Search Results

This chapter discusses the linguistic theory and practice of the chief proponent of language reform at the time, Adamantios Korais (1748-1833). The origins of Korais' linguistic theory are traced to the work of 18th-century theorists, particularly Condillac. His proposals for the reform of the Modern Greek language are analysed in terms of the following: his worship of ancient Greek perfection; his defence of Modern Greek against the aspersions cast on it by the archaists; and his ‘correction’ of Modern Greek according to the morphological rules of Ancient Greek. The chapter ends with an assessment of Korais' contribution to the language question and an account of the impact of Korais' ideas on later developments. The assessment is broadly negative, because Korais lent his enormous prestige to the already existing habit of mixing the modern language with grammatical features of the ancient, thereby encouraging later Greeks to use yet more ancient features in their writing.

This final chapter examines how the English language has influenced Modern Greek. Topics covered include the history of language contact, pronunciation and spelling, morphology, how borrowing affects the meaning of loanwords, forms of linguistic borrowing and their categorization, and the future of Anglicisms.

This chapter focuses on split wh-constructions and provides an answer to the following two questions: (i) why split wh-constructions were widespread in Classical Greek, but are now impossible in Modern Greek; (ii) why splitting of tinos and pianu, both meaning ‘whose’, are exceptions to the rule against wh-splitting in Modern Greek. Section 14.2 introduces some basic facts about hyperbaton in Classical and Modern Greek and outlines the diachronic puzzle. Section 14.3 presents an account of the licensing mechanism behind DP splitting. Section 14.4 provides a diachronic account of the loss of split wh-constructions in Modern Greek. Section 14.5 discusses the question as to why splitting of tinos and pianu is possible, while Section 14.6 concludes.

This chapter accounts for two changes that distinguish Modern Greek from Ancient (Classical and New Testament) Greek: the requirement in Modern Greek that proper names occur with a definite article, and the rise of an indefinite article. It argues that these two changes are related. In Ancient Greek, nominal expressions could receive a singular count interpretation with a null expletive D head. The rise of overt indefinite articles indicates that the feature count had come to be grammaticalized (that is, required spellout). Once this requirement was in place, a null expletive in D became generally unavailable, requiring that the overt determiner in D select a proper name.

The aim of this paper is to examine the factors involved in verb forming processes. Our evidence comes from the Modern Greek suffix (ι)?ξω [(i)ázo], used to derive [– learned] verbs, which express a whole range of meanings such as resultative, inchoative, ornative, locative, etc. (e.g. komatjázo ‘brake/tear into pieces’, ritiδjázo ‘to wrinkle’, tsuvaljázo ‘to bundle into a sack’). Given that the most robust semantic pattern of (i)ázo derivatives is the meaning ‘be saturated by many unwanted x’ we address the following questions. 1. Is the evaluative meaning assigned by the base of the derivative or by the suffix? 2. What is the role of the word formation process in which (i)ázo participates in the creation of the meaning? 3. Is the phonological shape of the suffix related to its evaluative meaning? 4. Does the evaluative meaning of the suffix and the [– learned] register of its derivatives affect its productivity? Elaborating on these questions it is shown that the computation of the meaning of (i)ázo verbs is influenced by various factors, such as the semantic and structural properties of the base, the evaluative connotation of the suffix and its derivatives and the productivity of the word formation process.

In this chapter the theory of nonveridicality is presented, along with the relevant evidence from Standard Modern Greek regarding negator choice. It is argued that negator choice in Modern Greek must be understood as a polarity phenomenon: NEG2 μη‎(ν‎) /mi(n)/ is a polarity item licensed in nonveridical contexts. For this reason NEG2 cooccurs with subjunctives, questions and other nonveridical elements. Furthermore, crosslinguistic extensions are identified of the idea that negator choice depends on nonveridicality regarding a number of indoeuropean (Vedic, Hittite, Armenian, Albanian), as well as typologically and genetically unrelated languages, such as Zulu and Algonquian.

In this paper, we discuss the diachronic change in the internal structure of direct and indirect objects in Greek. We do so by comparing the properties of dative and genitive objects in Classical vs. (Standard and Northern) Modern Greek. We argue that there are two distinct modes of dative and genitive objective case assignment: they are either prepositional or dependent (structural) cases, as proposed by Baker & Vinokurova (2010), and Baker (2015). In other words, the change from Classical to Standard Modern Greek must be analyzed as a development from a grammatical system where dative and genitive were lexical/inherent cases, PPs, to a system where genitive is a DP that receives dependent case in the sense of Marantz (1991). By reviewing the diachronic paths of morphological dative, prepositions and prefixes, we propose that the morphological loss of dative from the history of Greek is only indirectly relevant to the diachrony of argumental datives, while change in the case-assigning properties of prepositions played a central role.