A Linguistic Analysis of The Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos by SHANE HAWKINS, Ottawa

A Linguistic Analysis of
the Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos

!!
By SHANE HAWKINS, Ottawa
!
Abstract: This study of the vase inscriptions of Sophilos, the Attic
black-figure painter active around 580 BCE, offers linguistic explana-
tions for several problematic spellings that have previously been mis-
understood as illiterate mistakes or products of dialect interference.
The examples in question are better characterized as non-standard,
quasi-phonetic spellings, some of which show precocious changes in
the historical phonology of the Attic dialect. An epigraphic addendum
follows the article.
1. Background
!
! A decade ago Martin Kilmer and Robert Develin examined
the vase inscriptions of Sophilos in order “to discover whether
Sophilos ought to be considered literate, and if so, in what sense
of that word” (2001: 9). The authors touched on a range of inter-
esting areas, including problems of orthography, phonology, and
etymology.1
___________
With thanks to Michael Weiss for comments on this paper, and to Marie-
Hélène Côté for helping me formulate part of the argument on !"#$%&!'.
1
Their contribution is said to be part of a larger project on archaic Attic
vase painters being prepared for access on the Internet. A reliable corpus of
Attic vase inscriptions has long been a keen desideratum for those interested.
See also the short notice by Kilmer/Desrochers 2001. Kretschmer 1894 was
unreliable in many places and is now long out of date. Immerwahr 1990 cata-
logs hundreds of Attic vase inscriptions, but it is incomplete (cf. Immerwahr
1967 [1971]). A large collection under the direction of Rudolf Wachter and
Henry Immerwahr is now underway and will also be available on-line:
http://avi.unibas.ch/home.html. Estimates of the number of Attic pots and
fragments with figured decorations run from eighty to one hundred thousand
(Keuls 1988: 222 = 1997: 300, Immerwahr ‘Prehistory of the Project’ at
http://avi.unibas.ch/prehistory.html), those with inscriptions about ten
thousand (Immerwahr 1971: 53, Wachter 2001: 1–4). Studies devoted solely
to vase inscriptions have tended to be epigraphic rather than linguistic
(Immerwahr 1964, 1990, Guarducci 1974: 456–495, Moret 1979; Kretschmer
1894 and Wachter 2001 are exceptions).
Glotta 88, 122–165, ISSN 0017–1298
© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2012
A Linguistic Analysis of the Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos 123
Although they found that Sophilos was “a competent and

consistent speller” and that “he knew how to construct simple
sentences” (2001: 9), the article is primarily epigraphic rather
than linguistic. A very different approach to these inscriptions,
with some different conclusions, is offered here in this linguistic
analysis, which is contextualized by comparisons to other Attic
vase inscriptions and inscriptions from other media.2
Previous studies of these inscriptions have been equivocal
about whether the irregular spellings are mistakes or reflections
of spoken language, and scholars have not been careful to
identify exactly what should be considered a mistake or whether
there might be more than one kind of ‘mistake’, each with its
own significance. If, for example, a semi-literate English
speaker learning to spell produced bedz for the plural of bed, it
would hardly be telling the whole story merely to comment that
the spelling was a mistake. One could at least point out that
although the spelling is non-standard it is also the case that it is a
more accurate representation of actual speech in that, unlike the
standard spelling beds, it correctly captures the fact that the final
segment of the word is a voiced fricative [z] rather than the
voiceless [s].
Similarly, when looking at the spellings produced by Sophi-
los, it will prove beneficial to separate out at least three catego-
ries of spelling by differentiating among those spellings that are
standard, those that are non-standard but (quasi-)phonetic, and
those that are non-standard and not (quasi-)phonetic. Only
examples of this last category I would consider orthographic
mistakes, and then it is necessary to identify two kinds of these
because mistakes may be committed through either ignorance or
inadvertence. The main conclusion of this study is that all of the
irregular spellings found in the inscriptions of Sophilos should
be identified as non-standard but (quasi-)phonetic, and that none!
___________
"
!Two related issues, which cannot be taken up here, are 1) literacy levels
among contemporary Attic potters and vase painters, and 2) the possibility of
literary interference in vase scenes. I hope to address elsewhere the claim that
Sophilos was influenced by the Iliad in one instance and by the Cypria in
another.
124 Shane Hawkins
of them is likely to be a non-(quasi)phonetic orthographic

‘mistake’ of ignorance or inadvertence.!
!
!
2. The inscriptions
!
Accurate reproductions of the inscriptions attributed to
Sophilos are available in Bakır 1981 and Kilmer/Develin 2001.
At the end of this article I append an epigraphic addendum to
Kilmer/Develin that lists some additions, corrections, and inter-
pretations that should not go unnoticed.
!
2.1. The signature: !"#$%"& '()*#!'+3
2.1.1 &(%)*(+
Sophilos is the first Attic vase-painter whose name is
known.4 Beazley 1956: 37 wrote that it is “[i]mpossible to say
whether the name is ,!%)*(+, ,(%"*(+, or ,#%)**(+.” To these
three we may add ,!%)**(+, because the painter used a pre-
Euclidean alphabet and his orthographic practice was to write
geminate consonants singly.
___________
#
!The signature appears on four vases: Athens Acr. 587, ABV 39.15, Add 2
10; ‘Pharsalos dinos’, Athens 15499, ABV 39.16, Para 18, Add 2 10; ‘Erskine
dinos’, London 1971.11-1.1, ABV40.16bis, Para 19, 523, Add2 10–11;
perhaps also Athens National Museum 15918, ABV 40. 21.
4
Correctly Birchal 1972: 109, Moore/Philippides 1986: 79, Mertens
1988: 426, Schefold 1993: 184, de la Genière 1995: 35, Baurain-Rebillard
1999: 156. It is not true that Sophilos is the first Attic pottery painter known
to have signed his work (contra Kilmer/Develin 2001: 12), nor is he the
earliest vase-painter whose name is known (contra Brownlee 1988: 80, 1995:
363). Those distinctions belong for now, so far as I know, to fragmentary
signatures from a painter of Ischia and to the Athenian Analatos Painter, both
dated to ca. 700. The names of earlier non-Attic painters are also known
(Hurwitt 1985: 141).
Table 1: Attestations of the name Sophilos

! Inscriptional Literary
attestations attestations
,(%"*(+ 7 9
,#%)**(+ 2 11
,!%)*(+ 65 19
,!%)**(+ 0 0
!
Beazley’s words are repeated in many works on Sophilos, but
the pessimism is unwarranted. As the table above shows, there
are 65 certain inscriptional attestations of ,!%)*(+. 5 It was a
well-known name in Athens, where it is attested more than
thirty-eight times. On the other hand there are only seven
inscriptional examples of ,(%"*(+. Five of these are written in
the pre-Euclidean alphabet, in which ( and - were not
distinguished orthographically, but one of these appears at the
beginning of a pentameter, so it is clear that the name is to be
understood as ,!%)*(+. 6 The two remaining examples of
,(%"*(+ are IG II/III.3 7807 and IApoll 149. The former dates to
the middle of the fourth century or later, the latter is Hellenistic
and dated to the 2nd–1st cent. BCE. 7 The name ,#%)**(+ is
attested in only one inscription, a 4th or 3rd cent. inscription from
Oropos (IOrop 398).
In literary works the name ,!%)*(+ is attested nineteen
times. ,(%"*(+ is attested nine times, but those nine attestations
of ,(%"*(+ refer just to three people, the poet from middle
comedy, the father of Sophocles, and the father of the orator
Antiphon. The reliability of this spelling is called into question
by the fact that both the comic poet and the father of Antiphon
appear in other literary attestation as ,!%)*(+, and, in fact, the
Souda records both spellings for each of these individuals.
___________
$
!Figures are based on searches conducted using the Thesaurus Linguae
Graecae and Packard Humanities discs, and the lexicon of Fraser and
Matthews 1987–2000.
6
As pointed out by de la Genière 1995: 35 n. 1. The inscription is IG I.3
1218, CEG 50.
7
The former is actually inscribed &(%)(. with * written superscript. It is
recorded at IG II.3 2674, IG III.2 2118 and IG II/III.3 7807.
126 Shane Hawkins
Additionally, all of our sources for this spelling ,(%"*(+ are

late: the epitome of Athenaeus, Diodorus Siculus, Ister, Photius,
Plutarch, and the Souda. ,#%)**(+ is attested eleven times, but
six of the eleven examples of ,#%)**(+ refer to the father of the
tragedian Sophocles and this, not ,(%"*(+, is almost certainly
the correct form of his name. Other examples of ,#%)**(+ are
grammatical discussions of words formed in -)**(+. Finally, the
form ,!%)**(+ appears in neither inscriptions nor in literary
sources.
The evidence shows, therefore, that ,!%)*(+ is overwhelm-
ingly the most common form. The only attestations of ,(%"*(+
are two late inscriptions. With a single late exception ,#%)**(+
is only attested as the name of Sophocles’ father. The name
,!%)**(+ is not attested at all. There can be little doubt,
therefore, that the name of our vase painter is ,!%)*(+. That he
wrote his name &(%)*(+ is simply a matter of convention, and
there is therefore every justification in standardizing his name
and printing it ,!%)*(+, as is often done.
The only likely explanation for the name ,!%)*(+ is that it is
a transparent compound (like many Greek names) of the roots
&-- (,--/#$01+, ,!-%#-', etc. < *&$%(- ‘safe’) and -%)*(+
(2!#-%)*(+, 3!'#-%)*(+, etc.). As for ,#%)**(+, given its dimi-
nutive form and the Greek predilection for incorporating part of
the father’s name in the son’s name (e.g., the tragedian
Sophocles), it is probably a pet name for a larger compound
beginning in ,(%-.8
2.1.2 !"#$%&!'
The second issue raised by the signature is the pronunciation
of the standard pre-Euclidean spelling %& in the word !"#$%&!'.
Kilmer/Develin take the spelling at face value and claim that
such a sequence would have been pronounced [phs], “with some
degree of separation and distinctness for the consonant sounds
represented by the aspirated consonant 4 combined with ,”
___________
8
On the naming practice see Solmsen 1922: 118 and Runes 1925.
(2001: 32–33). The matter is more complex than this, however.

In fact, at least four different views of Attic orthographic %& and
5& have been advocated: 1) The stop was aspirated, 2) the stop
was unaspirated (e.g., Allen 1987: 60), 3) the sound was a
fricative (Schwyzer 1950–71: I 211), and 4) the orthography
was chosen to indicate a lenis rather than a fortis stop (Lejeune
1972: 69, 72; cf. Threatte 1980: 20, 571). More recently a fifth
solution, technically more complex, was proposed by Clackson
(2004).
There are good reasons for doubting aspiration in this
context, clearly described in Allen (1987: 60). First, the absence
of aspiration is supported by a form like the future of &5-, '6-,
in which 6 < *-kh-s- does not trigger Grassmann’s Law. Second,
ancient grammarians speak explicitly of loss of aspiration in
cases like "#$7- < *"#$%-&- and '6- < *'5-&-, though
admittedly they refer to the later forms of classical Attic. As
Allen rightly points out, it is fairly certain that there was no
phonemic contrast in this position between aspirated and
unaspirated stop.
There is also no good reason for thinking that % or 5 in this
position represented a fricative in Sophilos’ Athens. Aspirated
stops did not become fricatives until much later, and the ancient
grammarians are quite explicit on the point that 6 and 7 are
combinations of [ks] and [ps].9 It is also unlikely that the stops
became fricatives in this position by a conditioned change,
because 6 and 7 are maintained as [ks] and [ps] in most Modern
Greek dialects.10
Greek loan-words in Latin support the view that 7 is simply
[ps]: campso ‘bend, double’ (Ennius) from /$87$), clepsydra
‘water clock’ (Cicero) = /*!7(9#$, dapsilis ‘plentiful’ (Plautus)
and dapsiliter (Naevius) from 9$7)*)+, etc. On the other hand,
Greek loan-words in Armenian containing the letters 6 and 7 are
___________
9
Sturtevant 1968: 90–91, Allen 1987: 18–29.
10
Exceptionally this conditioned change does appear in the modern
dialect spoken in the Terra d’ Otranto (cf. afsiló = mod. *71*#+ ‘high’);
Thumb 1964: 19.
128 Shane Hawkins
usually rendered with the signs for aspirated stops followed by

s: k‘s and p‘s. This fact is sometimes used to support the idea
that the stops in question were aspirated in classical Greek. 11
This, however, is methodologically problematic. The only
knowledge we have of loan-words comes from Armenian texts
first written as late as the fifth century CE. Greek influence on
Armenian is post-Christian and the majority of Greek loans
come from the fifth to tenth centuries CE, while the remainder
are later. So, while Greek loans in Armenian may provide
support for such a pronunciation at a later time, the data are too
late to provide unequivocal evidence for archaic Greek pronun-
ciation.12
Lejeune thought the orthography indicated a lenis stop. The
terms fortis and lenis as applied to stops are generally taken to
designate one of two things, either the amount of respiratory
energy or the amount of articulatory energy used in the produc-
tion of a segment. Fortis stops require greater energy, lenis
less. 13 According to this idea, in ancient Greek the voiceless
stops (:, 0, /) were fortis, and voiced stops (;, 9, ") were lenis.!
___________
11
E.g., Sturtevant 1968: 91, Allen 1987: 60 n. 122. The classic collection
of material is Thumb 1900, esp. 414–415.
12
The Armenian data may not even offer solid evidence of 6 and 7 in late
antiquity, but may be reflections of Armenian difficulties in accommodating
a different language. There is some evidence that initial *ps- developed in
Armenian to s-, while medial *-ps- became -p‘-. Clackson 1994: 98–101,
172–173 suggested that this is a matter of the outcomes of different syllable
divisions, in which initial *.ps- yielded s- while medial *-p.s- gave -p‘-. Even
assuming that this scenario was still a productive one at the time when these
Greek words were borrowed, it is unclear what Armenian would have done
with Greek sequences such as -V7V-, i.e., [-Vp.sV-]. Armenian k‘s and p‘s
are possibly nothing more than learned spellings; see Thumb 1900: 390–391,
who argues that most Greek loans in Armenian were the result of book-
learning and seldom the result of contact with contemporary Greek speakers.
13
Fortis stops are characterized in the literature as showing greater
pressure behind the point of articulation and by a greater duration, greater
occlusion or restriction, less voicing and more aspiration than lenis stops;
Jakobson/Halle 1962, Ladefoged/Maddieson 1996: 95–99, Trask 1996: 149,
Kirchner 1998, 2004. The terms fortis and lenis have been used with different
meanings by scholars, but the definition given here seems to be the same or
similar to that imagined by Lejeune, who was following the work of
Grammont 1933: 50–52.
Lejeune claims that Greek voiceless aspirates (%, <, 5) were also
lenis. 14 For Lejeune, the %& and 5& spellings were a graphic
solution to the problem of how to represent lenis consonants
before /s/. The signs % and 5 were chosen because even though
the sounds meant to be represented were unaspirated, % and 5
correctly indicated lenis voiceless labials. This was a better
choice, the reasoning goes, than : or /, which would have
correctly indicated the lack of aspiration but would have
incorrectly signaled fortis stops.15
This scenario is problematic. First, the distinctive use of
increased respiratory energy on segments is comparatively rare,
found in a few languages like Korean and (maybe) LuGanda
(Ladefoged/Maddieson 1996: 95). On the other hand, only a
very few languages are thought to have articulatory strength
differences that cannot be explained independently of voicing,
and when this is so the difference can often be attributed to
duration (Ladefoged/Maddieson 1996: 96–99). In other words,
Lejeune’s theory is not impossible, but the rarity of such a
system, for which there is no concrete evidence in Greek, makes
it very unlikely.
Two additional facts weigh against it. It is hard to imagine
that two lenis allophones would for any reason be readily
perceived or orthographically represented by ancient Greek
speakers, whose phonemic inventory shows no systematic
employment of lenis or fortis stops. Or again, we might wonder
___________
14
Lejeune 1972: 54. There is no way to know for certain, I think, whether
this is a correct assumption or not. Pace Lejeune and Threatte 1980: 20, 571,
it is not generally the case that aspirated stops are thought of as lenis; aspira-
tion is frequently coupled with fortis articulation in the literature (see biblio-
graphy in n. 13 and Clark/Yallop 1995: 51–52). In fact, aspiration cannot be
directly correlated to fortis or lenis articulation at all, since the fortis/lenis
distinction (as generally understood) is independent of aspiration (Catford
1977: 200).
15
Lejeune 1972: 69, 72. Devine 1974: 131 n. 45 takes %&, 5& and h& as
either spirant plus s or unaspirated stop plus s, “the aspirate being a possible
graph in this position of neutralization and chosen since the archiphoneme
representative was lenis (but not aspirated),” and adds (132) that “we must be
content with saying that, at least, there is no reason to deny the possibility of
an aspirated voiceless lenis.”
130 Shane Hawkins
why the letters 7 [ps] and 6 [ks] would later have been readily
adopted in Attica if Attic %& and 5& really represented anything
other than [ps] and [ks].16 In fact, Archinus, who put forward the
measure to reform the Old Attic alphabet in Eucleides’ archon-
ship of 403/2, and who appears to have been something of a
language theorist, seems to have argued explicitly that these
were the values of 7 and 6, and that this was one reason for the
reform.17
Finally, Clackson 2004 suggested the explanation lies in the
notion of Voice Onset Timing (VOT). In current phonetic theory
aspiration is generally conceived of as a matter of voice onset
timing, or the period of time between the release of an articula-
tory occlusion and the beginning of vocal fold vibration. In
simplified terms, three possible scenarios are distinguishable. If
voiced phonation begins before or with the occlusion made in
articulating a consonant, the stop is considered fully voiced. If
there is no voicing during the occlusion, but voicing is simulta-
neous with the release of the occlusion (or follows shortly there-
after), the stop is considered voiceless. Finally, if voicing is
delayed significantly after the release of the occlusion, the
voiceless stop will be aspirated because of the unobstructed flow
of air through the abducted vocal folds of the larynx. The timing
is a continuum.18 A number of languages, like Ancient Greek,
make a three-way distinction among voiced (voice onset at or
near the occlusion phase), voiceless unaspirated (voice onset at
or just after the release of the occlusion), and voiceless aspirated
stops (voice onset significantly later than the release of the
occlusion).
According to Clackson’s idea, in sequences of the type [ksa]
the unvoiced sibilant following the stop delayed the onset of!
___________
16
On the adoption and use of the Ionic alphabet see Threatte 1986: 26–51,
Immerwahr 1990: 179–182, and the intriguing study of D’Angour 1999.
17
Theophr. ap. Syr. ad Arist. Met. 1093a20, Comm. Arist.Gr., 6.1.191. 29 f.
18
This explanation follows closely Clark/Yallop 1995: 52–53. Voiced
aspirate plosives such as those found in South Asian languages are generally
made with ‘breathy voice’ and a slight delay in onset (Clark/Yallop 1995:
20–21).
voicing until the following vocalic element. As such, the use of

the graphemes 5 and % “represent not ‘aspirated’ stops as trade-
tionally understood, but stops with voicing onset delay” (2004:
30).19 Two objections come to mind. First, it is doubtful whether
such a sophisticated apparatus as that assumed under the rubric
of Voice Onset Timing was ever recognized by the Greeks, or
that even if it were somehow perceived by them in a fuzzy way,
they would have incorporated it so conscientiously into the
orthography. Second, VOT measures the period of time between
the release of an articulatory occlusion and the beginning of
vocal fold vibration. Aspiration is a product of delayed voicing
after the release of that occlusion. In the case of a complex
articulation like [ks], one would expect the relevant release to be
that of the fricative [s], not the dorsal release of the [k], and thus
the delay Clackson attributes to the sibilant is not a factor.20
The most appealing explanation is Allen’s claim that the
stops were not fully aspirated. Allen suggested that [k] and [p]
were aspirated before [s] by some speakers, though it was
probably a weak aspiration (aspiration is measured on a conti-
nuum, it is not a binary quality) and non-contrastive, i.e., allo-
phonic.21 In fact, voiceless fricatives like [s] require a large air
flow and are usually produced with fully abducted vocal folds,
like aspirated stops. If the [s] in [ksa] were produced with fully!
___________
19
His formulation is imprecise since voiceless stops themselves cannot in
any logical sense have voicing onset delay.
20
Clackson 2004: 30 claims that in the sequence [ksa] “the sibilant [s]
will follow the stop immediately, but since it is unvoiced, voicing will be
delayed until the onset of the following vocalic element.” Voicing is not
delayed until the vocalic element, because it is only with the vocalic element
that voicing comes in sequences like [ka] or [ksa]. The delay under conside-
ration is the delay in the initial voicing of the vocalic element while the vocal
folds are abducted, not a delay between the stop and the onset of the vocalic
element.
21
Allen 1987: 60. Similar views in Ruijgh 1995: 35–36, who suggests the
occlusives in 5& and %& were aspirated via a process ksh > khs, psh> phs;
Panagl 1971: 59ff., esp. n. 59 sees in these examples “aspirierende Wirkung”
of the sigma on the preceding obstruent, as in cases like *-ksm- > -58- ($+58)
< *aik-sm,), but refrains from precisely defining their value: “Ob das
Produkt dieses Prozesses den ererbten Aspiraten phonetisch völlig adäquat
war, kann nicht sicher ausgemacht werden.”
132 Shane Hawkins
abducted vocal folds, the preceding stop may have been

produced with the same articulatory setting, i.e., it was
articulated like an aspirated stop. Perceptually, it is difficult to
distinguish between aspirated and unaspirated stops before [s],
and this difficulty was perhaps captured in the Old Attic
orthography.
It has long been recognized that [ks] and [ps] are structurally
unique clusters that can occupy both the initial and final position
in a syllable.22 In this way they function structurally like single
consonants, and this, some have thought, was one factor in the
original motivation for the utilization of the new characters 6
and 7.23 These sequences were thus perceived as single units of
sound with a complex articulation, as with =. Possibly the sound
involved was what is known as a secondary articulation or
simultaneous complex articulation, or “separate but co-occurring
articulatory activities which result in the production of a sound
identifiable as a single segment” (Clark/Yallop 1995: 63). An
example in English is the word chop, the initial sound of which
is the affricate [!"#], a complex articulation of a voiceless dental
and voiceless post-alveolar fricative. In the case of Attic %&/5&,
there may have been a certain amount of articulatory overlap, in
which the tongue is positioned for the fricative before the stop is
released directly into the fricative. 24 Since one of the most
notable features of fricatives like [s] is the presence of turbulent
airflow, and since the sequences under question were perceived
as a single articulatory event, the use of the letters % and 5 could
___________
22
Kuryłowicz 1962: 110–111, Allen 1987: 59.
23
The background to the creation of these characters is very complex;
see, e.g., Woodard 1997: 147–161.
24
This explanation is not contradicted by the fact that Greek prosody
treats the letters 7 and 6 as double consonants (e.g., "#$7- is syllabified
grap.s-). Compare English caption, where there is articulatory overlap of the
stop [p] and fricative [,] over the syllable break (Ladefoged/Maddieson 1996:
354–5). A similar situation appears with the Sanskrit sequence k!, which
makes position but is understood by ancient Indian grammarians as
resembling a single affricate (Allen 1953: 78–79, Kuryłowicz 1962: 111).
be seen as an attempt to indicate this property on the stop

orthographically.25
A final note here is that in one case the spelling %& was
slightly bungled by Sophilos. On the Erskine dinos he wrote the
sigma first before the phi and then, catching his error, seems to
have partially written the phi over the sigma to cover up his
mistake. This is an interesting glitch because Threatte 1980: 20–
21 noted that the inversion of %& and 5& in Attic is frequent only
in semi-literate contexts such as dipinti, ostraca and some stone
texts. It is just as possible, however, that the inversion of ortho-
graphy from %& and 5& to &% and &5 reflects actual metathesis.
There is evidence that metathesis of this sort involving stop-
sibilant or sibilant-stop sequences (e.g., Old English clapse >
Modern English clasp, but which is common in many langua-
ges) arises from listeners misparsing speech. The reason may be
psychoacoustic: listeners cannot distinguish the separate pho-
nemes of a sequence but hear the sequence holistically (Ohala
2003: 681), or they become confused with respect to the linear
order of segments, which can result in dramatic misperceptions
(Blevins/Garrett 2004).
3. Nasals
There are apparent inconsistencies in Sophilos’ use of the

nasal consonants ' and 8. In examples like '.%$) (= '(8%$)) and
___________
25
Compare the practice of ancient Indian grammarians who applied the
term .!man (‘hot, steaming’) not only to the fricatives [s , -] but also to the
breathy release of an aspirated stop (Allen 1953: 26–27). Similarly, :'!.8$-
0!91+ was used of %, 7, & and = (Plato Crat. 427a). For non-aspiration of
stops in this sequence note also a quirk of the Red alphabet, which adopted
the sign 5 for [ks] before it adopted the symbols % and 7 for [ph] and [kh].
After the signs % and 7 were adopted by the Red, Light Red, and Light Blue
alphabets, the chosen means of representing [ps] and [ks] in these three
alphabets was to use the appropriate supplemental + s. In the Red alphabet,
however, [ks] is still spelled in the earlier way with 5 and not with 7 [kh] as
7&. It is unlikely that %& should really represent [phs] and not [ps], while at
the same time there is a 5 [ks] and no [khs].
134 Shane Hawkins
/!0$[.#() (= /.'0$.#()) they are not written. 26 On the other

hand two examples of the name Amphitrite show nu for mu,
$'%)0#)0! and $'[ = /8%)0#"01, even when mu might rather be
expected before the labial %, and when its inclusion would lend
some morphological transparency to the name (*8%)-). Finally
there is :$'9#(&(+ (= >$'9#(&(+), which is spelled with a nu
just as we expect it to be.27
Rather than dismiss these examples as mere spelling errors, I
would prefer to explain them as reflections of an articulatory
reality. Sophilos’ /!0$[.#() and '.%$) probably reflect the loss
of a nasal before a stop, perhaps with nasalization on the
proceeding vowel, which escapes notation in the script. The lack
of orthographic representation of nasals in this position is
common in certain Attic inscriptions and widespread in all
dialects, and this is the usual interpretation of the phenomenon.28
To understand the process we might compare the phenomenon
of nasal loss before stops in other languages. In English, for
example, preconsonantal nasals are notably shorter in duration
than others, and in some cases the nasal consonant is absent
entirely while nasalization characterizes the preceding vowel
(Malécot 1960). Interestingly, the spelling of young school
children in English, Dutch, and Spanish studies reflects this
same process by frequently omitting the letter n in preconso-
nantal position. Since there are no symbols for nasalized vowels
in these languages, any indication of nasality is sometimes left!
___________
26
The readings are assured; the labeled Centaurs are clearly visible and
there is no reason to follow the suggestion of Kilmer/Develin 2001: 24 n. 40
that /!0!"[ on the Menidi vase should be read as a personal (and unattested)
name. Nor can the name belong to the human figure, as they suggest, since he
is clearly Heracles (so already Wolters 1898: 15).
27
'.%$) ABV 40.16bis, London 1971.11–1.1; /!0$[.#() ABV 40.21,
Athens 15918, 15942; $'%)0#)0! ABV 40.16bis, London 1971.11-1.1;
$'[%)0#)0! ABV 39.15, Athens Acr. 587; :$'9#(&(+ ABV 40.17–18, Athens
Acr. 585a.
28
For Attic see Kretschmer 1894: 161ff.; Meisterhans 1900: 84; Threatte
1980: 485: “the phenomenon is sufficiently well documented to justify the
view that there existed a tendency to drop the nasal in this position, possibly
with nasalization of the preceding vowel.” For other dialects, see Buck 1955:
63, § 69.2; a fuller bibliography is given in Méndez Dosuna 2007: 362.
out.29 It is instructive to compare this with the fact that omission

of the nasal is generally absent from Attic decrees and official
documents maintaining higher orthographic standards while it is
more common among Attic dipinti ('(8%1 itself being a
frequent example).30 This difference may be evidence of one or
more factors, such as distinct phonostyles in Attic society, and/
or different levels of education in writing.31
The nu of $'%)0#)0! is less clear. The etymology of the name
is unknown, but both Frisk (1970–79, s.v.) and Chantraine
(1968–80, s.v.) plausibly start from /%)- with a change to /8%)-
by popular etymology. /%)- does occur, but examples with a
nasal are more frequent.32 According to Threatte 1980: 592, the
spelling with nu in the Archaic Period is an Attic orthographic
convention in which all pre-consonantal nasals were written
“almost invariably” with nu whether in final or internal position.
“The reason for these characteristic Attic spellings with N is
probably not phonetic, but due to a writing convention analo-
gous to the Attic writing of geminates as simplex during the
same period ... It is very doubtful that the nasals of 0'"(+, *'%",
>$'%$1(+, 2'"!*(+, etc. were really pronounced [n] rather than
[m] or [?].”
___________
29
Which is why it is incorrect to claim that “the resulting nasalisation of
the vowel should be indicated in writing” (Méndez Dosuna 2007: 366). See
Read 1985, Sowers 1991. The invented spellings of young English children
“often differ from the standard system in treating English writing as though it
were more nearly phonetic than it is” (Shankweiler/Lundquist 1992: 181, 187).
30
Threatte 1980: 485, Kretschmer 1894: 161–166; for non-Attic dipinti
see Wachter 2001: 234.
31
Méndez Dosuna 2007 argued against this line of interpretation on the
ground that examples of nasal omission in Attic inscriptions are too infre-
quent (49 examples) to be meaningful and that such spellings are due to
carelessness and must not be interpreted as sociolinguistic phenomena. I am
more apt to think that those forty-nine instances are significant precisely
since occurrences are “extremely rare” in the many engraved official docu-
ments, where orthographic conventions could be controlled, but “relatively
frequent” in painted vase inscriptions. Nasal omission is a widespread
phenomenon in ancient Greek and is not limited to just forty-nine examples
from Attic inscriptions.
32
Wachter 2001: 233, 262–3 points out that for metrical reasons the
change to *8%)- had to have happened before the composition of the
Odyssey. Note Hsch. 0#)0!@ 3!48$.
136 Shane Hawkins
But while Threatte is correct that such writing with nu must

have been due to some sort of convention, the reason for it may
have been phonetic in origin. The case of simplex stops for
geminates, which really represents a graphic simplification, is
not comparable. In Greek of the classical period, sequences of
nasal and stop are, as the script indicates, generally homorganic.
This complementary distribution is a classic case of neutraliza-
tion, in which a contrast normally maintained between two or
more segments is lost in certain environments.33 If we assume
that nasal + stop combinations were always homorganic in the
archaic period, the invariable spelling with nu makes little sense
as a convention.
Some have invoked the idea of the archiphoneme to explain
the use of '. in these examples. 34 Needless to say, this is a
theoretical apparatus that was unknown to ancient Greek
scribes,35 and the nus of our Greek examples are not somehow
devised as archiphonemes. But such nus might plausibly
represent what we would now call an archigrapheme, that is, a
graph used to represent the neutralization of contrasts in certain
___________
!33 Compare the contrast which operates in English /m/, /n/, and /?/ in
word final position (rum vs. run vs. rung), but not word-internally before the
stops /k/ or /g/ (e.g., anchor, anger), where no such opposition is possible
(Akamatsu 1991: 151). Likewise, Indonesian /m/, /n/, /5/, and /?/ are all
neutralized before a following consonant (Clark/Yallop 1995: 111).
34
The term refers to environments of neutralization where relevant
contrasts between segments are suspended. Here the original phonemes in
question are considered no longer to exist and instead what occurs is called
an archiphoneme, which is generally thought of as the set of distinctive
peculiarities common to the two (or more) original phonemes. Both Lejeune
(1972: §§ 143) and Ruijgh (1975: 244) seem to think of the nu as a cover
symbol indicating nasal quality without specifying place of articulation
(Lejeune refers to a nasale appuyante, Ruijgh to the archiphoneme).
35
According to Householder 1994: 933, Sextus Empiricus “adumbrates
the archiphoneme (proposing a five-vowel analysis for Greek)” at Adv. Math.
108–110. If true, it is exceptional. According to Clark/Yallop 1995: 114,
“few orthographies have special letters corresponding to the archiphonemes
of phonological analysis.” “One possible case” they cite is the redundant use
of 6 and 7 in Greek to represent the combinations k+s, kh+s, g+s and p+s,
ph+s, b+s, respectively, where all of the stops are neutralized before s. But
while we may speak of archiphonemes in this environment, the history of the
graphs 6 and 7 indicates clearly that these letters were not devised as archi-
graphemes.
environments. Thus nu would merely indicate ‘nasal consonant’

without specifying the features ‘dental’ or ‘labial’. But why
would Greek scribes settle on this convention, if all nasals were
realized homorganically? We might suppose that Greek scribes
recognized that all nasals in these environments were homor-
ganic and that their place of articulation was therefore predict-
able. Nu was then chosen as a graph for representing a nasal
with a predictable place of articulation. But this scenario seems
unlikely: if place of articulation was predictable in all of these
examples, why bother with an archigrapheme?36
It would make more sense to assume that in preconsonantal
position there was a general weakening of the nasal (with loss of
distinction in the place of articulation) such as that assumed for
'.%$) and /!0$.#() above. Studies have shown that listeners
normalize or correct predictable variations in speech in order to
arrive at the intended pronunciation of another speaker.37 Occa-
sionally, however, a listener’s ability to reverse these predictable
variations leads to a misapplication of the corrective process
(i.e., hypercorrection). 38 A similar mechanism can be invoked
for Greek examples like *'%".39 Listeners, perceiving the nasal
before a labial stop, understood the labial quality of the nasal as!
___________
36
Méndez Dosuna 1993: 98 argued that since archiphonemes are devoid
of any psychological reality, they are not represented by speakers in their
script. He suggested that the use of ' was the result of a largo phonostyle in
which the only form of the nasal that was acceptable ante pausa, nu, was
written. But the appeal to the notion of phonostyle appears to be contradicted
by the fact that writing in the Archaic period with nu was used exclusively.
37
See Ohala 1993.
38
For similar interpretations see Kretschmer 1894: 164–5, Buck 1955: 63,
Brixhe 1976: 67 with n. 5, Bile 1988: 126–7, Hodot 1990: 80–82.
39
This explanation only holds for examples of nu before labial or mu
before dental. In cases like 0'"(+, where one assumes the phonetic reality
was [?g], the orthography <'"> was clearly motivated and only replaced by
<""> later (Allen 1987: 35–37). The use of ' for 8 before a labial like % could
also be explained by supposing the assimilation of nu to [m] before a labial,
leading to confusion in which words like [amphi] were spelled *'%". Gignac
took this view in his study of the same nasal confusion in Ptolemaic papyri
(Gignac 1974: 138). The assimilation of nu to a following labial was proto-
Greek, however, and pre-Alphabetic and most later incidental sequences of n
+ labial leading to assimilation (e.g., 0' :#*!) > 08 :#*!)) are so easily
restorable that it is difficult to believe they could have led to forms like *'%".
138 Shane Hawkins
a perturbation and ‘corrected’ it by substituting the non-labial

nasal in its place. Later, the correct nasal was restored.40
Finally, in the case of :$'9#(&(+, the expected spelling with
nu may be due to the etymological clarity of the element :$'-,
with the morpheme boundary allowing the nasal to be restored.41
___________
40
For illustrative examples of the process see Ohala 1993: 250–1, who
discusses *penk"e (Gk. :.'0!, Vedic páñca) > (by assimilation in Proto-
Latin) *k"enk"e > Latin qu/nque. In Latin, both stops were formed with lip
rounding, which was probably also found on the vowel between these
segments. Listeners must have perceived the rounding on the initial stop as a
perturbation from the following vowel and ‘corrected’ it by eliminating the
rounding on the first stop, to judge from examples like Italian cinque
/t,i?kwe/, French cinq /s!6k/ and Spanish cinco /<i?ko/. See Katvitskaya 2002:
60–1 on the loss of -n- with compensatory lengthening in Old Latin.
Spellings like cosul suggest that n was converted into a nasalization on the
preceding vowel, and was subsequently restored in the classical period. Here,
too, hypercorrections like th0nsaurus for th0saurus were formed.
41
I note here Athens, Acr. 587 fr. i, ABV 39.15, Add 2 10, a small piece
that preserves three female figures, two left-facing women to the right and
one front-facing female playing the syrinx. They are labeled '.&$). This
concerned Beazley (1986: 17 = the 1951 edition, p. 18), who noted that one
expects Muses in this context (the gods arriving at the wedding of Peleus and
Thetis) and that the plural form of A4&$ is otherwise unattested. Vanderpool
1953: 322 suggested reading 8.&$) (= B(4&$) ‘Muses’) instead, with nu for
mu. This has not been widely accepted (Stewart 1983: 59, Beazley 1986: 17,
Immerwahr 1990: 186, Kilmer/Develin 2001: 16–17 all ignore or reject it).
Immerwahr, following West 1978: 374 and Henrichs 1987: 117, n. 41,
suggests the Nyssai are tree nymphs; however, Beazley noted that the '.&$)
“seem to correspond to the Muses who accompany the chariots on the
François vase and who sang at the wedding”, and Carpenter 1986: 9 pointed
out that the very same depiction of female figures is labeled 8(&$) on the
London dinos by Sophilos (London 1971.11-1.1). He puts this all down to the
idea that Sophilos was “a poor speller” and he appears to suggest that '.&$)
is a confusion of 8(&$) and '.%$) ('(8%$)). I prefer the explanation given by
Haslam 1991: 42, n. 23, that the confusion is not in the spelling, but in the
labeling. That is, the Muses are pictured just as they are on the London dinos,
but the inscription is an inaccurate label that reads ‘Nyssai’.
4. Inscriptions from the Pharsalos dinos42
4.1. *1$%'&
!
The spelling $5)*!+ for the regular /5)**!(+ is noteworthy.
Kretschmer 1894: 191–192 (followed by Immerwahr 1990: 21,
n. 4; Kilmer/Develin 2001: 21, n. 34) argued that -!+ is not an
error but a substitution of the masculine first conjugation ending
in -)+ for the eu-stem nom. in -!(+. This is possible but there is
no clear explanation why this substitution was made. Further-
more, one cannot assume the formation was an isolated mistake
by Sophilos, because the existence of such -es-stems seem to be
present already in Mycenaean (Perpillou 1973: 238ff., Risch
1987, Hajnal 1995: 30–31) and there are Latin and Etruscan
forms from the fourth century that presume the same ancestral
form (e.g., Praenestine ACILES, CIL I2 564, 567, Etruscan aciles,
Latin Achill0s; see further Wachter 1987: 148–9).43
A better explanation recalls the development of the acc. sg.
*-e"m to *-0m > -1' via Stang’s Law (cf. acc. sg. C)' < *di7e"m).
The creation of such an accusative may have led to a nom. sg. -1+
on the analogy of the first declension masculines, viz., /5)**)' :
-)' :: X : -)+, where X = /5)**)+, in the so-called “Achaean”
dialects, where it is preserved as an archaism.44 Possibly, then, a
trace of this development is attested in a handful of Attic
examples with nom. sg. -!+ (i.e., -1+), such as $5)*!+. Rau
suggests that the Attic names in -!+ were influenced by a non-
Homeric epic tradition current in archaic Athens. This is a
possibility for most of the names, including $5)*!+, though some!
___________
42
‘Pharsalos dinos’, Athens 15499, ABV 39.16, Para 18, Add 2 10.
43
Compare Ulix0s for 89.&&!(+, which may have a Greek equivalent
Olixes (i.e., 8*)6.+, vel sim.), if its attribution to Ibycus at Diomedes ars
gramm. i (PMG 305) is reliable.
44
The analogy would have to be to the first declension and not to the
,-/#$01+ type, since the original acc. sg. there was ,-/#$01. Acc. sg.
,-/#$01' only became normal by the later fifth century (Threatte 1996: 138,
173–4). See further Risch 1987, Hajnal 1995: 30–31 (who suggest an analo-
gical proportion masc. acc. sg. -on : nom. sg. -os : : Acc. sg. -0n : nom. sg. X,
where X = -0s), Rau 2003: 12–13. On Arcadian 9!#)+ ‘priest’ see Buck 1955: 92.
140 Shane Hawkins
of the names do not seem to have epic connections: $5$'!+,

<(#$)!+, *$'[:0#]!+.45
On the other hand, of the nine Attic examples listed by
Threatte, which are confined to ostraca and dipinti, all may
simply be orthographic mistakes (1980: 346–347, 1996: 232–4).
This idea cannot be completely ruled out, because some of the
same vases also have -!.- spellings and because the spelling !
for !. is also found in places other than !.-stem endings where
it is “sometimes accompanied by other orthographical crudities
which suggest carelessness or semi-literacy” (1996: 236).
4.2. 2*3)"!%4& *3%*

!
The spelling >$0#(#*.+ (gen. sg.) is unique among Attic
inscriptions. The most common form of the genitive of names in
-/*:+ is -/*.(.+ or -/*.(+; less common are -/*.(., -/*.)(+
(i.e., -/*!!$(+), -/*)(.+, -/*.-+ and -/*:(+ (poetic).46 Sophilos’
-#*.+ (D -/*.+) thus requires some explanation.
Threatte 1980: 260 assumes that . here represents <(.> (i.e.,
[E$]), and writes that . for either the original or spurious diph-
thongs is a rare phenomenon in the archaic period that appears
on ostraca, dipinti, and texts “notorious for spelling irregu-
larities”, but is not normally found on stone inscriptions. He
hints that the spelling with upsilon could have a phonetic basis –
that it may represent confusion between similar sounds – but
seems to prefer either the notion that Sophilos made an ortho-
graphic error by incompletely rendering the diphthong or, a third
possibility, the spelling was due to a confusion of declensional
___________
45
There is no attested evidence in Attic for any eu-stem acc. sg. in -)'.
Another possibility is that instead of the usual outcome of the non-nomina-
tive cases with quantitative metathesis (thus -.;, -.-+, -!1), proto-Greek *0
was shortened before a vowel with the result that the endings of these cases
were identical to the s-stem adjectives of the !<8!')+ type (Sihler 1995: 330–
331). This development could have led to the analogical creation of an
/5)**)+; however, this assumes a sound change for which there is no attested
evidence in Attic this early (examples of the gen. sg. in -!(+ being rare and
attested in the fourth century or later; Threatte 1996: 232, 236).
46
See Threatte 1996: 181.! !
types -/*(+ and -/*:+, so that “something like -/*<.(>.+ ... or

-/*(4{+} should be read” (1996: 183).
This is unlikely. If it were a matter of declensional confusion,
we would find forms like -/*(4+ or perhaps -/*.(., but not
-/*.(.+, because that is in fact the correct Attic form. 47 Also,
while it is possible that Sophilos made an orthographic error, we
would have to assume that it was more than simply an incom-
plete writing of the diphthong, since he will have written . for
!(.. Threatte lists hundreds of examples of the genitive (the best
attested case of the most frequent type of masculine name in
Attic inscriptions; 1996: 181, 191), and not a single case omits
the epsilon or its equivalents 1/!). I know of no evidence to sup-
port the idea that the [eE$] of -/*.(.+ might have coalesced to [F]
or [=]. The most likely explanation then is desinence confusion,
not of the -/*(+ and -/*:+ types, but with the -(.+ ending of the
,-/#$01+ type, and with a spelling of . in place of (..
Therefore, before determining whether :$0#(>*.+ is a
spelling error, one needs to determine whether the . represents
[G], [F], or [E$]. There is no reason to think that the genitive -(.+
(< *-es-os) fronted to [-Gs], and the qoppa lends support, how-
ever weakly, to the idea that . represents a back vowel. That
qoppa is a backed allophone of / /k/ is born out by the many
archaic inscriptions in which one finds with some consistency /!
before front vowels and > before the back vowels ( and ., even
___________
47
The single parallel mentioned by Threatte is invalid; ?0!#>*() is the
expected dative of ?0!#/*(+, the pet name for ?0!(/*:+, and it does not
show any mixture of declensional types. On :$0#(>*.+ Guarduccci 1974: III
461–2 says only that it stands for >$0#(/*.(.+, and says nothing about
declensional confusion (as one might suspect from reading Threatte).
According to Immerwahr 1990: 21 n. 4, the form :$0#(>*.+ (= >$0#(/*(4+)
“is perhaps an Attic adaptation of the epic 3rd-declension form of the name.”
But it is hard to see how >$0#(/*(4+ might represent any of the attested epic
forms of the genitive (>$0##/*()(, -(., -:(+) unless we assume an unusual
mixture of the 2nd and 3rd declension endings, which would not necessarily
have anything to do with the epic form. Gallavotti 1979: 112 with n. 10 reads
the two lines &(%)*(+ 8 !"#$%&!' and :$0#(>*.+ $0*$ as a single phra-
se ,(%"*(+ 8’ &"#$7!' >$0#(/*(4+ @0*$, with >$0#(/*(4+ @0*$ in
opposition to 8(!). The -/*(4+ may be correct, but the 8! of potter/painter
signatures always refers, I think, to the vase, and not to the scene depicted.
142 Shane Hawkins
when the liquids # and * intervene: /$>(', "*$.>E:)9), but also

!>#(0%! (from /#(0.-), >!#)>*.8!'(+, etc.48
There are two other examples of qoppa among Sophilos’
inscriptions and both are the name 5$#)>*(.49 This word shows,
according to Kilmer/Develin 2001: 13f., that “Sophilos’ use of
qoppa preceding lambda suggests a strongly gutturalised
pronunciation. * following / forces / into the guttural” [i.e.,
velar]. This novel interpretation is clearly false. If lambda alone
ever affected the pronunciation of a preceding kappa, we would
expect to find examples of ->*)-, ->*!-, ->*1-, or ->*$- in
archaic Attic inscriptions and would not expect to find examples
of -/*-. Obviously this is not the distribution one finds.
What is interesting about Sophilos’ use of qoppa in :$0#(>*.+
is that it appears before ., and in this position qoppa is poorly
attested in Attic. This is usually taken as an indication that
upsilon was fronted to [ü] early in this dialect. Threatte 1980:
22–23 lists only three certain examples of qoppa before upsilon:
H>.!*')(+ (= H.*.')(+, ca. 570), and two graffiti found in a
deposit dating 600–575, A.9"8$5(+ and A.0[#$+. He suggests
that these examples, if authentically Athenian, belong to a tran-
sitional period when . was in the process of fronting to [I].50 In
that case Sophilos’ :$0#(>*.+ probably belongs with these
words. As noted above, however, the genitive ending is best
explained if we assume a desinence confusion of -(.+ for -!(.+,
in which case the . in :$0#(>*.+ represents <(.>, rather than a
front vowel.51 The presence of the qoppa, which normally only
appears before back vowels, supports this idea.
___________
48
This is the usual story; see Lejeune 1972: 33; Allen 1987: 17, Threatte
1980: 21–23, Woodard 1997: 154, 160–161. To the alternative stories given
in these sources add Méndez Dosuna 1993 and Miller 1994: 51–53, with
additional theories mentioned therein. It is still reasonable to believe the
usual story.
49
Athens Acr. 587, ABV 39.15, Add 2 10 and London 1971.11-1.1., ABV
40.16bis, Para 19, Add 2 10–11.
50
Likewise Allen 1987: 67, n. 11. Others, such as BartonJk 1963 and
Méndez Dosuna 1993: 116–117, have argued against this idea.
51
One could also posit interference from the form >$0#(>*(+.
The remaining difficulty is to ascertain why Sophilos wrote .

instead of (.. Possibly what happened is this: the mid long back
vowel [E"] of the genitive ending had already shifted in his
speech to [F] and so, when he said [patroklFs] he wrote it with
the symbol for [F], <.>, instead of <(.>, which formerly
represented [E"].52 The usual spelling of the [F] that developed
from [E"] is <(.>.
As for $0*$, Threatte 1980: 453 rehearsed various explana-
tions for cases with unaspirated stop for an expected aspirate,
one of which is a tendency to deaspirate before # or *. There are
some examples of such non-aspiration on stone, but they are
mostly limited to private sepulchral monuments and dipinti that
often show “other orthographical crudities.” Given, however,
the fact that the tendency to deaspirate before liquids is not
limited to Attic dipinti, but also surfaces in inscriptions from
other dialects such as Cretan or Pamphylian (Thumb/Kieckers
1932: 157, Thumb/Scherer 1959: 178, 185), and that examples
of deaspiration before nasals surface across dialects (Buck 1955:
60), the deaspiration is more likely to have a phonetic explana-
tion than merely an orthographic one.
A possible phonetic explanation is approximant devoicing, in
which any approximant consonant in the onset of a syllable is
devoiced when the preceding consonant is voiceless (in our case
*, #, 8, or ' after < or %). This phenomenon is common to many
languages, including English (Spencer 1996: 212–4), where not
all approximants are devoiced after voiceless consonants but
only those that belong to the same onset. In cases where a
syllable division falls between the stop and the approximant
there is no devoicing of the latter (roughly, e.g., the [l] of ‘eye
slip’ vs. ‘ice lip’, or the [r] of ‘nitrate’ vs. ‘night rate’). The
process is determined by the interaction of several factors,
including syllabification, morphological structure, and word
boundary. Since aspiration is a measure of voicelessness
following the release of a stop, aspiration and approximant!
___________
52
For the very early (sixth century) development of [E"] to [F] see
Teodorsson 1974: 291–2 and Allen 1987: 77 with n. 41.
144 Shane Hawkins
devoicing are fundamentally similar processes – the devoicing

of a sonorant (consonant or vowel) after a stop belonging to the
same onset. One may assume that a syllabification between the
stop and approximant, in this case voiced, could have led to the
perception that there was no aspiration on the stop. Since there
is good evidence that the difference between so-called internal
onset muta cum liquida and heterosyllabic muta cum liquida in
Attic was a matter of phonostyles (Devine/Stephens 1994: 34–
35), occasional confusion over the issue may have led to
spellings like $0*$.
4.3. Jeffery’s theory of Thessalian influence

!
Jeffery 1984 published the interesting idea that these last
three words, $5)*!+, :$0#(>*.+, and $0*$, which she calls
“spelling mistakes”, are attributable to instructions from a
Thessalian patron. 53 The vase was discovered in a grave near
Pharsalos, Thessaly, the home of Peleus and the place where
Achilles and Patroclus supposedly spent their youth. More
recently de la Genière 1995 argued that it is improbable that the
painter of this vase or that of another from Pharsalos depicting
the struggle over Patroclus’ corpse (ABV 148.9) were unaware
of the destinations of their works. That the vase was made-to-
order, so to speak, is possible, and there is evidence for made-to-
order pottery elsewhere, some of which may include the kind of
dialect switching supposed here.54 In this particular case, how-
ever, there are good reasons for arguing that the inscriptions
were not affected by a Thessalian patron.
First, with regard to $5)*!+, Thessalian nouns in -!(+ typi-
cally appear in -!(+ and preserve the length of the pre-form in
the oblique cases, e.g., the genitive in *-0"os > -!1(+.55 This is
___________
53
She is followed by Baurain-Rebillard 1999: 157.
54
See the index in Immerwahr 1990, s.v. ‘inscriptions, vases, bespoke
vases’. The possibility of special commissions was taken up in detail by
Webster 1972, whose methods and conclusion, however, have been strongly
criticized (e.g., Cook 1975).
55
Bechtel 1921: 181–2, Buck 1955: 92.
no match for Sophilos’ $5)*!+. For :$0#(>*.+, Jeffery’s com-

parison of the Thessalian change of ( > . in the preposition *:(
is not appropriate. This change is limited to labial contexts, such
as *:(, B'(8$0$, and 9)$9.8!', which is not the environment
found in :$0#(>*.+. 56 If one accepts the argument above that
the . of :$0#(>*.+ represents <(.>, a closer Thessalian parallel
might be examples like 0.0()+, 0.0(.' (= Att. 0(K0()+, 0(K0-';
on which see García Ramón 2007: 93). Importantly, however,
Thessalian names in -/*:+ are mainly of two types, those with
nom. sg. in -/*!1+ with genitives in -/*.(+ or -/*"(+, and names
in nom. sg. -/*.;+, including >$0#(/*.;+. 57 Neither type
matches Sophilos’ ->*.+. As for the spelling $0*$ for @<*$,
Jeffery herself correctly notes that 0 for < in Thessalian is
generally limited to -&<- sequences. The loss of aspiration in <
under varying circumstances is in no way unique to Thessalian
but can also be found, as noted above, in Attic inscriptions.
If Sophilos were commissioned by a Thessalian patron to
produce Thessalian dialect forms, he failed completely. He did
not even have the courtesy to use the Thessalian letter form 5
when he wrote $5)*!+ with an Attic +, a fact Jeffery surprisingly
ignores.58 There is no good evidence, therefore, for Thessalian
interference in the inscriptions, and such a theory cannot explain
what one finds on the vase.59
One might also mention Brownlee’s idea (1988: 80, 84–85)
that Sophilos’ source was a public recitation of epic poetry and
that “these mistakes might be the result of Sophilos’ having
heard the words but not seen them spelled out … He may be
___________
56
Thumb-Scherer 1959: 57, Bechtel 1921: 135, 147, 170.
57
Bechtel 1921: 170–1, 182, Thumb/Scherer 1959: 67, Buck 1955: 133.
58
For the use of a non-native script by an Athenian potter see Exekias’
fragmentary dinos from Cervetri in the Villa Giulia (Villa Giulia 50599, ABV
146.20). Alongside a potter signature in Attic script, the Attic artist inscribed
both the names of the buyer and purchaser in the Sicyonian alphabet. See
Cohen 1991: 57 for discussion and bibliography.
59
Baurain-Rebillard’s suggestion (1999: 157) that the inscriptions corre-
spond to the idea Sophilos had of the Thessalian dialect rather than accurately
reproduce dialect characteristics is unlikely, because these same peculiarities
occur elsewhere on Attic dipinti and other media.
146 Shane Hawkins
simply recording what he thinks he has heard; he may be not so

much careless as uninformed. Just as Sophilos is giving pictorial
form to images he has only heard, so also is he giving visual
form to words he has only heard.” But this confuses matters that
should be kept separate. Even if Sophilos never saw the words
@<*$, /5)**!(+ or >$0#(/*:+ spelled out (which is unlikely),60
it is improbable that he was unfamiliar with them or that he only
ever heard the word @<*$ in a poetic recitation. It is more likely
that he was trying to reproduce in writing both what he heard
and what he himself spoke, and there is no compelling reason to
see in these inscriptions any influence from a public recital of
poetry.
!
5. Inscriptions from the Erskine Dinos61
5.1. h$%'54*
Iconographically there is no question this inscription belongs

to the goddess of childbirth, whose name is normally spelled
L+*!"<.)$. Sophilos’ spelling is striking because the diphthongs
of the first, second, and third syllables are not written out, and
because of the unusual aspiration at the beginning of the word.
The H must represent aspiration and not an eta, because
Sophilos writes well before the adoption of the Ionic alphabet
and everywhere else he uses H to represent the aspirate: h!&0)$,
h!#$, h!;!, h!#8!+, h!%$)&0(+, h!*!'%[!].
There have been several attempts to etymologize the name.
The most convincing explanation was first put forward by
Schulze 1892: 259–263 (later tweaked by Heubeck 1972), who!
___________
60
In fact, @<*(' is one word Sophilos had many opportunities to see writ-
ten out because it was inscribed on archaic funeral game prizes dating from
the late seventh century that have been found on the Athenian Acropolis
(Jeffery 1990: 91). Shortly after the date of the Pharsalus vase the word was
prominent in the label found on the Panathenaic victor’s vase (Hannah 2001).
61
‘Erskine dinos’, London 1971.11-1.1, ABV40.16bis, Para 19, 523, Add 2
10–11.
started from the verbal root &*!.<- ‘to come’ and argued that the
form is a unreduplicated participle in -.)$ with recessive accent
of the type '".)$, $C<.)$, D#:.)$), E#".)$. The name means
something like ‘who comes (to help with the birth)’ or ‘who
makes the birth come.’ Heubeck also suggested the possibility
of a hypothetical *0*!(<!)' ‘to be free’ or ‘to make free.’ This
etymology is sound phonologically and semantically, and it also
allows for plausible explanations of the divergent forms attested
in our sources.
According to Threatte 1980: 342, there are no less than nine
different spellings in Attic: L+*E<.)$, 62 L+*!"<.)$, L+*"<.)$,
L+*(<!)$, ?*!"<.)$, hE*!"<.$, (h))*!"<.$ (to which perhaps
h)*"<.$ also belongs), F*"<.)$, F*(<!)$. Threatte does not
mention Sophilos’ h)*!<.$, but one assumes he might group it
with (h))*!"<.$. Non-Attic examples include L+*!"<.)$ (Il.
11.270), ?*!"<.)$ (Pindar O. 6.42), L+*)<.)$ (Callim. 53.1 Pf.),
?*!(<.)$ (Crete), ?*!.<"1 (Paros), ?*!.<"$ (Laconia), Myce-
naean e-re-u-ti-ja = ?*!.<"$ (Cnossus). According to Heubeck
the original form *eleuthu#a is preserved in the Cretan inscrip-
tions. The Mycenaean form is the result of dissimilation of eu -
u# with loss of u in the third syllable. A similar dissimilatory
process of !. - .) to !) - .) occurs in Pindar’s ?*!"<.)$, and most
other forms can be explained as the result of dissimilations,
assimilations, and metrical lengthenings (Homer’s L+*!"<.)$ ).
Sophilos’ h)*!<.$ is interesting in four respects. First, the
initial aspiration is unetymological. Threatte 1980: 342, 456
suggests that it is the result of assimilation from the following
theta, a common phenomenon and not limited to dipinti. The
aspiration may also be due in part to (a folk-etymological)
contamination with G18) ‘send forth’; cf. Il. 11.270, 9#)8(, 0# 0!
:#(M!1&) 8("(&0#/() L+*!"<.)$) ‘the bitterness that the hard!
___________
62
By E Threatte indicates graphic <!>, which represented 1) /e/, the
inherited short front mid-vowel, 2) /N%/, the long upper mid-vowel later
represented in Attic after the adoption of the Ionian alphabet by the ‘spurious
diphthong’ !), and 3) /O!!/, the long lower mid-vowel later written 1.
148 Shane Hawkins
spirits of childbirth bring on’ (trans. Lattimore). 63 On the

spelling of the first syllable with ), see below under 5)#('. Third,
the vocalism of the second syllable in Attic is spelled in various
ways, !), ., ) and E, but on vases h)*!"<.$ is normal (Threatte
1980: 342). One possible explanation of Sophilos’ ! is that it is
nothing more than E; that is, it is a graphic representation of /N%/
(see footnote 62), or rather the real diphthong /ei/, both of which
could be spelled ! at an early date (Allen 1987: 70–71 with n.
24). The use of E for the diphthong !) is mostly absent from
decrees and limited to private documents (Threatte 1980: 3, 5).
Nonetheless, there is no reason to assume that a spelling error
was committed rather than that graphic ! is a close approxima-
tion of what was spoken by Sophilos. Finally, the spelling -.$
for -.)$ with the loss of ) in the prevocalic diphthong is the
result of a regular sound change in Attic that was completed by
the end of the fifth century but which occasionally appeared
earlier, such as here, in the dipinti (Threatte 1980: 343).
5.2. 5'54&
Sophilos writes <!<.+ for the usual P1<(+, the name of the
sea goddess, consort of Oceanus (Il. 11.201 = 11.302). To my
knowledge, four different explanations of the name have been
put forward.
1) Since antiquity the name has been associated with 0)<1
‘grandmother.’ This association may be latent already in the
words of Hera, 810.#$ P1<(' (Il. 11.200–2 D 301–3). The
connection between P1<(+ and 0)<1 seems to have been made
by Cratinus (483 PCG), who attests the word :#(0)<H+ ‘born
before Tethys’, a comic name of an old woman, and Callima-
chus (194.52 Pf.), who uses the name P1<(+ as a type of very
old woman. Eustathius (978.51f.) also explained P1<(+ from
0)<1 (among other possibilities).
___________
63
A reader has also suggested the possibility of a folk-etymological
association with G*$8$), 9*$&/(8$); cf. Hom. imperative G*1<) and Att. !G*1<)
(Hsch.).
2) Bekker 1863: 222 and Curtius 1886: 253–254 explained

P1<(+ from the root <1- (< *dheh1- ‘to milk, suckle’), the form
P1<(+ being the result of transposition of aspiration from 210(+
(with a similar explanation for 0)<1, apparently).
3) The name has also been related to the word 0)<.(', an
animal known as the ‘sea-squirt.’ Tümpel 1894 argued that the
animal might have been sacred or dedicated to the goddess and
took its name from her. Kalén (1918: 98–107) explained P1<(+
as a back-formation from 0)<.(', after examples like BI=(+
‘woe, misery’ ~ BI=.(+ ‘sorry, wretched.’ 64 Neither of these
claims have proven persuasive and, in fact, it is unnecessary to
argue that one of these led directly to the other. If we assume a
form 01<.- meaning something like ‘sea’, from which both
0)<.(' ‘the sea thing’ (i.e., ‘sea-squirt’) and 01<(+ ‘sea goddess’
could develop separately, then we have an explanation that is
derivationally unobjectionable and semantically plausible.
4) Increasingly, however, Homer’s portrayal of Oceanus and
Tethys as the primeval parents of the race of gods is viewed as a
reflection of a theogony imported from the Near East, more or
less identical to the one found in the Babylonian creation-hymn
En.ma eliš. In the latter the parents of the gods are Apsû, the
fresh water that encircles the world (= Oceanus), and his wife
Ti,mat, the salt sea (= Tethys). 65 The name P1<(+ has been
linked by some scholars to the Semitic names of the Babylonian
goddess of primeval waters, Ti’amtum.66 The least problematic!
___________
64
The etymology of 0)<.(' is unknown (Chantraine 1968–80, Frisk
1970–79, s.v. 0)<!$). Kalén 1918: 98–107 argues against earlier unlikely
etymologies of the word and suggests (improbably) that 0)<.(' was a
compound of *<1-<((' from *dh0- ‘suck’ and *<((' ‘sacculus’ (comparing
")<.(' ‘a type of onion’, supposedly from ")- ‘earth’ + *<(('; but Chan-
traine, s.v. "1<.**"+, suggests that ")<.(' may be a deformation of ")0!)('
‘type of onion’, after "1<.- ‘rejoice’).
65
On the connection see in general Janko 1992: 180–182. For possible
Near Eastern sources of Oceanus’ name and the highly implausible sugges-
tion that Apsû’s name survives in the phrase *7(###(. J/!$'(1(, see West
1997: 146–148.
66
A possible connection between the two was mentioned by West 1966:
204, though it seems to have been first noticed by British Prime Minister W.
E. Gladstone (!). See also Szemerényi 1974: 150 and Burkert 1983: 54, 1992:!!
150 Shane Hawkins
of the linguistic explanations is West 1997: 147–8, who sug-

gested starting from a Semitic prototype *tih,mu, which he con-
siders responsible for Ugaritic thm, Hebrew tehôm, Syriac
teh-m,, Eblaite ti-’a-ma-tum (< *tih,matu), Akk. ti,m(a)tu,
tâm(a)tu, têmtu. He writes, “Tâmtu or têmtu, unpronounceable
as such in Greek, might have been taken over as t0thu- (perhaps
at first with a nasalized vowel in the first syllable), with theta as
usual for the Semitic t (but initial tau by dissimilation).”67
Theoretically this is not impossible because one can invoke
common historical language changes that would move us from
Tâmtu to t0thu, but that is different from saying that those
changes were regular developments of loans into Greek or are in
fact even attested; the borrowing is undemonstrated and, given
the lack of comparanda for Akkadian loans in Greek, probably
undemonstrable. Why should the supposedly unpronounceable
___________
92f., 2004: 30–32. But West 1997: 147 n. 200 already pointed out that
Burkert’s explanation is unworkable. The view (Burkert 2004: 149 n. 40) that
the pairing of Oceanus and Tethys at the end of the gods’ procession “in the
position of ‘origin’” on Sophilos’ vase may be directly inspired by the Iliad is
unpersuasive, since the procession in question is the arrival of the gods at the
wedding of Peleus and Thetis, an event that is not described in the Homeric
epics. Besides, they are not at the end of the procession; they are followed by
Eileithyia and Hephaestus. For other analyses of the procession see Isler-
Kerényi 1997, Williams 1983 and (somewhat implausibly) Bremmer 1994:
15, 21, who follows Laurens and Lissarrague 1990: 57, who, however, mis-
identify Tethys as a second Eileithyia.
67
One could even assume, if the source language was Akkadian, that
some of the changes West proposes took place there. In Neo-Assyrian a
syllable-final /m/ assimilated to a following dental, becoming first /n/ and
then fully assimilating to create a geminate dental. The geminate /tt/, voice-
less dentals, then became /ss/, voiceless sibilants. The Greek form P1<(+
could represent the Semitic form after the loss of the nasal through assimila-
tion. Or perhaps the form was altered under the Greek folk-etymological
influence of the word 0)<1 (a sort of interpretatio Graeca). This would be a
different way to account for the aspiration and the absence of the nasal in
Greek. It is also possible that the spelling <!<.+ is a hyperforeignism. That is,
the arrangement of aspirates in this fashion, which is typically not allowed in
Greek, may have seemed instead characteristically foreign, and perhaps led to
the creation of <!<.+ by a sort of linguistic exaggeration. For the phenome-
non of hyperforeignization see Bloomfield 1935: 448–9 and Janda et al.
1994, whose mention (88) of the occasional creation in Rome of “hyper-
foreignisms via hyperaspiration when borrowing into Latin from more
prestigious Greek,” is comparable.
Tâmtu or têmtu not have been rendered simply as P$'<.- or

P1'<.-?
At any rate, we ought to reject Kilmer/Develin’s claim (2001:
34) that either the spelling violates Grassmann’s Law or, as they
prefer, that it shows Grassmann’s had not yet taken effect
among some Athenians of the sixth century.68 Precise dating of
Grassmann’s Law is not possible, but the evidence suggests it is
post-Mycenaean, and Miller 1987 argued that the law took
effect around the 9th/8th cent. in some dialects and even as late as
the 5th in others (e.g., Cretan, Boeotian). His collection of evi-
dence leads him to believe that Grassmann’s Law “applied to
the inherited diaspirate forms by the beginning of the historical
period in Attic and Ionic” and that it was “in the process of
applying to [h] in the historical period in Attic” (1987: 147).69
He notes that “by the 7th cent. already there are only a few
isolated residues of [Grassmann’s Law]-failure with consonants”
(1987: 147). These are, however, on vase inscriptions. The tradi-
tional explanation for them is that they can be explained by
analogy or assimilation of aspiration.70 But it is also possible, as
Miller argues, that they are simply products of speaking commu-
nities in which Grassmann’s Law had not yet applied. One
cannot, therefore, be certain about the matter, but since the name
is attested everywhere else as P1<(+, and since Grassmann’s
applied to diaspirate forms well before the time of Sophilos, we
are more likely dealing with an assimilated form in <!<.+.71
___________
68
Kilmer/Develin 2001: 35 appear to view Grassmann’s Law, inaccu-
rately in my opinion, as a process of aspiration throwback rather than aspirate
dissimilation.
69
For the post-Mycenaean date of Grassmann’s Law see Plath 1987. It
must be noted, however, that a post-Mycenaean date is not accepted by all
scholars; e.g., BartonJk 2003: 147–8.
70
Schwyzer I 219ff., 257, 261f., Buck 1955, § 65, Threatte I 455–457,
Lejeune 1972, §§ 45, 47, Miller 1977: 143–4.
71
Kilmer/Develin 2001: 30 n. 54 invoke the inscription on Berlin R115/2
by Peithinos, <!<)+, i.e., Thetis, in their discussion of <!<.+. The comparison,
however, is not apropos since <!<)+ is clearly an assimilation in aspiration of
the second dental to the first.
152 Shane Hawkins
5.3. 1$)"+
Sophilos writes 5)#(' for 3!"#-', the Centaur and pedagogue

of epic heroes such as Achilles. The generally accepted expla-
nation of this name, dating back to antiquity but settled by
Kretschmer 1920: 58–62, is that it is a derivation of 5!"# ‘hand’
meaning ‘chirurg’ (3!"#-' “bedeutet eine Person, die sich
irgendwie durch die Hände auszeichnet”; cf. formations like
"$&0#-' ‘pot-belly’ from "$&0)#, and %(&/-', :#&<-'). The
etymology is supported by Lesbian 3.##-' (Alcaeus 42.9),
which is the expected outcome of *5!&#- (> Att. 5!)#-; cf. Hittite
kiššar).72
The spelling with iota is common on dipinti and Kretschmer
knew of seven examples already in 1920. But his explanation,
that a spelling with long K was an Athenian reproduction of an
Ionic close !), is rather improbable. Threatte 1980: 192–195
points out one group of names dating as early as 570 that are
written -/*K- for -/*!)-. Milne (Bothmer/Milne 1947: 227) had
explained these as follows: “in pronouncing a syllable composed
of a long close e preceded by kl and followed by t or n the
tongue tended to be raised so high that the resulting vowel was
more like an i than an ordinary close e.” Threatte prefers Milne’s
explanation, but adds that the spellings may also be orthographi-
cal anomalies, or inaccurate renditions of the pronunciation of
semiliterate individuals. A second group includes early cases of
!) > K in the words ,)*!'#+, ,/"#(', and 3"#('. The spelling
with K is normal in dipinti on Attic vases. Here he suggests that
the presence of the liquid “may have encouraged” !) > K. A third
group includes the words 5(&*)(), B)*(&5)(+, and ('8$0)('.! These
___________
72
Fischer 1969: 20 suggested that since the oldest form of the name is
3"#-', one ought to accept *3"##-' as the original name, which was altered
to 3!"#-' by folk-etymology. As he acknowledges, one would have to
suppose the same folk-etymological alteration in Lesbian. This was suggested
by Fischer, however, in order to lend support to his explanation of the name
,!"#)(+, and it is not tempting to abandon a phonologically and semantically
unproblematic etymology for the suspicion that the name goes back to an
unexplained *3"##-'.
examples show a much earlier development to K than elsewhere

in Attic. In the first two examples “assimilation may be the
explanation for the K, perhaps encouraged by the presence of the
liquid.”
It would be more economical to weed out some of these
incompatible ideas in favor of one that is comprehensive.
Teodorsson 1974: 75–81, 175–178 argued that this K, appearing
already at the beginning of the sixth century, frequently
occurred 1) by assimilation to a following ) and 2) in the
environment of a resonant, but especially [l], where it was
particularly common. 73 His conclusion, that even these early
examples are numerous and trustworthy enough to present clear
evidence in favor of a phonetic change )* > K, is sound.74
In fact, one could group the examples into two types that
underwent a very similar process. For the first, Wackernagel
1909 already saw long ago that the early developments to 5(&*)()
and B)*(&5)(+ are best explained as the process *-"#li- > -K*)-, the
raising of *"# to K consequent upon the palatalization of * before )
(actually yod). Similar raisings have been been proposed by
Vine 1999, in which *-ol#- > *-.**- (cf. e.g., %(**(' ‘leaf’ <
*bhol#om) and by Hawkins 2004: 171, in which *-or#- > -.#)-
(e.g., 2".#)+ ‘assembly’, 8(#8+&#- ‘to roar and boil’). Closer
typological parallels come from Latin, of the sort *-0li- > -/li-
supposed in subt/lis < *-t0lis, AURILIUS (CIL 610) for Aur0lius,
or m/lle < *m/h/le < *m/h0li < *s$-%heslo-.75
The remainder of the examples listed in Teodorsson and
Threatte occur after * or before *, #, ' or 8. The single example
___________
73
As Teodorsson points out, an example like Attic 5(&*)() for *5)**)() (<
*5!&*)(), cf. Ion. 5!"*)(), Lesb. 5.**)()) shows that the change was quite
early at least before [l].
74
Teodorsson’s book was criticized, especially by early and influential
reviewers, both for its conclusions and its methodology. For reasons given
above, however, I am inclined to believe that those criticisms, well-founded
as some of them are, do not eliminate the evidence from which one must
conclude that there was among some Attic speakers a very early raising of !)
to K.
75
See further Vine 1993: 98–105 and Meiser 1998: 69, 174. Vine sug-
gests the process may have been more complex and may have involved
vowel epenthesis or “infection”; i.e., *-0li- > *-0il’i-.
154 Shane Hawkins
before 8 is the word ('8$0)(', but this has also been explained as
the result of assimilation (Lejeune 1972: 238). The most
straightforward conclusion to make is that in environments like
those exhibited in 5(&*)(), the raising was early and general, while
after * or before *, #, ' or 8 the raising was perhaps later and
then used only by some Attic speakers.
The sound change in question, therefore, is more or less
regular and phonetically natural; 5)#(' exhibits an early example
of the change )* > K. Other scholars have entertained the idea that
the sound change may have arisen in a specific social stratum.
According to Milne 1947: 227, “This tendency in pronouncing
such syllables seems to have been particularly strong in the
Athenian potters’ quarter of the sixth century B.C. Why this was
so we can only guess. There were many resident aliens in the
potters’ quarter, and the spelling we are discussing may reflect
non-Athenian habits of speech.” Ruijgh 1978: 87, on the other
hand, suggested that both 5(&*)() and ('8$0)(' were borrowed
through merchants from a rural dialect where, as in Boeotian,
the raising had already occurred. For Wackernagel 1909: 330, a
word like ('8$0)(' was “der lässigen Sprache des Hauses, dem
Munde von Frauen und Sklaven maßgebenden Einfluß zuzu-
schreiben; man beachte die deminutive Form.”
6. Conclusion
In this study of the vase inscriptions of Sophilos I have

argued that the correct form of the painter’s name is ,!%)*(+
(not ,(%"*(+, etc.). I have attempted to offer plausible linguistic
(rather than epigraphic) explanations for several difficult
spellings: !"#$%&!' (perceptual difficulty caused by turbulent
airflow and articulatory overlap), '.%$) and /!0$.#() (pre-
occlusive nasal loss), $'%)0#)0! (hypercorrection), $5)*!+
(desinence confusion, analogy to first declension masculines),
:$0#(>*.+ (desinence confusion, precocious shift of the mid
long back vowel [,-] to [ü]), $0*$ (approximant devoicing),
h)*!<.$ (aspirate assimilation/folk etymology, precocious

raising of [N$] to [Q], graphic ! for !), loss of ) in the prevocalic .)
diphthong), <!<.+ (late assimilation and/or hyperforeignization),
5)#(' (precocious raising of [N$] to [Q]). Of the possible categories
of spelling listed at the beginning of this paper, the inscriptions
studied here are best thought of as non-standard, quasi-phonetic
spellings.
!
Epigraphic addendum to Kilmer/Develin 2001.
1. There are some additional illegible, trace inscriptions of

Sophilos. Moore/Philippides 1986: 322 report two small marks,
possibly part of an inscription, above the shoulder of an old man
on Agora fragment P 18567 (Bakır 1981 pl. 83, no. 171). There
are traces of a graffito and a dipinto inscription on the underside
of the contact edge of the base of the Erskine dinos (Williams
1983: 11 with figure 7).
2. A fragment depicting three ithyphallic satyrs, one of which
bears the incomplete inscription ]0#$0(+, with final sigma writ-
ten backwards, has been attributed to Sophilos.76 Numerous
supplements are possible; Brownlee 1995: 371 n. 27 suggests
?*$&"&0#$0(+, a name given to a satyr on a Tyrrhenian amphora
in Cerveteri.
3. ABV 43.4 (Athens, Agora Museum P 18567) is now
generally attributed to the circle of Sophilos rather than to
Sophilos himself. The short inscription ]5(+, which hangs over
the head of an elderly man standing near a chariot, could be
supplemented in many ways. Kilmer/Develin suggest the names
Antilochos or Antimachos.77 Brownlee 1993: 328–9, 1995: 366,
however, already suggested on iconographical grounds that the
scene may be a representation of the departure of Amphiaraos.
___________
76
Hecht/Hecht 1988: 55, 76 and fig. 48 for photo, Hedreen 1992: 74,
Brownlee 1995: 366, 371 n. 27. See Brownlee for notice of further fragments
(without inscriptions) that are possibly from the same vase.
77
The former already suggested by Beazley, according to Moore/
Philippides 1986: 322–323.
156 Shane Hawkins
The old man in the painting, who is a seer (so also Bakır 1981:
75), is a “fixture” of such scenes according to Brownlee, and the
inscription will then belong to Amphiaraos’ son, Amphilochos.
4. Kilmer/Develin’s discussion of the Menidi louterion (ABV
42.36, Athens 2035.1, frag. 15918) is badly confused. On the
left side of the fragment are the remains of the heads of two
reined horses, one white and one black, before and under which
appears an open-jawed snake. Three lines of very damaged text
are written between these animals and the far right edge of the
fragment, where a woman’s foot and the hem of her garment can
still be seen. The inscription is mostly illegible, as it was
damaged before discovery and suffered further damage soon
thereafter.78
Wolters was the first to publish a careful study of this piece
from autopsy, and since his work seems to suffer neglect, it is
worthwhile to repeat here what he wrote. He read the inscription
as three lines to be read from bottom to top.
top R <! . ( . ) . ( . ) . !# . / . * … [
middle S ])*(+ 8! … &!'
bottom S ]!# …
Bottom line: Wolters thought the third letter could be T, 2 or

4, though the piece was really too damaged to tell. The fourth
letter was either an interpunct or a vertical line, or even the
letters L or P. All that remains of the fifth letter is simply a dot.
The sixth letter is perhaps a U or V, or even the two letters WA.
He was noncommittal on a reading, suggesting 9]!#(4 or some
form of L#M(', which would fit the context of the find site (a
hero cult), but also noted that the line may have been a dedica-
tion or Erläuterungsinschrift, or the name of the woman whose
foot appears. This last idea was followed up by Brownlee 1995:
365, 370 n. 13, who suggested that the scene is the death of
___________
78
The fragment was examined by Lolling before it was cleaned. His
drawing of the fragment is reproduced by Wolters 1898: 17, who studied the
piece only after cleaning damaged a good portion of the surface and effaced
parts of the inscription. Lolling’s and Wolters’s drawings are reproduced in
de la Genière 1995: 40.
Eriphyle. She supplements the third line accordingly as ]!#%[,

noting that the omission of letters occurs elsewhere in Sophilos
(but the omission of nu is not really comparable; see above). She
adds that the length of the inscription suggests a caption similar
to that on the Pharsalos dinos. Bakır (1981: 6) reads …]LXT[ …
and suggests (n. 34) YI]LXT[AZL$BZ[\] ^_`a] bcdbef_g`] hi`b] cjhkf]
the last four letters.
Middle line: The line could be supplemented &(%])*(+ 8’
&"#$%&!' or 0:#!&!'; there is no way to determine. Wolters
1898: 19 concluded that the line probably should be supple-
mented as &"#$%&!', with some sort of Schreibfehler. Most
scholars prefer to follow Beazley, who considers this a potter’s
inscription (Brownlee 1995: 365 with bib., Mertens 1998: 426).
Top line: the line is a continuation of the middle line, which
is to be read from right to left, but should in fact be read upside
down (and left to right) from the orientation of the middle line.
In other words, the line is written in the manner sometimes
called false-boustrophedon or Schlangenschrift.79 The interpunct
is the first element of the top line to be read, not the last letter in
a line, as Kilmer/Develin mistakenly read it.80 Wolters suggests
reading <![1'$) or <![#+ and :]!#)/[$]*[*)+, which seems little
more than guesswork.
A more daring and less plausible interpretation was advanced
by Baurain-Rebillard 1999. For the bottom line he reads
h)]!#(8-$,- i.e., 9.#-8$ ‘consecrated object, offering.’ He notes
that the fragment was found in the tholos at Menidi, which
belonged to an anonymous hero cult. But this reading is also
doubtful because this word is first attested in 4th century Crete,
and there it means ‘sacred image’, not ‘offrande sacrée.’81
___________
79
Jeffery 1990: 49–50, 374.
80
As a result of this error – reading the top line as if it were written retro-
grade like the middle line – Kilmer/Develin 2001: 23 misread the entire top
line; the gamma they see at the end (not beginning) of the line is actually a
lambda, as Wolters 1898: 18 had already noted. Bakır 1981: 6–7 and Threatte
1986: 56 understand the inscription correctly. I am tempted to think of the
Schlangenschrift as a sort of playful companion to the coiling snake under
which it is written.
81
See LSJ9 supplement s.v. 9.#-8$.
158 Shane Hawkins
Although Bakır himself made no attempt to reconstruct the

top line, Baurain-Rebillard, working from the photographs in
Bakır (1981, tafel 8, no. 16), has little difficulty reading
<#Z)('-$-[.]+ or <#1'$6 ‘trident’, followed not by additional letters
but by a drawing of a three-pronged trident. The identification of
this rare word would be noteworthy because it is otherwise first
attested much later at Ar. Pax 567, and it would be the very first
vase inscription labeling an object rather than a person or deity.
Baurain-Rebillard assumes that the trident must play a signifi-
cant role in the myth being depicted, and he therefore interprets
the scene as a struggle between Athena and Poseidon for the
possession of Athens. But the fact is that the earliest uses of the
word <#1'$6, in Aristophanes and Nicander, show that the object
is a pitch fork used to move grain and not the 0#"$)'$ or fish-
spear wielded by Poseidon (Il. 12.27). The only evidence for an
association of <#1'$6 and 0#"$)'$ comes from a gloss in Hesy-
chius, <#1'$6@ :0((' &"0(.. N 0#"$)'$ ‘thrinax: a winnowing
shovel for grain. Or a trident’.82 At any rate, Baurain-Rebillard
does not seem to recognize that if the inscription is to be read as
Wolters thought, he has read the line in the right direction but,
like Kilmer/Develin, upside down.
Bibliography
ABV = Beazley, J. D. (1956): Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford.

Add 2 = T. H. Carpenter, T. Mannack, M. Mendonça, eds. (1989): Beazley
Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV 2 & Paralipomena. 2nd ed.
Oxford.
Allen, W. S. (1953): Phonetics in Ancient India. London.
– (1987): Vox Graeca. 3rd ed. Cambridge.
___________
82
See also Hsch. :0(('@ <#1'$6. 6(*(' 0' O 9)$5-#"=(.&) 0P' &10(' *:P
0(4 *5(#(. ‘ptuon: thrinax. A wood tool by which they separate the grain
from the chaff’, and the somewhat enigmatic *)58$+@ <#1'$6. /$Q R:$*S :#$
/$Q 5$8$):!0)+, T' 0U V#:!0U 0:)*!"5(.&) ‘likhmas: thrinax. Both soft grass
and creeping (grass), which creeping animals lick’.
Akamatsu, T. (1991): “Functional Phonology.” In K. Malmkjær, ed., The

Linguistics Encyclopedia. London and New York. 146–152.
Bakır, G. (1981): Sophilos. Ein Beitrag zu seinem Stil. Mainz am Rhein.
BartonJk, A. (1963): “On the Sources of Origin of the Attic-Ionic Changes l
> W and F > G.” In L. Varcl, R. F. Willetts, eds., 6789:. Studies Presented
to George Thomson on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Prague. 27–39.
– (2003). Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg.
Baurain-Rebillard, L. (1999): “Sophilos, grand artiste du parlant.” In M.-C.
Villanueva-Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard, A. Rouveret, eds., Cérami-
que et peinture grecques. Modes d’emploi. Actes du colloque internatio-
nal, École du Louvre 26–27–28 avril 1995. Paris. 155–162.
Beazley, J. D. (1986): The Development of Attic Black-Figure. Berkeley.
Bechtel, F. (1921): Die griechischen Dialekte. Vol. 1. Berlin.
Bekker, I. (1863–1872): Homerische Blätter. 2 vol. Bonn.
Bile, M. (1988): Le dialecte crétois ancien. Paris.
Birchall, A. (1972): “A New Acquisition: An Early Attic Bowl with Stand,
Signed by Sophilos.” British Museum Quarterly 36: 107–110.
Blevins, J. / Garrett, A. (2004): “The evolution of metathesis.” In B. Hayes,
R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade, eds., Phonetically Based Phonology.
Cambridge. 117–156.
Bloomfield, L. (1935): Language. Rev. ed. London.
Bothmer, D. von / Milne, M. J. (1947): “The Taleides Amphora.” Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art Bulletin 5.9: 221–228.
Bremmer, J. N. (1999): Greek Religion. Oxford.
Brixhe, C. (1976): Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie: documents et grammaire.
Paris.
Brownlee, A. B. (1995): “Story lines: Observations on Sophilan Narrative.”
In J. B. Carter, S. P. Morris, eds., The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily
Townsend Vermeule. Austin. 363–372.
– (1993): “The Departure of Amphiaraos on a Sophilan Krater.” [Abstract]
AJA 97: 328–9.
– (1988): “Sophilos and Early Attic Black-Figured Dinoi.” In J. Christian-
sen, T. Melander, eds., Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient
Greek and Related Pottery. Copenhagen, August 31–September 4, 1987.
Copenhagen. 80–87.
Buck, C. D. (1955): The Greek Dialects. Chicago.
Burkert, W. (1983): “Oriental Myth and Literature in the Iliad.” In R. Hägg,
ed., The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and
Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the
Swedish Institute in Athens, 1–5 June, 1981. Stockholm. 51–56.
– (1992): The Orientalizing Revolution. Near Eastern Influence on Greek
Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA.
160 Shane Hawkins
– (2004): Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek

Culture. Cambridge, MA.
Carpenter, T. H. (1986): Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art: Its Deve-
lopment in Black-Figure Vase Painting. Oxford.
Catford, J. C. (1977): Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Bloomington,
Indiana.
CEG = Hansen, P. A. (1983): Carmina Epigraphica Graeca. Saeculorum
VIII–V a. Chr. n. Berlin.
Chantraine, P. (1968–1980): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grec-
que. Histoire des mots. New ed. with suppl. 1999. Paris.
Clackson, J. (1994): The Linguistic Relationship Between Armenian and
Greek. Oxford.
– (2004): “The Writing of 5& and %& for 6 and 7.” Glotta 78: 22–35.
Clark, J. / Yallop, C. (1995): An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.
2nd ed. Oxford.
Cohen, B. (1991): “The Literate Potter: A Tradition of Incised Signatures on
Attic Vases.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 26: 49–95.
Cook, R. M. (1975): “The Subjects of Attic Vase-Painting.” [Review of
Webster 1972] CR n.s. 25: 125–127.
Curtius, G. (1886): Principles of Greek Etymology. 5th ed. 2 vol. Trans. by A.
S. Wilkins and E. B. England. London.
D’Angour, A. J. (1999): “Archinus, Eucleides and the Reform of the Athe-
nian Alphabet.” BICS 43: 109–130.
de La Genière, J. (1995): “Quand le peintre Sophilos signait ses œuvres.”
MMAI 74: 35–43.
Devine, A. M. (1974): “Etruscan Language Studies and Modern Phonology:
The Problem of the Aspirates.” Studi Etruschi 42: 123–151.
Devine, A. M. / Stephens, L. D. (1994): The Prosody of Greek Speech. New
York and Oxford.
Fischer, H. (1969): “Griechisch ,!"#)(+.” Münchener Studien zur Sprach-
wissenschaft 26: 19–26.
Fraser, P. M. / Matthews, E., eds. (1987–2000): A Lexicon of Greek Personal
Names. 4 Vol. Oxford.
Frisk, H. (1970–1979): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Vol.
Heidelberg.
Gallavotti, C. (1979): Metri e ritmi nelle iscrizioni greche. Rome.
García Ramón, J. L. (2007): “Neues zur Problematik des thessalischen Dia-
lekts.” In I. Hajnal, ed., Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden.
Akten des Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin 19.–22. September 2001.
Innsbruck. 91–111.
Gignac, F. T. (1974): “Loss of Nasal Consonants in the Language of the

Papyri.” In E. Kießling, H.-A. Rupprecht, eds., Akten des XIII. Inter-
nationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Marburg/Lahn, 2.–6. August 1971.
München. 137–146.
Grammont, M. (1933): Traité de phonétique. 9th ed. 1971. Paris.
Guarducci, M. (1974): Epigrafia Greca. III. Epigrafi di carattere privato.
Roma.
Hajnal, I. (1995): Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin and New
York.
Hannah, P. A. (2001): “PTA m2LAL2LA m2UTA. A Case Study in the
History of a Label.” In J. Watson, ed., Speaking Volumes: Orality and
Literacy in the Greek and Roman World. Leiden, Boston, and Köln. 161–
184.
Haslam, M. W. (1991): “Kleitias, Stesichoros, and the Jar of Dionysos.”
TAPA 121: 35–45.
Hawkins, S. (2004): Studies in the Language of Hipponax. PhD Dissertation.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hecht, R. / Hecht, A. (1988): Greek and Etruscan Art of the Archaic Period.
New York, NY.
Hedreen, G. M. (1992): Silens in Attic Black-figure Vase-Painting: Myth and
Performance. Ann Arbor.
Henrichs, A. (1987): “Myth Visualized: Dionysos and His Circle in Sixth-
Century Attic Vase-Painting.” In Papers on the Amasis Painter and his
World. Colloquium Sponsored by the Getty Center for the History of Art
and the Humanities and Symposium Sponsored by the J. Paul Getty
Museum. Malibu, California. 92–124.
Heubeck, A. (1972): “Etymologische Vermutungen zu Eleusis und
Eileithyia.” Kadmos 11:87–95 = Heubeck (1984): 297–305.
– (1984): Kleine Schriften zur griechischen Sprache und Literatur.
Erlangen.
Hodot, R. (1990). Le dialecte éolien d’Asie: la langue des inscriptions, VIIe
s. a.C.–IVe s. p.C. Paris.
Householder, F. W. (1994–): “Dionysius Thrax, The Technai, and Sextus
Empiricus.” In R. E. Asher, ed., The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics. Oxford. Vol. 2, 931–935.
Hurwit, J. M. (1985): The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100–480 B.C.
Ithaca.
IApoll = Cabanes, P., ed. (1997): Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie
méridionale et d’Épire. Athens.
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae (1873–): Berlin.
IOrop = Petrakos, V. Ch. (1997): Hoi epigraphes tou Oropou. Athens.
162 Shane Hawkins
Immerwahr, H. R. (1964): “Book rolls on Attic vases.” In C. Henderson, ed.,

Classical, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies in Honor of Berthold Louis
Ullman. Vol. 1. Rome. 17–48.
– (1967 [1971]): “A Projected Corpus of Attic Vase Inscriptions.” In Acta
of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy.
Cambridge 1976. Oxford. 53–60.
– (1990): Attic Script: A Survey. Oxford.
Isler-Kerényi, C. (1997): “Dionysos im Götterzug bei Sophilos und bei
Kleitias.” Antike Kunst 40: 67–81.
Jakobson, R. / Halle, M. (1962): “Tenseness and Laxness.” In R. Jakobson,
Selected Writings. Vol. 1. Gravenhage. 550–555.
Janko, R. (1992): The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume IV: books 13–16.
Cambridge.
Jeffery, L. H. (1984): “Lordly Tombs: An Epigraphic Sidelight on Archaic
Attic Society.” In ;)*<3$<* 3"4 8 =$'5+"4& !4+'=)$"4 '%%>+$<>& <*$
%*3$+$<>& '2$()*#$<>&, 95>+*, 3–9 "<3?@)$"4 1982. Athens. 52–4.
– (1990): The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the
Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth
Centuries B.C. Rev. ed. with a supplement by A. W. Johnston. Oxford.
Kalén, T. (1918): Quaestiones Grammaticae Graecae. Gotoburgi.
Kavitskaya, D. (2002): Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics, Phonology,
Diachrony. New York.
Keuls, E. C. (1998): “The Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, the Lexicon Icono-
graphicum Mythologiae Graecae and the Beazley Archive Project: Dif-
ferent Data Bases for the Study of Ancient Greek Iconography.” Modern
Greek Studies Yearbook 4: 213–234 = Keuls, E. C. (1997): Painter and
Poet in Ancient Greece. Iconography and the Literary Arts. Stuttgart and
Leipzig. 293–312.
Kilmer, M. F. / Desrochers, P. (2001): “Inscriptions on Attic Archaic Pottery:
Analytical Techniques.” [Poster Session Abstract] AJA 105: 522.
Kilmer, M. F. / Develin, R. (2001): “Sophilos’ Vase Inscriptions and Cultural
Literacy in Archaic Athens.” Phoenix 55: 9–43.
Kirchner, R. (2004): “Consonant Lenition.” In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, D.
Steriade, eds., Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge. 313–345.
– (1998): An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition. UCLA
dissertation.
Kretschmer, P. (1894): Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach
untersucht. Gütersloh.
– (1920): “Mythische Namen.” Glotta 10: 38–62.
Kuryłowicz, J. (1962): “Probleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre.” In J.

Knobloch, ed., Vorträge und Veranstaltungen. II. Fachtagung für Indo-
germanische und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Innsbruck, 10.–15.
Oktober 1961. Innsbruck. 107–115.
Ladefoged, P. / Maddieson, I. (1996): The Sounds of the World’s Languages.
Oxford.
Laurens, A.-F. / Lissarrague, F. (1990): “Entre dieux.” Metis 5: 53–73.
Lejeune, M. (1972): Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien.
Paris.
Malécot, A. (1960): “Vowel Nasality as a Distinctive Feature in American
English.” Language 36: 222–229.
Meisterhans, K. (1900): Grammatik der attischen Inschriften. 3rd ed. Berlin.
Méndez Dosuna, J. (2007): “Ex praesente lux.” In I. Hajnal, ed., Die altgrie-
chischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden. Akten des Kolloquiums Freie
Universität Berlin 19.–22. September 2001. Innsbruck. 355–383.
– (1993): “Los griegos y la realidad psicologica del fonema: / y > en los
alfabetos arcaicos.” Kadmos 32: 96–126.
Mertens, J. R. (1988): “Some Thoughts on Attic Vase-Painting of the 6th
Cent. B.C.” In J. Christiansen, T. Melander, eds., Proceedings of the 3rd
Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery. Copenhagen, August
31–September 4, 1987. Copenhagen. 414–434.
Miller, D. G. (1977): “Was Grassmann’s Law Reordered in Greek?” ZVS 91:
131–158.
– (1994): Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia.
Moore, M. B. / Philippides, M. S. P. (1986): Attic Black-Figured Pottery. The
Athenian Agora, vol. 23. Princeton.
Moret, J.-M. (1979): “Un ancêtre du phylactère: le pilier inscrit des vases
italiotes.” Revue archéologique 3–34, 235–258.
Ohala, J. J. (2003): “Phonetics and Historical Phonology.” In B. D. Joseph,
R. D. Janda, eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA.
669–686.
– (1993): “The Phonetics of Sound Change.” In C. Jones, ed., Historical
Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London and New York. 237–278.
Panagl, O. (1971): “Die aspirierten Derivate von griech. '(6 ‘Nacht’.” ZVS
85: 49–65.
Para = Beazley, J. D. (1971): Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-Figure
Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. 2nd ed. Oxford.
Perpillou, J.-L. (1973): Les substantifs grecs en -'A&. Paris.
Plath, R. (1987): “Hauchdissimilation im Mykenischen?” Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft 48: 187–193.
164 Shane Hawkins
Rau, J. P. (2003): Homeric and Indo-European Studies on the Greek 7B-

Stems. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY.
Read, C. (1985): “Effects of Phonology on Beginning Spelling: Some Cross-
Linguistic Evidence.” In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, A. Hildyard, eds.,
Literacy, Language and Learning. The Nature and Consequences of
Reading and Writing. Cambridge. 389–403.
Risch, E. (1987): “Die mykenischen Personennamen auf -e.” In P. H. Ilievski
and L. Crepajac, eds. Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Held in Ohrid, 15.–20.
September 1985. Skopje. 281–298.
Ruijgh, C. J. (1975): “Analyse morphophonologique de l’attique classique.”
Mnemosyne 28: 225–256.
– (1978): Review of Teodorsson 1974. Mnemosyne 31: 79–89.
– (1995): “D’Homère aux origines proto-mycéniennes de la tradition épi-
que. Analyse dialectologique du lange homérique, avec un excursus sur la
création de l’alphabet grec.” In J. P. Crielaard, ed., Homeric Questions:
Essays in Philology, Ancient History and Archaeology, Including the
Papers of a Conference Organized by the Netherlands Institute at Athens,
15 May, 1993. Amsterdam. 1–96.
Runes, M. (1925): “Die Vererbung der Personennamen im Griechischen.”
Wiener Studien 44: 170–178.
Schefold, K. (1993): Götter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der Früh- und
Hocharchaischen Kunst. München.
Schulze, W. (1892): Quaestiones epicae. Gütersloh.
Schwyzer, E. (1950–1971): Griechische Grammatik: auf der Grundlage von
Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik. 4 vol. München.
Shankweiler, D. / Lundquist, E. (1992): “On the Relations Between Learning
to Spell and Learning to Read.” In R. Frost, L. Katz, eds., Orthography,
Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Amsterdam and New York. 179–
192.
Sihler, A. L. (1995): New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.
Oxford.
Solmsen, F. (1922): Indogermanische Eigennamen als Spiegel der Kulturge-
schichte. Ernst Fraenkel, ed. Heidelberg.
Sowers, S. (1991): “Six Questions Teachers Ask About Invented Spelling.”
In B. R. Power, R. Hubbard, eds., Literacy in Process: The Heinemann
Reader. Portsmouth, NH. 174–179.
Spencer, A. (1996): Phonology: Theory and Description. Oxford.
Stewart, A. (1983): “Stesichoros and the François Vase.” In W. G. Moon, ed.,
Ancient Greek Art and Iconography. Madison. 53–74.
Sturtevant, E. H. (1968): The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. 2nd ed.
Groningen.
Szemerényi, O. (1974): “The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: ex oriente lux.”

JHS 94: 144–157.
Teodorsson, S.-T. (1974): The Phonemic System of the Attic Dialect 400–340
B.C. Lund.
Threatte, L. L. (1980): The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions 1: Phonology.
Berlin and New York.
– (1996): The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions 2: Morphology. Berlin and
New York.
Thumb, A. (1900): “Die griechischen Lehnwörter im Armenischen.” Byzanti-
nische Zeitschrift 9: 388–452.
– (1964): A Handbook of the Modern Greek Language. 2nd ed. Chicago.
Thumb, A. / Kieckers, E. (1932): Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. Vol.
1, 2nd ed. Heidelberg.
Thumb, A. / Scherer, A. (1959): Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. Vol. 2,
2nd ed. Heidelberg.
Trask, R. L. (1996): A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology. London and
New York.
Tümpel, K. (1894): “Tethys und die Tethysmuschel.” Philologus 53: 197–198.
Vanderpool, E. (1953): Review of Beazley 1951. AJP 74: 321–323.
Vine, B. (1999): “On ‘Cowgill’s Law’ in Greek.” In H. Eichner, H. C.
Luschützky, V. Sadovski, eds., Compositiones indogermanicae: in memo-
riam Jochem Schindler. Prague. 555–600.
Wachter, R. (1987): Altlateinische Inschriften. Sprachliche und epigraphi-
sche Untersuchungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v. Chr. Bern.
– (2001): Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford.
Wackernagel, J. (1909): “Attische Vorstufen des Itazismus.” IF 25: 326–337
= (1955–1979): Kleine Schriften. Göttingen. Vol. 2, 1022–1033.
Webster, T. B. L. (1972): Potter and Patron in Classical Athens. London.
West, M. L. (1966): Hesiod. Theogony. Oxford.
– (1978): Hesiod. Works and Days. Oxford.
– (1997): The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry
and Myth. Oxford.
Williams, D. (1983): “Sophilos in the British Museum.” Greek Vases in the J.
Paul Getty Museum. Occasional Papers on Antiquities, 1. Malibu, CA. 9–
34.
Wolters, P. (1898): “Vasen aus Menidi.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts 13: 13–28.
Woodard, R. D. (1997): Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer. Oxford.

A Linguistic Analysis of The Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos by SHANE HAWKINS, Ottawa

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Linguistic Analysis of The Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos by SHANE HAWKINS, Ottawa

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Linguistic Analysis of

the Vase Inscriptions of Sophilos

Although they found that Sophilos was “a competent and

of them is likely to be a non-(quasi)phonetic orthographic

Table 1: Attestations of the name Sophilos

Additionally, all of our sources for this spelling ,(%"*(+ are

(2001: 32–33). The matter is more complex than this, however.

usually rendered with the signs for aspirated stops followed by

voicing until the following vocalic element. As such, the use of

abducted vocal folds, the preceding stop may have been

be seen as an attempt to indicate this property on the stop

There are apparent inconsistencies in Sophilos’ use of the

/!0$[.#() (= /.'0$.#()) they are not written. 26 On the other

out.29 It is instructive to compare this with the fact that omission

But while Threatte is correct that such writing with nu must

environments. Thus nu would merely indicate ‘nasal consonant’

a perturbation and ‘corrected’ it by substituting the non-labial

4. Inscriptions from the Pharsalos dinos42

of the names do not seem to have epic connections: $5$'!+,

4.2. 2*3)"!%4& *3%*

types -/*(+ and -/*:+, so that “something like -/*<.(>.+ ... or

when the liquids # and * intervene: /$>(', "*$.>E:)9), but also

The remaining difficulty is to ascertain why Sophilos wrote .

devoicing are fundamentally similar processes – the devoicing

4.3. Jeffery’s theory of Thessalian influence

no match for Sophilos’ $5)*!+. For :$0#(>*.+, Jeffery’s com-

simply recording what he thinks he has heard; he may be not so

Iconographically there is no question this inscription belongs

spirits of childbirth bring on’ (trans. Lattimore). 63 On the

2) Bekker 1863: 222 and Curtius 1886: 253–254 explained

of the linguistic explanations is West 1997: 147–8, who sug-

Tâmtu or têmtu not have been rendered simply as P$'<.- or

Sophilos writes 5)#(' for 3!"#-', the Centaur and pedagogue

examples show a much earlier development to K than elsewhere

In this study of the vase inscriptions of Sophilos I have

h)*!<.$ (aspirate assimilation/folk etymology, precocious

Epigraphic addendum to Kilmer/Develin 2001.

1. There are some additional illegible, trace inscriptions of

Bottom line: Wolters thought the third letter could be T, 2 or

Eriphyle. She supplements the third line accordingly as ]!#%[,

Although Bakır himself made no attempt to reconstruct the

ABV = Beazley, J. D. (1956): Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford.

Akamatsu, T. (1991): “Functional Phonology.” In K. Malmkjær, ed., The

– (2004): Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek

Gignac, F. T. (1974): “Loss of Nasal Consonants in the Language of the

Immerwahr, H. R. (1964): “Book rolls on Attic vases.” In C. Henderson, ed.,

Kuryłowicz, J. (1962): “Probleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre.” In J.

Rau, J. P. (2003): Homeric and Indo-European Studies on the Greek 7B-

Szemerényi, O. (1974): “The Origins of the Greek Lexicon: ex oriente lux.”

Potrebbero piacerti anche

4.2. 23)"!%4& 3%*

types -/(+ and -/:+, so that “something like -/*<.(>.+ ... or

no match for Sophilos’ $5)!+. For :$0#(>.+, Jeffery’s com-