ νὰ σὲ χαλάσω, "I built you, oven, and I'll destroy you."

You might argue this construction is still there in Chantakites:

• Και εθάρρουν εις εσέναν … να φλογοτομάς το αίμα, "I trusted in you even to bleed your own veins" ("I trusted in you that you would bleed your own veins"?)

And you can also read the other instance of an odd να that way:

• ήμαθα και ήλεγες να εβγάλεις την νύφην σου από τα σπίτια της, "I have learned you've been saying that you would kick your daughter-in-law out of her houses"

This could be like the idiomatic Λέω να διαβάσω Modern construction: "I'm saying for me to read = I'm thinking aloud that I should read = I'm considering reading." Sounds odd to use it outside the first person, but it's possible. But it's likelier that this use of ήλεγες is literal: Manuel has heard reports of his father speaking, and να introduces what he was speaking, as a proposition rather than a figurative event: it is equivalent to Modern έλεγες πως, "you have been saying that…".

The Modern Greek would continue: έλεγες πως θα βγάλεις τη νύφη σου, "you have been saying that you will kick out your daughter-in-law". With a future tense construction. But θα βγάλεις used to be να εβγάλεις, with the old future use of να. So in 1100, this would have been: έλεγες ότι να εβγάλεις τη νύφη σου—with the ότι να combination you can see in the Chronicle of Morea:

• Ἐνταῦτα ἀπήρασιν βουλὴν ὅ<τι> νὰ ἀπελθοῦσιν, "there they made the decision to depart" (H 145)
  
• Κι ἀφότου ἐστερεώσασιν ὅτι νὰ τὸ πληρώσουν, "and after they affirmed that they would pay for it" (H 180)
  
• ὑπόσχεσιν τοῦ ἐποῖκαν / ὅτι νὰ βάλουσιν βουλήν, "they made him a promise that they would decide" (H 8546–7)
  
• (Jean de Catavas): Κι ὅποιος ἰδῇ ὅτι νὰ τραπῶ ἢ τίποτε δειλιάσω, / ἐχτρὸν τὸν ἔχω τοῦ Χριστοῦ, νὰ μὴ μὲ σφάξῃ εὐθέως, "and whoever sees that I turn or lose courage at all, I shall hold him to be an enemy of Christ if he does not kill me immediately" (H 4755–6)
  
• Τὸ ἀκούσει ὁ Ροῦσος ντὲ Σουλῆ ὅτι νὰ γένῃ ὅρκος, "when Rousseau de Sully heard that there would be an oath" (H 7927)

The first three phrases can be expressed in Modern Greek as either ότι θα, a future proposition, or να, an event (commitment): you can decide that you will do something, or decide to do something. If it's an event, ότι looks redundant: "they made the decision that to depart" (Modern πήραν απόφαση να αποχωρήσουν). That kind of redundancy can happen in Early Modern Greek, but I'm sympathetic to reading it instead as the old future: "they made the decision that they will depart" (Modern πήραν απόφαση ότι θα αποχωρήσουν).

The last two instances are verbs of perception, just as we saw with Manuel Chantakites hearing that his father was seeking rent. De Catavas' clause involves direct perception: Modern Greek allows both να and ότι, and would prefer να normally; but the absence of raising ("sees me turn", μὲ ἰδῇ (ὅτι) νὰ τραπῶ) suggests that the clause is really being introduced by ότι, and να is a future marker. The future sense is clearer in Rousseau de Sully's clause, which involves indirect perception: de Sully can't hear people making an oath, because he is agreeing for them all to take the oath that has just been proposed. So he really has heard "that there will be an oath", and that's what the Greek says: ὅτι νὰ γένῃ ὅρκος, Modern ότι θα γίνει όρκος.

Now the point of all that was, it is difficult to work out whether these clauses express events or propositions: the future να turns up with propositions, and makes them sound like events. The sequence ότι να sounds like two complementisers next to each other, and it would be easy to drop the first as redundant, or as a zero-complentiser. (Είπε πως θα παει "He said that he would go", Είπε θα πάει "He said he would go", which in Early Modern Greek would be Είπε να υπάγει.)

If it's difficult for us, it was difficult back then too. So it would be possible for the future (ότι) να in those contexts to be reanalysed as a propositional complementiser: Τὸ ἀκούσει ὁ Ροῦσος ντὲ Σουλῆ ὅτι νὰ γένῃ ὅρκος, "when Rousseau de Sully heard that there would be an oath" could lead to ωσάν ήκουσα να γυρεύγεις της νύφης σου νοίκια, "when I heard that you are asking for rent from your daughter-in-law". The reanalysis may not have generalised, and it certainly hasn't left any traces behind—especially given how Cretan has since got rid of the propositional να in Πρέπει πως διαβάζει, "He must be studying".

But it suggests that the distribution of να as a complementiser was messier, messed up by the use of να as a future marker—which pushed it towards more "indicative" meanings. The neater modern distribution of να, along with the neater distribution of past tenses after inferential να, may have have resulted from a subsequent cleanup of the language—speakers reimposing order on their use of να, rather than inheriting it.

Thank you if you've made it this far; this is properly a paper, but I'm not likely to write it, and it may already be a solved problem. I'm pretty sure it hadn't been worked through in the literature I read for my thesis. But given the spasmodic status of Early Modern Greek linguistics until fairly recently, that's not saying much.
...Read more