Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
(5,488 words)
Carlo Consani
1. 1. Introduction
2. 2. Dialectology
3. 3. Sociolinguistics
4. Bibliography
1. Introduction
millennium, i.e., from the Mycenaean Age (15th c. BCE) to the Hellenistic Age (4th c.
BCE). The period of greatest dialectal diversity was the Archaic Age (8th-6th c. BCE),
when inscriptions were written in different forms of Greek according to their place of
origin. Yet, irrespective of its archaic structure, even Mycenaean Greek, which dates back
to the Bronze Age (15th-13th c. BCE), gives some indications that it was dialectally
marked. The first form of common Greek appeared only during the Hellenistic Age,
subsequent to the formation of the Koine, literally the “common (dialect)”, which was
used as the official language by the Macedonian monarchy. Certain dialects were used in
literary genres by authors who were considered as typical of their respective dialect by
Greeks, since its fragmentation was seen as a consequence of its speakers’ different
ethnicity. This can be seen from the well known Hesiodic fragment Héllēnos d’egénonto
warlike king sprung Doros and Xouthos and Aiolos who fight from a chariot’ (9 M-W): the
myth of Hellenic origins shown in this quote is largely taken up in the following centuries
different factors, particularly ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural ones. One of the
most eloquent statements of this is found in Herodotus, where the Athenians reject doubt
concerning a separate agreement between Athens and the Persians by arguing that it was
impossible “in consideration of the fact that Greekness (tò Hellēnikón) is of the same
blood (homaîmon) and of the same language (homóglōsson) and that the temples of the
gods and sacred rites and customs are similar” (Hdt. 8.144.2). As a consequence, the
Greeks created the word diálektos to refer to the fragmentation of their language, a word
which is still used in modern linguistics to refer to dialects. The word diálektos was used
by ancient authors with the meaning of “a way of speaking” (Consani 1991:15-19); in the
classical period, some statements, for example by Aristophanes (fr. 552/706 K-A), showed
that the term was taking on a more technical meaning and referred to urban and/or social
2. Dialectology
Modern research on Greek dialects began in the 19th c. with Ahrens (1839-43), but his
research is based on limited sources. Much progress was made by Meister (1882-9) and
Hoffman (1891-8) who, on the basis of the decipherment of the Cypriot syllabary,
classified a group of dialects different from Doric and Ionic and called them ‘Achaean’;
this new group included Aeolic dialects, later “nord-achäisch”, and Arcadian and Cypriot,
different group, namely Arcado-Cypriot. This classification, which was promoted at the
beginning of the 20th century by Thumb (1909), Buck (1910) and Meillet (1913), is
widely accepted and still maintained. In the 19th century, following the progress of
historical-comparative linguistics, the main goal of scholars was to reconstruct the various
undocumented phases of Greek and analyze the process which led to the dialect
geography of classical Greece. Today, scholars analyze both the description of dialects
and their classification, considering the description a priority. The analysis of the
structural characteristics of each variety forms the basis for inter-dialectal comparisons
that serve to determine the affinity among the various groups and to understand the way
The methods used by modern dialectology, in particular those used for spoken dialects,
cannot be employed for reconstructing the linguistic system of any ancient Greek dialect,
since such an investigation is necessarily based on written sources. This fact has several
implications: first of all, the spontaneity of speech is dimmed by the process of writing,
particularly in the case of official documents. The differences between spoken dialects and
their respective written form can only be gauged by the example of the Ionic dialect; but
in fact, the epigraphic corpus from Ionia does not show any trace of the four varieties of
the area to which Herodotus refers (1.142). Secondly, since writing was introduced in
different periods in the different regions of Greece, some dialects were documented in the
Archaic period (e.g. Cretan, Ionic, Attic), while most of the documentation available dates
back to the Hellenistic period when the Ionic-Attic Koine and other Koinai, above all in
the Doric area, interfered considerably with the dialect system. Furthermore, important
phenomena of ancient Greek dialects are not adequately recorded in the writing systems
that were used in different periods (e.g. the Linear B script, the Cypriot syllabic script, the
alphabet). The relative inadequacies of these writing systems can be explained by the fact
that all of them derived from other scripts related to non-Indo-European languages and
An example of this inadequacy can be seen in the way the vowel system was recorded,
since in both the syllabic writings and the alphabet the difference of vowel length and
openess are not marked. With the introduction of the Ionic alphabet for Attic and the
Koine, at the time of the so-called Euclidean reform (403/402 BCE), the six phonemes /e,
eː, ɛː, o, oː, ɔː/ were written as <E, EI, H, O, OY, Ω>, thus using one grapheme for each
phoneme; this differs from archaic writing, which employed just the two graphemes <E,
O>. Since long vowel quality, which results from compensatory lengthening, is the most
important way to distinguish the dialects (e.g. Attic kórē (ΚΟΡΗ) vs. Ionic koúrē (ΚΟΥΡΗ)
vs. Laconian kṓrā (ΚΩΡΑ) < *korwā) ‘girl’, it is clear that only through an adequate
findings and developments in the field of description and analysis of ancient Greek
dialects were made by various scholars, overcoming the dialectal description of the 19th
and the beginning of the 20th centuries (Consani 2006:11-16; Dialects, Classification of).
From a methodological point of view, both the proximity among dialects and the
geographical distribution of isoglosses ‒ that is, the ideal lines which link all the points of
a place that are characterized by the same linguistic trait ‒ should be considered.
consider the following criteria (in increasing order of importance): a) the preservation of
archaic linguistic traits; b) the choice among elements which are supposedly present at
the same time also in Proto-Greek (Proto-Greek and Common Greek); c) the presence of
those innovations which are unlikely to have been developed independently (Adrados
1952).
On the basis of these criteria, it is possible to distinguish the following four dialect
groups:
(1) (IA)
Ionic (, Western Ionic, Eastern Ionic)
Attic;
(3) (Ae)
Thessalian
Boeotian
Lesbian;
Pamphylian: unclassified
However, certain issues remain unresolved, above all in cases where isoglosses were
diffused beyond the geographical area to which they originally belonged and thus
influenced neighboring dialects of other groups. This is the reason why Aeolic (Aeolic
present contact phenomena with other neighboring dialects that belong to different
groups. For example, Thessalian and Lesbian share the athematic inflection of vowel-stem
verbs with the AC group; Eastern Thessalian shares a nasal demonstrative (one/onu) with
AC and with Cretan, while Boeotian features various characteristics of the WG group and
Attic. As is clear, this typology of phenomena poses several problems for the dialectal
classification in the four major groups, showing that the family tree model can be
integrated with the principles of the wave model, so that linguistic phenomena should
At the beginning of the 20th century, P. Kretschmer (1909) suggested that the Greeks
settled in their historical locations in three waves. According to him, the Ionic group and
their dialect arrived in Greece at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE; the second
wave took place between the 18th and 17th centuries BCE, supposedly marking the
arrival of the Achaeans and the speakers of the Aeolic and Arcado-Cypriot dialects;
finally, the Dorians arrived in Greece at the end of the Bronze Age, between the 13th and
12th centuries BCE. This reconstruction was much debated towards the end of the last
settlements of the population (e.g. Risch 1949). Furthermore, shortly thereafter (1952), a
highly important event for Greek dialectology radically changed the positions formerly
held: the decipherment of Mycenaean. In fact, the existence of a dialect which was
diffused during the 15th and 13th centuries from mainland Greece to the Peloponnese
and Crete and that had isoglosses in common with IA and AC (e.g. the ti-assibilation and
1st-person pl. ending -men) would allow us to solve the issue of the spatial discontinuity
of the AC group.
the Archaic period was preceded by the existence of two groups in the 2nd millennium.
Essentially, Mycenaean and the ancestors of Arcadian and Ionic were supposedly diffused
in all southern and eastern areas, while the Doric and North-West Greek dialects remained
in the western and northern areas; furthermore, the first group which was characterized
by innovative isoglosses, distinguished itself from the second group, which maintained
archaic features that were not very distant from Proto-Greek. At the end of the Bronze
Age, after the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, populations who spoke northern
dialects may have migrated towards the Peloponnese and the Aegean islands, creating the
relationships and concerns the language of the tablets. The other regards the possibility
that dialect differentiation was already present in southern or eastern Greek in the
Linguistic variation among the various continental archives, and between the various
continental archives and the archive from Knossos is limited with respect to a deep
difference among dialects which were spoken in the areas during the first millennium,
already dominated by Mycenaean culture (Duhoux 1987). Conversely, for some time now,
differences in the Mycenaean of Pylos have been detected, which, subsequent to further
investigation, have been revealed valid for other continental archives as well (Varias
1994-95, Hajnal 2006) and, to a lesser degree, for the Knossos archive (Woodard 1986,
Hajnal 1997). Essentially, the differences consist of the following: the dative ending of
consonant stems (<Ce-i> [-ei] vs <Ci> [-i]), the vocalization of syllabic nasal and
liquid (o-color vs a-color) and the variable color (e/i) in nouns and lexical items that
often do not have an Indo-European etymology (Risch 1966); to these features Nagy
In the course of the 1960s, E. Risch and other scholars purported that ‘normal Mycenaean’
(MN), i.e., the most frequent forms of the above four phenomena, corresponded with the
administrative language, while ‘special Mycenaean’ (MS) was the language spoken by
scribes; therefore, MN would have disappeared with the fall of the Mycenaean kingdoms,
while MS would have found continuity in the dialects of the 1st millennium in southern
Greece (Risch 1979), or alternatively in Doric dialects, if this ethnicity was present in
Greece from the onset of the Mycenaean era, in a subordinate position to the elite in the
palaces (Chadwick 1976). Even though the significance of the variation within
Mycenaean was interpreted differently (Consani 1983, Negri 1988:13-24, Brixhe 1991),
further research has shown that it may be attributed to chronological differences among
various archives or among series of tablets from the same archive (Hajnal 1997,
‘innovative’ and ‘incoherent’ scribes (Hajnal 1997:220-236) and the fact that tablet
authors might have been functionaries in the administrative hierarchy, rather than simple
scribes (Palaima 1988, 2003, Driessen 2000), it may be the case that Mycenaean archives
show a natural language, codified in written form for practical purposes, rather than an
administrative language. This implies that these phenomena, which have been the object
of such a long debate, are to be taken as diaphasic or ‘diamesic’ variables, which occur in
every language. As a consequence of this, the phenomena described above do not have
any direct implication either for the co-presence of standard and sub-standard varieties in
Mycenaean texts, or for the continuity of one of these varieties with respect to the dialects
As concerns the second issue, two elements could shed light on the gap that exists
between the Bronze Age and the dialectal situation of the 1st millennium. On the one
hand, the new Theban tablets favor the hypothesis that some innovative forms, typical of
Aeolic dialects, existed in continental Mycenaean; for example, the athematic inflexion of
the Theban vocalic stem verbs; the suffix generalization in cases of feminine oblique
nomina agentis , /-tirră-/ vs. /-triā-/; expressing ‘son’ by means of the innovative noun
hū(j)os, characteristic of Thebes and Mycenae, rather than the conservative /hījus, hījeu-/
in contact with the Aegean Sea, it is possible to identify three innovative isoglosses that
date back to the Mycenaean period and that brought together Mycenaean and Arcado-
palatalization of groups formed by voiceless stop + j/w and the reduction of the
labiovelar stop before back vowels occur in opposite sequence in Mycenaen, Arcadian and
Cypriot, in contrast to Ionic (Brixhe 1991:265-266); 3) the innovation which results from
Mycenaean and Ionic types, implying that there was communication between the
The above phenomena allow us to identify the existence of different dialects in different
areas of the Mycenaean world during the period from the 15th to the 12th c. BCE. The
Aeolic and Arcado-Cypriot, which in historic times were used in these areas. However, the
isoglosses that existed between Mycenaean and Aeolic may have been due to contact and
interference between Mycenaean and ‘northern’ dialects; whereas the isoglosses that were
internal dynamics in the southern Aegean area, in opposition to the Ionic dialect.
3. Sociolinguistics
3.a. The Sociolinguistics of Dialects
According to speaker attitude, dialects have different types of prestige that are due to a
number of factors (Attitudes toward Language). During the Archaic and Classical periods,
the role of politics in each city was a fundamental factor in determining the prestige of
each dialect; Sparta and Athens are an example of this, even if the governments of the
two cities adopted different approaches in their language policy towards Laconian and
Attic. In fact, Sparta demonstrated a unique disinterest for promoting and elaborating its
own dialect; this policy may even have influenced the continuity of Laconian up until
Roman times and beyond (Morpurgo Davies 1993:265-270). This behavior seems peculiar
if compared with the policy of other areas towards dialects belonging to the same group,
such as Boeotian (Morpurgo Davies 1993:270-273), and particularly with respect to the
policy of Athens (Language Policies and Attitudes). Indeed, in this case, the attempt of
diffusing standard Attic in all the cities of the Delio-Attic league ‒ a true form of
attitude towards one’s own dialect which is considered superior to others, as can be
deduced from a number of original sources and indirect documents. Furthermore, the
moral, physical and linguistic disapproval towards Boeotian and the Boeotians could be
1993:263-264).
representation of dialects other than Attic, reveals that dialect diversity was not
considered as linguistic inadequacy due to a non-standard code (Colvin 2000). This may
be due to the existence of various forms of Attic differing from the standard, as can be
seen in Aristophanes and in other documents of semi-literates (Colvin 2005); the diversity
of Attic could be so deep as to create two phonological systems; the former, more
conservative and closer to the written standard, became the basis for the Hellenistic Koine
(Koine, Origins of), the latter, which was more innovative, anticipated several phenomena
of the Greek spoken in Roman times (Teodorsson 1974, 1977). Another factor which
might have influenced the prestige of each dialect is that some varieties were used for
literary purposes and linked to specific genres; for example, Doric was used for choral
lyric, Lesbian for monodic lyric, and Attic for oratory. ‘Literary’ dialects are not identical
with their , but rather correspond to that have been influenced by literary language
turned their attention to literary dialects and their respective authors, rather than to
spoken dialects, which were no longer in use. This is the reason why the grammatical
The sociolinguistic panorama of Greece became more complex in the 4th century BCE
with the development and spread of the Hellenistic Koine. Even though Great Attic had
been a means for creating pan-Hellenic cohesion and identity in the course of the 5th
century (Colvin 2009), it is certain that Hellenistic Koine was the first form of standard
ancient Greek; this can be deduced by the appearance of the Koine (Consani 1998) as well
as by the functions it had in Greece and in its territories (Bubenik 1989:9-10) (Koiné,
Origins of). The term Koiné (diálektos), i.e., “common (dialect)” has several meanings in
general sense, it can refer to post-classical Greek, both in its written and the spoken form,
the standard form of Greek was intended to be the language used in administration and
state institutions by the Macedonian monarchy. This language was structurally based on
Great Attic, and in its spoken form had a conservative phonological system. Such a
variety soon became the language used by the military as well as the international lingua
franca for trade and broad-range communication. Therefore, the situation naturally gave
rise to with , with the Koine functioning as the high variety and the dialects as low
varieties, even though certain regions tried to maintain their local varieties, with different
(2) regional Koine varieties formed through the interference with other dialects or with
other adstrate languages;
(3) dialect Koines (used in literature and by political institutions such as the and s);
This type of social repertoire was reflected in speaker language use, hence characterized
by code-switching and code-mixing, as well as various forms of interference. This has two
dialect forms featuring interference from the Koine. At the same time, the Koine may have
comprised some traits (phonetic/phonological and lexical) from local varieties which
The first situation is well represented by the case of Cypriot. Historically, the island
distinguished itself from other regions of Greece through a marked local peculiarity, the
use of a syllabic writing system (Cypriot Syllabary) for the local dialect (see Egetmeyer
2010:8-19). Throughout the Archaic period up until the end of the 5th century BCE,
Cypriot inscriptions in the Greek alphabet were rare and by authors which could not be
local. Instead, Cypriots used local writing and dialects for public and private settings
(Consani 1990). In the 4th century BCE, there was a rapid and decisive diffusion of the
alphabet and of the Koine in all types of inscriptions and throughout all regions of the
island (Collombier 1991:437-438) at the end of Cypriot political independence, when the
island was taken over by the Macedonian monarchy and the Lagid dynasty. By the
beginning of the 3rd century BCE, only the alphabet was used in inscriptions as the
vehicle for a type of Koine that did not have particular characteristics. Hence the use of
the syllabary and of the dialect in the inscriptions on Kafizin pottery (225-218 BCE) is a
special case in point. In fact, it is worth noting that this example cannot be considered as
religious setting, a particular social group and a rural environment, and that these are the
reasons for the low competence in dialect and in the use of the syllabic writing shown by
from a place, apó and ek, in the Kafizin corpus. The first preposition never appears in the
dialect phonetic form (apú), and in the alphabetic inscriptions it takes the genitive case,
similarly to the Koine, while in the syllabic inscriptions (11 examples) it takes the dative,
similarly to the local dialect (Consani 1986:62-64). Therefore, the only exception, a-po to
[ ... ve]-te-o-se (apò tô wéteos) ‘since the year’, found in a syllabic inscription (Kf 136), is
highly important since it shows that the use of the syntactic model of the Koine does not
competence, even in cases when potters wanted to use the syllabic writing and the local
dialect. Conversely, the preposition ek/ex, characteristic of alphabetic texts and of the
Koine, appears in dialect form in syllabic texts as e-se (es), and takes the genitive case,
rather than the dative of the dialect (Consani 1986:65-66). Therefore, it seems clear that
in the production of Kafizin pottery the use of the dialect was a conscious choice by force
of its symbolic values, which were strengthened by the use of syllabic writing. However,
On the other hand, the use of dialects by local institutions of Hellenistic Thessaly,
introduction of Koine. That various Thessalian cities maintained their local dialect can be
understood as a symbol of political autonomy (first from the Macedonian monarchy and
then from the Romans); moreover, the various uses of the dialect reveal different degrees
of competence and different forms of reaction to the Hellenistic Koine. The great
inscription containing the letters of Philip V and the response of the city of Larissa (IG
IX,2 517) is characterized by a planned opposition between dialect and Koine (Consani
1989). This text generally exhibits coherent dialect forms and important dialect traits,
such as the 1st person plural singular active ending -men or the lexical form mespodì (=
mékhri(s) ‘until’ in the Koine), used only in this dialect. However, pressure from the Koine
is manifest in an isolated instance, namely the lapsus tàn dè állan rather than tan ma
allan ‘but the other-fem. sg.’, and in the use of words and formulaic items which were
94).
The inscription from Scotussa on the investigation and the reconstruction of the city wall
(Missailidou-Despotidou 1993), which dates to the Hellenistic period, evidences the will
to maintain the local dialect. This results in hypercorrect forms, characteristic of low
dialect competence, arrived at only by the use of some fixed rules of automatic conversion
and reflecting the actual diglossic situation. An example of this is oidenós (= oudenós,
singular genitive of oudeís ‘no one’): the initial oi- does not exist in the dialect and
appears to be an attempt to create a difference with respect to the ou- of the Koine,
The honorific decree issued at the beginning of the 2nd century BCE by the city of Larissa
for Bacchus, a Mytilenean citizen, is a complex example of the different types of forms
used and of the extra-linguistic setting of the text (Tziafallias-Helly 2004-2005). The
desire of the city to act in an international context and the writing of the act in 196 BCE,
the year when the Thessalian koinón was rebuilt, immediately after the defeat of Philip V
by the Romans, are sufficient reasons to justify the use of the dialect as a sign of the city’s
reaffirmed autonomy. From a linguistic point of view, the long text allows us to
reconstruct a particularly complex repertory in which forms typical of the Larissa variety
are combined with Pelasgiotis regional forms and occasionally with traits of western
Koine (Consani 2010). It is worth mentioning that most of the dialect traits occur at the
morphological level, more specifically in verb morphology, rather than the phonetic or
Interferences among dialects and between dialects and the Koine allow us to dismiss the
forms of Hellenistic and Roman times. In fact, the analysis of ancient Greek dialects is a
means not only for reconstructing dialectal relationships from a diachronic point of view,
but also for an accurate description of the language as used by different speech
communities in different periods of time. If this is the case, the analysis of interference
phenomena may shed some light on linguistic forms which in the traditional approach
would have been lost. This means that we should analyze ancient Greek dialects of the
Carlo Consani
Bibliography
Adrados, Francisco R. 1952. La dialectologia griega como fuente para el estudio de las
migraciones indoeuropeas en Grecia. Salamanca.
Ahrens, Heinrich L. 1839-43. De Graecae Linguae Dialectis. Göttingen.
Brixhe, Claude. 1991. “Du mycénien aux dialectes du 1er millénaire. Quelques aspects de
la problématique”. In: La transizione dal miceneo all’alto arcaismo. Dal palazzo alla città,
ed. by Domenico Musti et al., 251-272. Rome.
Brixhe, Claude and R. Hodot. 1993. “A chacun sa koiné?”In: La koiné grecque antique I:
Une langue introuvable?, ed. by Claude Brixhe, 7-21. Nancy.
Bubeník, Vít. 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a sociolinguistic area. Amsterdam -
Philadelphia.
Buck, Carl D. 1910. Introduction to the study of the Greek dialects: grammar, selected
inscriptions, glossary. Boston.
Collombier, Anne Marie. 1991. “Écritures et sociétés à Chypre à l’âge du fer”. In:
Phoinikeia Grammata, ed. by Claude Baurain, C. Bonnet and V. Krings, 425-447. Namur.
Colvin, Stephen. 2000. “The language of non-Athenians in old comedy”. In: The rivals of
Aristophanes, ed. by David F. Harvey and J. Wilkins, 285-298. Duckworth.
Colvin, Stephen. 2009. “The Greek koine and the logic of a standard language”. In:
Standard languages and language standards: Greek past and present, ed. by Alexandra
Georgakopoulou and M. Silk, 33-45. Aldershot.
Consani, Carlo. 1983. “Livelli linguistici e facies dialettali nel greco miceneo”. In:
Problemi di lingua e di cultura nel campo indoeuropeo, ed. by Enrico Campanile, 29-46.
Pisa.
Consani, Carlo. 1986. Persistenza dialettale e diffusione della KOINH a Cipro. Il caso di
Kafizin. Pisa.
Consani, Carlo. 1989. “Bilinguismo, diglossia e digrafia nella Grecia antica. II. Le lettere
di Filippo V e i decreti di Larissa (Schwyzer, DGEEP, 590)”, AIΩN 11:137-159.
Consani, Carlo. 1990. “Bilinguismo, diglossia e digrafia nella Grecia antica. III. Le
iscrizioni digrafe cipriote”. In: Studi in memoria di Ernesto Giammarco, ed. by T. Bolelli,
63-79. Pisa.
Consani, Carlo. 1991. ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΟΣ. Contributo alla storia del concetto di ‘dialetto’. Pisa.
Consani, Carlo. 1998. “Continuità e discontinuità nel greco post-classico”. In: Continuità e
discontinuità nella storia del greco, ed. by Lucio Melazzo, 95-113. Pisa - Rome.
Consani, Carlo. 2004. “Dialettalità genuina e dialettalità riflessa nella Grecia Ellenistica”.
In: Dialetti, dialettismi, generi letterari e funzioni sociali, ed. by Giovanna Rocca, 143-
160. Alessandria.
Consani, Carlo. 2006. “La dialettologia greca oggi: acquisizioni, problemi, prospettive”, IL
29:11-38.
Consani, Carlo. 2010. “Il ruolo della morfologia nella dinamica dialetto-koinè”. In: La
morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia, ed. by Ignazio Putzu, G. Paulis, G.F.
Nieddu and P. Cuzzolin, 132-149. Milan.
Crespo, Emilio. 2006. “The language policy of the Athenian state in the fifth century BC”,
IL 29:91-101.
Driessen, Jan. 2000. The scribes of the room of the chariot tablets at Knossos:
interdisciplinary approach to a study of a linear B deposit. Salamanca.
Egetmeyer, Markus. 2010. Le dialecte ancien de Chypre. 2 vols. Berlin - New York.
Hajnal, Ivo. 2007. “Die Vorgeschichte der griechischen Dialekte: eine methodischer Rück-
und Ausblick”. In: Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden, ed. by Ivo Hajnal,
131-156. Innsbruck.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek. A history of the language and its speakers. Chichester.
Kretschmer, Paul. 1909. “Zur Geschichte der griechischen Dialekte”, Glotta 1:1-59.
Meister, Richard C. 1882-1889. Die griechischen Dialekte auf Grundlage von Ahrens’
Werk “De Graecae Linguae Dialectis”. Göttingen.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1993. “Geography, history and dialect: the case of Oropos”. In:
Dialectologica graeca. Actas del II coloquio internacional de dialectología griega, ed. by
Emilio Crespo, J.L. García Ramón and A. Striano, 261-279. Madrid.
Nagy, Gregory. 1968. “On dialectal anomalies in Pylian texts”. In: Atti e memorie del I
congresso internazionale di miceneologia, 663-679. Rome.
Risch, Ernst. 1955. “Die Gliederung der griechischen Dialekte in neuer Sicht”, MH 12:61-
76.
Risch, Ernst. 1966. “Les différences dialectales dans le mycénien”. In: Proceedings of the
Cambridge colloquium on Mycenaean studies, ed. by Leonard R. Palmer and John
Chadwick, 150-157. Cambridge.
Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1974. The phonemic system of the Attic dialect 400-340 B.C.
Lund.
Tribulato, Olga. 2010. “Literary dialects”. In: A companion to the ancient Greek language,
ed. by Egbert J. Bakker, 388-400. Chichester.
Tziafallias, Athanasios and B. Helly. 2004-2005. “Deux décrets inédits de Larisa”, BCH
128-129:377-420.
Varias, Carlos. 1994-95. “A tentative analysis of the dialectal differences in the Linear B
texts from Mycenae”, Minos 29-30:135-157.