The Sanskrit language paid more attention to phonetics than any other that has ever existed; is it likely that it would have represented zd or z by y? The nearest equivalent to z in Sanskrit would be s; the nearest to z would be palatal j or semivowel y.

According to Meyer (Gr. Gr.3, §226, note) of is employed on papyri to represent Arabic and Coptic š. Granting the difficulty that any Aryan tongue would find in accurately reproducing a Semitic sibilant, still szď seems a very weak attempt to represent any kind of a š sound: să is at least intelligible.

As inscriptional evidence I may cite the archaic Cretan I, referred to with reference to the value š. I sought to prove that in three cases out of four it had that value; in the fourth case it represents a voiced sound, which I take to be the voiced counterpart of š, namely ž.

From Cyprus come the forms acabos and ¿à, where represents the spirantized y, that is 3.

The Cyprian κορζα, Aeolic κάρζα, ζὰ = διά show ( as a late formation from ; the sound here was probably Eng. j, that is dž, or perhaps ž.

ૐ

but ¿ from I.E. Sievers defines

So far I have treated only of from I.E. di, gi; spiranty, in Cuyóv, (éw, can also be explained as ž. the difference between semivowel į and spirant y as due to greater friction. Whether that greater friction is produced by narrowing the air-passage or increasing the pressure of the air-current, the same process that produces i from i will, if continued, produce 3 from . If we give this value, 3, to I.E. y, its representation by Gk. ¿, that is ž, no longer needs to be explained by a complicated process such as that given by Meyer, j-dj-zd, which obscures the difference between I.E. i and I.E. y. The passage from the spirant to the semivowel in other languages is readily paralleled by the English yesterday. This distinction between the palatal semivowel and the palatal spirant y (=3) is the same as that between the labial semivowel u and the labial spirant ₺.

Just as the voiceless was lisped to p (Tr) in Attica, Boeotia and Crete, so the voiced was lisped to d (88) throughout the entire range of the Doric dialect; e. g. Laconian povo iddet, Megarian μáda, both in Aristophanes; Cretan (Gortyn) dikáddo, Boeotian Tрánedda; initial 8 d is seen in Laconian Aár, Cretan (Gortyn) dwŋ, = Boeotian diet, Sicilian Aάyêλŋ. And just as the supra-dental -TT- was confused in Crete with inter-dental e, so in Elean supra-dental -88- was confused with inter-dental d = đ.

=

In Aeolic we find = Ionic-Attic & written on inscriptions; it is also attested by grammarians as the sign employed for the sound arising from the late union of di̟ in kápɲa, and gà = diá; the symbols -od- also occur in such forms as μedíodew, Edeús, given by MSS and grammarians; the first inscriptional evidence for it is on an archaising monument of imperial times.

Meyer (Gr. Gr., 1. c.) explains od as due to the fact that 5, formerly zd, had become z in the rest of Greece, and that Aeolic, preserving the sound zd, adopted a new sign to represent it. My objections to this are as follows: (i) I hold that Meyer has not substantiated the value zd for (in all cases, especially from gi ૐ (ii) It remains to be proved that was simply z in the rest of Greece. (iii) On Meyer's own theory in Aeolic kápa, etc., was z; but z does not arise directly from di: the stages are di-džž; a further step, and no inconsiderable one, is necessary to arrive at z. (iv) Although a dialect might adopt a sign which it did not possess, from another dialect, it would hardly discard a sign which it did possess, because another dialect used it with a different value. According to my theory Aeolic was zd or ž down to quite late times: the spelling of was due to confusion of the two values; cócoros and eóodoros were equivalent, so beside dikáte arose dikάodel, with od ž. What, then, became of the discarded symbol? It may have been employed to represent the affricate dě in κάρτα.

=

The ad of the Sicilian Doric of Theokritus is probably merely a literary form. The Doric -88- seems to have been entirely banished from elevated literature, its place being taken either by the Ionic or the Aeolic od. That od was foreign to Sicilian might be taken for granted, were it not for the Oscan Nivpodinis, which occurs in a Mamertine inscription at Messana, written about 280 B. C. (Conway, Italic Dialects, No. 1). The alphabet is that form of the Ionic alphabet which came into general use in S. Italy. Two conjectures are open: we may suppose that the sound to be represented, namely Oscan intervocalic -s-, corresponded to the value of the Greek, but that it was the fashion at that time in Sicily to represent this by -od-. Of such a fashion we have no other evidence except the conflicting spelling of the MSS of Theokritus. Secondly, if we suppose that the Oscan -scorresponded to no value of --, that was known in S. Italy, the -od- would be an isolated attempt to represent Oscan -s-. If there was any connexion between this Oscan -od- and Aeolic -od-,

the sound in Oscan, on Meister's theory, would be zd, which is obviously impossible; while if Aeolic -od- was merely a graphic variant for (= ž, we must believe that Oscan -si- was pronounced -ži-, which is possible without being probable. On the whole it seems best to treat the two as independent.

The question of the value of the symbol -- in Elean is a curiously complicated one. In the inscriptions of the earliest period appears for I.E. and Ur. Gk. d; apparently d had been spirantized to a, and I explain the use of the symbol in this manner :-Just as there was a period before -oo- (š) became -π(p) in Attic, so there was a period before -- (ž) became -88- (₫) in Doric. In Elean the change of sound was not at first accompanied by a change of sign. That is, =ž became = đ, where the origin of the sound was I.E. di, gi or spirant y. Then, when Ur. Gk. d became d, this too was written . Unfortunately, the early inscriptions contain no sure example of a representative of I.E. di, gi, y. In my opinion would be found in these cases, with the value đ. Inscriptions after the 5th century show the ordinary Doric spelling -88- for ¿, and 8 for d; those at the end of the 5th century represent a transition period; the sign is usually 8, with rare lapses to the older . For the whole question cp. Meister (II, p. 52), from whom I quote the following: "Dass diese beiden spirantischen Laute des eleischen Dialekts, der durch (Câpos duos) und durch 8, 88 (8vyov = (vyóv) bezeichnete δδ sich unterschieden, ist für gewiss anzunehmen, denn wären sie zusammengefallen, so würde man sie nicht durch verschieden gewählte Schreibung auseinander gehalten haben; worin aber der Unterschied bestand lässt sich nicht erkennen." To this I would reply that there may have been a difference of sound, namely, that between inter-dental d and supra-dental d, but the difference was never expressed. The difference of sign is chronological: it does not appear in any inscription except those two of the transition period, one of which shows once (in ¿è = dè) with 10 cases of 8 unaltered, while the other shows one with 20 cases of 8.

=

Arkadian shows = I.E. di, gi, y; e. g. diкanro (Meist. II 106; Cauer', 457). A difficulty arises from the appearance of = I.E. velar g in gépe pov (Strabo, VIII 8. 4 (p. 389); Meyer, Gr. Gr.3, p. 266). The stage previous to ξέρεθρον could not have been δέρεθρον, since Arkadian preserves Ur. Gr. & unchanged. The only other similar form is ζέλλω = βάλλω, given by Hesychius without a

locality. The two forms seem to contain a peculiar product of velarg since it is not a case of dentalization, it seems possible that it arose from a spirantizing of y, seen also in Cyprian, which y must have appeared beside the regular representatives of g* as it does in γλέφαρον and γέφυρα ; & appears in ἐσδέλλοντες (Collitz, 1222. 49). Under what conditions & and appear respectively cannot be determined with such scanty material. The only other view is that Arkadian contained a mixture of dialects.

I have now to treat of the metrical weight of the sounds represented by -σσ-, -π- and -§-. In the first place it must be remembered that any continuous consonant can, in the Epic dialect, make a metrically long syllable when following a short vowel. A stopped consonant has not this power, except in very rare cases. In these cases, then, the difference between a heavy syllable and a light syllable depended on the difference between continuous and stop consonant. That is, the greater amount of time spent, or breath used, in the production of a continuous consonant made the syllable containing it long as compared with a syllable containing a stop. In the later language, however, the continuous sounds l, m, n and dental s were no longer able to give metrical weight; and such combinations of stop and continuous sound as tr were treated in the same fashion. The change was, perhaps, not so much a change of pronunciation, although the sibilant of dikaσoa may have been dwelt upon longer than that of dikaga, but was rather due to a change in the feeling of what constituted metrical weight. The other continuous sounds retained their power of making metrical weight even in classical Greek; p, σo (= š), ¿ (= ž), and -TT- (p) and -88- (d) regularly "make position," and the reason is not difficult to see. production of these sounds needs a more open position of the vocal chords, and consequently involves a greater muscular exertion and consumption of breath than does that of l, m, n, s. The sound or 3 has a more open position than any other sound not a vowel. Consequently it produced a heavy syllable in Greek; and its effect in the pronunciation of English is analogous. Compare the long vowel of please with that of pleasure, Asia with azure, mete beside measure.

The

To the Greek of the 6th century B. C. this difference of syllable weight afforded the most striking contrast between the sounds s and . It was the point on which the different alphabetical representation was based. Consequently it is not surprizing to find

that as the language decayed, and syllable weight disappeared before the stress accent, the difference between s and š likewise disappeared, so that no trace of it survives in Modern Greek. But, in my view, the sounds š and ž lasted at least long enough to account for the spellings malaxo and Zovdela.

In conclusion, I may briefly summarize my position as follows: (a) The present views on -oo-, -Š-, -TT-, -dd- are unsatisfactory because

(i) τελέσσαι and πράσσειν could not both have been pronounced with dental s.

(ii) The series commonly given to show the development of etc., in Gk. contain too many phonetical difficulties, and

(iii) they separate from and both from d, y, although -unites the first pair, and the interchange of -or- with -- and the correspondence TT-||-88- unites the voiceless with the voiced

series.

(B) Since a new theory is necessary, the values š, ž suggest themselves as the representatives of Ur. Gk. «, etc., because— (i) K, T naturally converge to š.

7, 8, 3 (= I.E. y) naturally converge to ž.

(ii) Archaic Cretan I in Fogna shows dialectic growth of 3 from palatalized K.

Archaic Cretan I from dental+s) shows dialectic growth of Gortyn Cretan Tr š (→þ) from Ts.

Boeotian TT

Cyprian in ağabòs shows dialectic growth of ž from 3.

Aeolic & in καρζα

shows dialectic growth of ž or dž from d

Cyprian ζ in κορζα (iii) It is quite possible that the Semitic symbols should, when adopted, have the values assigned to them by my theory, and probable that in the sign T we have the fourth Semitic symbol with the fourth Semitic value.

(iv) š, ž and supra-dental p, d resembler in their phonetic character as in their metrical effect.

(v) Transliteration, where it gives any help at all, favours my theory, especially transliteration into and from the most scientific of all alphabets, the Sanskrit.

CAIUS COLLEGE, Cambridge.

W. F. WITTON.