Greek and Latin Languages and Linguistics

This paper explores the Latin separative preposition / preverb / first nominal compound member sē̆(-). This discussion is an attempt to address the apparent absence of any comprehensive analysis of this separative morpheme in Latin or its precise relationship to related items such as *se-d (Lat. sed ‘but’), *sen- (*sen-i > Lat. sine ‘without’; *sen-u- Ved. sanu-tár ‘far away’, etc.), and *sn̥- (*sn̥-ter > Grk.

The aim of this paper is to investigate PIE “left” both within the frame of linguistics and cultural anthropology. The various word-changes and the secondary meanings in IE languages show a linguistic taboo. (A) Nevertheless, the extant correspondences reveal a connection with a PIE concept of manhood and the male genitals.

The etymology of the s-stem χρώς, χροός m. ‘bodily surface, skin, skin-color, color’ m. (Hom. +) is uncertain. While DELG2 (: 1234) claims that the oblique *k^hroh- reflects a *k^hrowoh- connected to χραύω ‘graze, scrape’, GEW (: 1120–1) and EDG (: 1650–1) agree that the phonological and morphological indeterminacies involved in connecting χρώς with χραύω, χραίνω ‘touch slightly, smear, stain’, or χρῑ́ω ‘touch surface slightly, rub, anoint’ are too great.

This paper examines the use of the Mycenaean titular term ra-wa-ke-ta ‘leader of the people’ (spelling lāwāgetās, continued mainly as Dor. λᾱγέτᾱς) in post-Mycenaean Greek literature, demonstrating the textual and semantic diachrony of this culturally important term through close reading of its occurrences in early lyrics (Ibycus and Pindar) and Athenian tragedy (Sophocles) in comparison with its original attestation in the Linear B materials.

In a recent thought-provoking article (Horrocks 2020), the author has claimed that despite the importance accorded to the indirect-reflexive function of the middle voice in grammatical description and pedagogical instruction, “the supposedly straightforward indirect-reflexive sense of a transitive middle is rare, being restricted to a relatively small set of semantically linked verbs” (13) and that “morphology, not for the first time, has taken precedence over syntax and semantics in the sense that the existence of marginally distinct middle morphology has been taken, incorrectly, to imply

As a collection of dialogic poetry about everyday situations, with unparalleled female protagonism, Herondas’ Mimiamboi make a privileged object of linguistic research on the forms of address in ancient Greek. Such an analysis of this corpus has, however, never been done before. Still, a correct assessment of form of address is essential to interpret correctly Herondas’ Mimiamboi and also to understanding the cultural background in which those scenes were staged.

There is agreement among Frisk (1960–1973: 243–244), Chantraine (2009: 678–679), and, in effect, Beekes (2010: 957) that the etymology of μῑσέω ‘hate’ (Hom. +) and μῖσος ‘(object of) hatred’ [A. +] has yet to be determined. Discovering the root ancestral to √μῑσ- depends on finding the source of the single intervocalic –σ– invariably so spelled in derivatives of this AtticIonic root.

The verb ἐγρήγορα ‘am awake, am vigilant’ appears in Homer only as 2pl. ipv. ἐγρήγορθε (Η 371 = Σ 299), inf. ἐγρήγορθαι (Κ 67), 3pl. ἐγρηγόρθᾱσι (Κ 419) and the participle ἐγρηγορόων (υ 6). In Attic we find ἐγρήγορα ‘am awake’ (ἐγηγερμένος v.l. Th.7.51, Speus.Fr.28+). The Homeric forms present four problems: 1) the unetymological ρ of the reduplicated syllable. 2) The position of the accent in ἐγρήγορθαι. 3) the use of middle voice in ἐγρήγορθε and ἐγρήγορθαι. 4) the unetymological θ in ἐγρηγόρθᾱσι. The talk will address these four contentious issues.