Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:25:29.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On some recent views concerning the development of the Greek future system*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Brian D. Joseph  and
Panayiotis A. Pappas
Brian D. Joseph
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, [email protected]
Panayiotis A. Pappas
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Simon Fraser University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers of the historical grammar of Modern Greek agree in general terms that the particle θά derives from an older construction which included the verb θέλω. In the past years, however, there has been some disagreement about the exact point of departure, and, consequently, the exact route (or routes) of the development of θά. In this article we present a straightforward account of θά, explicating several of the disputed aspects of its development, and comparing our account to other, recently published, views. In this way we try to set the record straight with respect to the history of this important element of the Greek verbal system.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 26 , 2002 , pp. 247 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2002

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank an anonymous referee and David Holton for their many useful comments on this paper. A preliminary version of it was given at the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics at the University of Cyprus in September 1999 and will appear in the conference proceedings (Pappas & Joseph, to appear).

References

Aerts, W. (1983), ‘Periphrastic Constructions of the Future Tense, Especially with ΜΕΛΛΕΙΝ, in Medieval Cypriotic’, Έπετηρίς rov Κέντρου ΈπιστημονικώνΈρευνών (Nicosia) XII, 149–169.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. (1972), An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (New York 2nd ed. 1989).Google Scholar
Arlotto, A. (1972), Introduction to Historical Linguistics (Boston) (reprinted Lanham, MD 1981).Google Scholar
Bănescu, N. (1915), Die Entwicklung des griechischen Futurums von der frühbyzantinischen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart (Bucharest).Google Scholar
Bubeník, V. (1966), ‘Toward a Theory of Syntactic Change’, Diachronica 13.1, 155–170.Google Scholar
Chatzidakis, G.N. (1905), Μεσαιωνικά κάι Νέα Ελληνικά (Athens).Google Scholar
Cheila-Markopoulou, D. (2001), ‘Θέλω νά ... άλλά δεν θά ...: φοανόμενα νραμματικοποίησΓ^ к où τροπική πολυεκμετάλλευση’, Studies in Greek Linguistics (Thessaloniki), 822–833.Google Scholar
Germano, G. (1622), see Pernot (1907).Google Scholar
Harris, A.C. & Campbell, L. (1995), Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 74) (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, H.H. (1986), Principles of Historical Linguistics (Berlin) (2nd ed. 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, D. (1993), ‘The Formation of the Future in Modern Greek Literary Texts up to the 17th Century’, in Panayiotakis, N.M. (ed.), Άρχες rrıc ΝεοελληνικΓ^ Λογοτεχνίικ. Πρακπκά τον Δευτέρου Αιεθνοΰς Συνεδρίου ‘Neograeca Medii Aevi (Venice) I, 118–128.Google Scholar
Hopper, PJ. & Traugott, E.C. (1993), Grammaticalization (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Horrocks, G. (1997), Greek. A History of the Language and its Speakers (London).Google Scholar
Householder, F., Kazazis, K. & Koutsoudas, A. (?1964), Reference Grammar of Literary Dhimotiki (Bloomington, IN).Google Scholar
Janda, R.D. & Joseph, B.D., (2002), ‘On Language, Change, and Language Change — Or, Of History, Linguistics, and Historical Linguistics’, to appear in Joseph, B. & Janda, R. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Oxford).Google Scholar
Jannaris, A. (1897), An Historical Greek Grammar, chiefly of the Attic dialect, as written and spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions, papyri, and present popular Greek (London)(reprinted Hildesheim 1987).Google Scholar
Jeffreys, E. (1993), ‘The Grottaferrata version of Digenes Akrites: a reassessment’, in Beaton, R. & Ricks, D. (eds.), Digenes Akrites: New Approaches to Byzantine Heroic Poetry (London), 26–37.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (1978/1990), Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek (New York) (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series; expanded and updated version of 1978 Harvard University Ph.D. Dissertation).Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (1983), The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive: A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Series, 1) (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2000a), ‘On the Development of Modern Greek oxt “no!”’, in Schaner-Wolles, C. Rennison, J. & Neubarth, F. (eds.) Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Turin), 207–214.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2000b), ‘Language Contact and the Development of Negation in Greek and the Balkans’, to appear in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, University of Cyprus.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2001a), ‘Is there Such a Thing as “Grammaticalization”?’, Language Sciences 23.2-3, 163–186 (special issue: Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment, ed. Campbell, L.).Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2001b), ‘Morphologization from Syntax’, to appear in Joseph, B. & Janda, R. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Oxford).Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. (2001c), ‘Textual Authenticity: Evidence From Medieval Greek’, in Herring, S., van Reenen, P. & Schoesler, L. (eds.), Textual Parameters in Ancient Languages (Amsterdam), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostoula, D. (1991), Γεωπονικόν. Beveria (1643) (Volos).Google Scholar
Kriaras, E. (1980), Λεξικο тис μεσαιωνικής ελληνικής δημώδους γραμματείας 1100-1669, VII (Thessaloniki).Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994), Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors (Oxford).Google Scholar
Mackridge, P. (1993), ‘An editorial problem in medieval Greek texts: the position of the object clitic pronoun in the Escorial Digenes Akrites ’, in Panayiotakis, N.M. (ed.), Άρχες гѓјс νεοελληviκής λογοτεχνίας. Πρακηκά τοΰ δευτέρου διεθνοΰζ συνεδρίου ‘Neograeca Medii Aevi’, I (Venice), 325–342.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. (1994), Understanding Language Change (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. (1912), ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, Sdenta (Rivista di Scienza) 12, No. 26, 6.Google Scholar
Méndez-Dosuna, J. (2000), Review of Horrocks 1997, Journal of Greek Linguistics 1, 274–295.Google Scholar
Meyer, W. (1889), Simon Portius. Grammatica Linguae Graecae Vulgaris. Reproduction de l’édition de 1638 (Paris).Google Scholar
Moser, A. (1988), The History of the Perfect Periphrases in Greek, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Newton, B. (1972), The Generative Interpretation of Dialect. A Study of Modern Greek Phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 8) (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Pangalos, G. (1955), Περι τον γλωσσικοΰ Ίδιώματος τής Κρητης (Athens).Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, Th. (1977), Νικολάου Σοφιανον, Γραμματική τής κοινής τών Έλλήνων Γλώσσης (Athens).Google Scholar
Pappas, P. (1999), ‘From thelā graphein/ēthela graphein to tha graphõ/tha egrapha: Comparing the development of futures and counter-factuals in Early Modern Greek’, Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 52, 15–40.Google Scholar
Pappas, P. (2001a), Weak object-pronoun placement in Later Medieval and Early Modern Greek, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Pappas, P. (2001b), ‘The Microcosmos of a Morphological Change: Variation in the thelõ + infinitive futures and ēthela + infinitive counterfactuals in Early Modern Greek’, Diachronica 18.1, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, P. & B., Joseph, (to appear), ‘The development of the Greek future system: setting the record straight’, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (Nicosia).Google Scholar
Passow, A. (1860), Popularia Carmina Graeciae Recentioris (Leipzig).Google Scholar
Pernot, H. (1907), Girolamo Germano. Grammaire et vocabulaire du grec vulgaire publiés d’après l’édition de 1622 (Paris).Google Scholar
Psichari, J. (1884), Essai de phonétique néo-grecque. Futur composé du grec moderne (Paris).Google Scholar
Portius, S. (1638), see Meyer (1889).Google Scholar
Sophianos, N. (1555), see Papadopoulos (1977).Google Scholar
Tonnet, H. (1993), Histoire du grec moderne (Paris).Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, A. (1999), Will and tha: A Comparative Study of the Category Future (Thessaloniki).Google Scholar
Tzartzanos, A. (1946), Νεοελληνικη Σύνταξκ (τής κοινής δημοτικής), 2 vols. (Athens) (2nd ed. 1953).Google Scholar
Valetas, G. (1949), Άνθολογία тцс Αημοτικής Πεζογραφίοκ: (Athens).Google Scholar
Wagner, W. (ed.), Medieval Greek Texts (Amsterdam 1970) (Unchanged reprint of the London edition of 1870).Google Scholar
Warburton, I. & Prabhu, N.S. (1975), ‘Diachronie processes and synchronie grammars’, Glossa, 202-217.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. (1962), The Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb (Dublin).Google Scholar