7

SocialDialectin Attica
StephenColvin

r Social Dialect
Socialvarietiesof speechare conlrnonly designatedsocialdialectsor so-
ciolects.The terms refer to speechvariation that is correlatedwith social
distinctions:irnmediatelytheterm is more complicatedthanthe unmarked
tenn dialect,which refersof courseto regionaldialect.To identift r:egional
dialectwe haveto know somebasicfactsabout the geographyof the speech
community; but in the caseof socialdialectwe arc comnritting ourselves
to a range of interlocking theorie.sabout the socialstructureof the conr-
muniw, which-at leastin the caseof a corpuslanguage,and probabli'also
in other cases-cannot be merely observecl, but must be abstractedfrorn
whatever data are availableto the investigator.
The distinction betweendialect and socialdialect is not necessarilyas
fundamentalas the de{initions might imply. The disciplineswhich both
terms pertain to develope<i in an exoticlinguistic and sociolinguisticcotr-
text, namelyWesternEuropeand North America,and the languagemodel
that is in some sensebuilt into them recallstheir origin (large political
units with standardizednational languagesand a history of suppressing
linguistic competitors).However,in very many casesthe distribution of
socialvarietiesof languagewill correlatewith location: a regionalvariety
will havesocialimplications,for example,whether the rcgion concerned
'fhe
is a relativelylargeareaor a small sectionof an urban environment.
origins of a social dialect will in many casesbe local. One may then ask
how a socialdialectis maintaineclwithout the spatialseparationr.vhichis
'lherc'
normally thought necessary for linguistic dill'crence. are a number
of responses to this. Firstly,and most importantly,sociolingLristic research
over the last century has shown that the creationand maintenanceof dis-
tinct linguisticidentitiesarea centralfeatureof maintaininga speci{icsocial
iclentity.Secondly,in the caseof varietiesassociated with socio-ecouomic
class,evensmall-scalespatialseparation(suchasa smallurban neighbour-
hood) may be sufficientto maitrtain a distinctivcspeechpattern; this will
96 StephenColvirr

be reinforcedby socialnetworksat home and in the rvgrkplace''ThirdlS

their
social dialectsmay indeed be lesslikely to survive unspottedthap
regionalcounterparts;they are in constant interaction rvith one another,
so-cialidentity is fluiti, and the rate of changemirv be rapid'
It hardly needsstressingthat a socialdialectis not a declinatiofrom the
in the
standardor prestigeuarieiy,thorrghit may be cgnstructe<las such
cliscourseof the comrnunity.It neednot, in f'act, be described by reference
is
to the standard,althoughthismay bc"convenient.A spcechvarietywhich
'social'*uy i^ fact havea history more or lessindependentof the
definedas
Iocalstandard,althoughinteractionwithotherlocalvarieties,includingthe
standard,is likely to playa role in its development.c)nereasonwhy a speech
variety may be clefinedas a socialdialectis that, ftrr the historicalreasons
per
sketchedabove,we are generallywilling tg allow just one local dialect
political unit; any further dialectsare thereforcliable to be classi{iedas
social dialects.sg, for example,in the caseof Attica: it is an unusually
largepolitical unit by pre-Hellenisticstandards,and unlikely to havebeen
hnluistically hom.geneous.Nevertheless, owing in part to a standardized
ortiography, 1^/he1 -e look for linguistic variation in Attica we generally
set oul to look for socialdialect.This is perhaps because we are used to
called
thirrking of linguistic movementin terms of what Anna l)avies has
,verrical'diffqsion (betweena higher and a lower variety), as opposedto
'horiz6ntal' diffusign that takesplacewithout referenceto a standard
the
(Morpurgo Daviesryggi7).
Wearelhtrsi' dangerof beirrgmisledby our orvntertninoiogywhenwe
'social'variationin Greek,asppposedto geographical
look for evidence6f
variation.BartonEklong agopointed out that the term Attic-lonic is itself
a curious hybrid: for Attic i.sa geographicalterm, while ionic is an ethnic
g).
term-and ethrricityis a sociallyconstructedquantity (BartonEktgTz:
ltiswithAttic(arrdtoacertainextentitsrelatiorrshipwithionic)thatI
wish to deal in the presentpaper.on comparativegrounds we may start
by assumingthe existenceof socialvarietiesin Atticar next we needto see
ii we have.ui,l.rr.. for (a) the conceptof sociallydift'erentiatedspeechin
Athens,and (b) the thing itself.we haveplenty of evidencefor the former
from a variety of literary sources'rnost usefullyGreekConledy:

(PC(iZo0)
(r) Aristophanes
?' doret
. rco.itiy i1 airil p'irt rin' xc.td" tilv dypotxkt'', f1 airil t5i rcirr
Erarptpirr*rt. nc,pd xoi 6 xoptxig 'll7er Aptorocl"i"Ts

nelworks, or contrnunities,
I Seeespeciallythe work of I. and L. Milroy for smaller-scalc
which are'less than
abstract social classes'(lvlilroy t98o:t4)'
 SocialDialectin Attica 97

[,tripos?] 8rd,\exror'{yovra pdorlvrt5Ae<'ts

oitr' d.oreiaviro9qAurlpau
pav.
oiir' tu'd,ed|epov ir aypo,xory'.

fthc grammarianssay thatJ . . . the idiom of those who live in rural areas
is cliffcrentfrom that of city dwellers.Concerningwhich Ari.stophanesthe
'lhisl
comic poet says: languageis the normal dialectof the cit,v-not the fhncy
high-s<lcietyaccent,nor uneducated,rustic talk'.

The question to be considered for my purPoses is whether there is evidencc

tbr a prestige variety within Attica, or simply for the recognition that dif-
fbrent social groups speak in different ways. We are used to the notion
that there was uo standard language in ancient Greece; whether this was
true for the individual citv-states is a separate question, ancl is likely, in
my view, t6 have a differelt answer in each case, fbr it seems clear that
sociolinguistic culture was no more uniform across the Greek world than
the language it.self.My answer to this question is that we have some evidence
that certain idioms within Attica were disparaged,and for the corollary that
others were approved. It is true that some of the evidence conrprises what
we might consicler stylistic features: but sonte of it also ciearly pertains
to phonology-for example, for
we haveattackson populardemagogues
Attic correctly:
allegedinabilityto articulate
(z) Plato,I-Iyperbohs(PCGtSf)

fl)d.rcovl,.ivrot iv'YnepBltAq 6'1r at{ e r}v dveuroi y lpfiou' ,is papSopol,

),ly<ovofirus-
ci 6' orl 1,,ipirri.xriev, tt Motpat $iArut,
"6n1rr-1"r1r"
d),A'6n1rt, ptv ypeil A(Yeu',
"6qn': <!:pqv",
t$aoxe 6ndre 6' einetv\bt
",\)[y,,v", ( "ri,\io,"') iA<ye,

Plato, however,in his Hyperbolusmocked the dropping of g as barbarous,as

'He
fbllows: didn't spcakAttic, yc gods,but wheneverhe had to saydiefimal
he said djetoman,and when he had to sayoligoshe came out rvith olios . ' .'

Evidence for disfavoured morphological forms is lessdirect: but the fact of

'chancellery
an Athenian language which retained forms such as c-stem
dative plurals in -aorl-rlorLtntil the late fifth centurt' at least indicates what
we would have expected, that morphological difference played a role in
linguistic variation within Attic:a.
What is interestjng is that some of the evidence connects the disparaged
2 SecDover (rq8r:
$z).
q8 StephenColvin

of
f'eaturesof Attic with a foreign idiom: either rvith the vague charge
F'or example, perceived lonic
barbarism,or with other dialectsof Greck. 'chatteringclasses'
characteristicsin the speechof what would be calledthe
that
in the Murdoch pressarethe objectof comic attention'3The evidence
between Attic and the
I wish to pr.r..rt here concernsthe relationship
irleologicalconverseof lonic, namelyBoeotian'

z Ostracism
is
we have alreadynoted one of the ways in which epigraphiclanguage
governed by ruies which do not necessarilyapply to the Umgangssprache'
in a
and this is the greatparadoxin looking for colft:quialspeccirvaricties
In ihe caseof Attic we can examinegraffiti, curse tablets,
corpuslanguag"e.
of infor-
"nd ul,,uri*tyof privateinscriptions.A potentiallyvaluablesource
mation is piovided by ostraca'since thereis a high likelihood that-ostracon
voteswere in many casescast by peoplewho did not in generalpractise
the epigraphichabit, and it is preciselyby virtuc of being semi-lettered
evidence
that suchwriters may provide evidencefr:r socialdialect.In fhct,
wholly unlettered is provided
that many ostracon-wielclingcitizenswere
pre-
both by anecdote'rancl by the discoveryof a cacheof nearly 'oo
slopeof
inscribedostracabearingih. .tu-. of Themistocleson the north
radical democracy, either
the Acropolis.sOstracismwasintroducedby thc
in 5o8(accorclingto the 416, Pol.,zz.r) or shortly before
under Cfeisthenes
the tirst ostracismin 481.The decisionwhether to hold an ostrakoplnria
vote
was macleeachyear by a full meeting of the popular assembly:the
votes were cast
itselfwas held perhapsaround ten weekslater. lf sulficient
for an indiviclual,he wasbanisiredfor ten years.6Ostraca do thereforein
'texts'
some senserepresentthe vox pttp;the problem is that are generally
(that is t0 say,name
restrictedto the designationof a single individual
3 see cassio (rq8r) and Brixhe (rqS8)for the similaritiesbetween'barbarized'and low-
classAttic.
4 plut. Arirtides the name of that citizen
7:'F.achvoter took an crstracon,wlote on it
whom he wished t6 remo\€ frorn the city, ancl brought it to a placc in the agora which rvas
rvasspcaking,.asthe voters
all tfnced about rvith railings . . . Now at the time ol'wlrich I
fellow handed
were inscribing their ostraca',it is saiclthat an unlettered and utterly boorish
and askedhirn
his ostraconto Aristicles,whom he took to be one of the ordinary crowd'
to write Aristicleson it' lle' astonishecl'askecl the man rvhat possible,rvrong-Aristidcshad
"None whatever,"was the ar]swer'"I don't cven know the fellow, but I arn tired
done him.
oir,.oti"ghirreverywherecallecl'fhelust"' (trals'[3.Perrin,LoebciassicalLibrary,reot)'
5 Broneer(1918); l.ang(1990:161).
6 Detailsu..j,lirput.dl Sources(in translation)with bibliographyin Dillon and Garland
(rqg+:rjo-z); generaldiscussionin Thomsen (r97r)'
 Sociall)ialect in Attica 99

with patronym and/or deme).Thereare,however,someexceptiuusto this,

particularly in some recentlypublished ostracafrom the so-calleclgreat
Kerameikosdeposit.
Bv the mid-r96osa total of arr:unclr,65oostracahad beenfound; in 1968
a further tl,5oowere discoveredin the Kerameikosexcavationsconducted
by the German Archaeologicallnstitute. A selectiotrof vcry interesting
texts ilom the collection was recently publishcd by StefanBrenne, wiro is
preparingthe lind for publication.TMany of the textswhich he publishes,
in addition to the obligatory name, contzrinabusedirecteciagainstthe
individual, his family, or his social class(in this case,the higher social
echelonsfrom which the political 6litc was drawn in the lirst part of the
fifth century).As Brennehaspointed out, tirereareinterestingsinrilarities
between the abusivelanguageof the ostracaand the abusc of political
figuresin Old (bmedys
However, the text which is of central interest in the present paper is
quoted merelyfor its interestasa spoilt ballot:

(3) Brenne(994: zt)- SEGxlvi. 93;Brenne(rocir:97)no.'I ri79.

(Fig.7.r)
td, .4qrdvdatpori66
'fhomsen
This text rvasknown about asearlyas1972,when publishecla list
of nameswhich appear on ostracain his Ongirr of He ref'ersto
Ostracisrn.
lbur unpublishedtextswhich designateLimosasa candidatefbr ostracism,
renrarkingthat on three ostracaLimoshasno patronymic or demotic; on
a fourth (now published)LimosEupatridesis read:

(t972:to$; Brcnne(zooz:97)no.'I rf5

'l'honrsen
Q) MDAI IA] ro6(r99r),r53;
.l,p6s EJnlplnrpi8€s
'hunger'.
Thomsensuggested that this is not in facta name,but the noun fbr
He was not able to publish the verbalform which accompaniesthe noun,
and wirich is of central interestto linguists.The now-publishcdostracon
is rather poignant, standingas a comment on the dynasticf'cudingof tire
6lite Athenian firmilies which l'rad in fact been the driving force in the
introduction of ostracismto Attica. The comment comesfrom a different
socio-economicperspectiveand articulatesthe perennialcornplaint that
feuding among the political elite doesnot addressthe material problems
of the demos.The context(other tabletsfrom the clepositrvhichhavebeen
'' 7 Brcnne (rq94);Willernsen(r96s)and (1968),Seenorv Brcnne (:ooz:
97-roo),
n Brenrre(1994:rr-r4); seeal-sr:
Brenne(r9gz).
 loo StephenColvitt

Frc;.7.r. ostracorr horrr the Kerarneikos.photograph courtesy'f

thc German ArchaeologicalInstilute, negativenr. Kerameikos36'6

published) and the letter forms point to a date in the early fi{th century
(Rrennezaoz:97 suggests47rvc).
The questionthat needstn be addressedis thc linguistic and sociolin-
guisticinterpretationo{'the writing do.qo,xiio.'t'he cditorsot' s.EG(.xlvi.
'new
93) commenton the verb':what we aredealingwith is surely. rnere
phonologicalvaria't ol'the familiar ttorpaxi.{ut (t.e. dorpax,,o(D)o). The
interchangeof 6 and i in Attic insr:riptionsis extrernel,v rare (l shall corne
backt'the instances), so this is not an obviousspellingnristakc.1'hereis,
.f course,a neighbouri.gdialectthat hasD or doubrc.6ice-,rrerpondine to
r\ttic {, nanrelyl}oeotiarr.I'hereis reallvno possibilirvthat the ostrairn
could havetreenlvrittcn by a l3oeotian.sincevotjng u,asrestricteclto citi-
zensand policedby tribes;also,the D-shapeclrho in thc i'scription seenr.s
to be characteristicof Attic rather than }Joeotjanscript (although
Jeffcr:,v
t99o:67clatesthisletter-fcrrn"lto 550-525, Immenvahr r99o;r55*elirings the
datedown and quotesan exampleirom +go),'lire'otion that a lJoeotian
metic sat near the voting areaand wrcrteout ostracasec.rns inrplausible.I
believethat we now haveenoughevidenceto posit tireexistenceof a varie-ty
o{'Attic,markcd by a gerninateapicalstop (singlein initial position) u,here
Attic has the cluster [sd] = 6. T'his variet_v]vas not thc.ianguageof Attic
epigraphy,but it r,vasa variet,vwhich coexisteclrvith it, unj ,"i can latrei
 Social Dialect in Attica 101

it a socialdialect.ily this rve mean that it was spokenby a sectionof the

population Lrutwas not usedin epigraphy;it may havehacla regionalor
socialimplication in Attica.

S The Odd Couple: Attic and Boeotian

If this hypothesisis correct,let usconsiderwh,vwehaveso little evidencefbr
this Boeotian-lookingvariantin Attic. we mentionedearlierthe questionof
prestigedialectin ancientclreece:we can now askourselvesr.vhetherthere
is any e'r.idence that the Athenians(say,in the post-persian\A/arperiocl)
felt good about the way they spoke.Did they fbel prourl of Attic?\t/c have
enough evidencefrom variouslitcrary sourcesto suggestthat they clid. lt
clocsnot fbllow from this that they felt disparagingabout all other rlialecrs:
but thcrreis alittle evidencethat their attitude towarclsBoeotianwasbound
up with more generalfeelingsof irostility and scorn towarclsBoeotia.ln
thc {blkrwing fragment of strattis, for example,the Boeotianidionr rs an
object of c:itical attenticrn:

(5) Strattis,
Phonricion
tr\brnen(P(lG
+q)
(u,[er' rtiS{r,, r[toa Orlfiait^t, na,tts,
oi'6/v mtr'il),\'. oi' np<ira p&, ll1v orln{av
3nc0ori.,\rr.v,
ds A$,ouo',ivopti(ere . .
Ybu r.inclerstandnothing, all you people of T'hebes,nothirrg whatsoever. Iiirst
of all, thev sav thar you cal.la cuttiefish opinhot:ih | ,back-fouler'l . . .

rhis was partly orving,no doubt, to sheercontiguity (conrparerelations

with ll'legara);u,zscompoundeclb,vl3oeotianbehaviourduring the persian
anclPeloponnesian \&hrs( rhebesespecially wasiletestecl by;ithcns);and
seernsalso to have been aggravatecl bv generalcuitural diltbrcr:ceswhich
resuitedin an Athenianstereoq?eof Boeotiansasgluttonous,.stupicl, and
boorish.The Boeotianpig, in fhct.e
tlnhappily lbr the Athenians,tireir orvn dialectrryas markecjrvith at least
ane striking isogk:rss with Roeotianrvhichseparated thcm offfi:om the o ther
djalectsof mainlandand AsianGreece, namclythedor,rblc rr iri plar:er.ifoo.
it doesnot seenlto nIeto bea coincidence thatthisis thc {'eaturc rif staridarrl
;\ttic rvhichdreAthenians\{.,ere most embarrassed atrout.one could ascribe
this shi,'rrc'ss
to tire ibeling rhat the featurewasiln Attic provincialisrrr:but
terms such as 'provincial'refiectan clementin nroclernthinking abcut
riialrctratherlhan an importantpart of Athenianattitudeson the srrbject.
"
Frind. O/, 6. go; Itlr-rt.l)r €siltnrrmutt1.6.
to2 StephenColvht

The variantwassuppressed it wasa'provincialism'that Attic shared

because
with Boeotian.to
This common developmentof palatalized voiccless geminateshaslong
been recognizecl,and sincethe r95osa partial phonological.Sprachbund
1
betweenAttic and lloeotia hasbeenpositeclto accountftrr it.r An invisible
third rnemtrerof this group is Euboea,invisible sincewe classEuboean
with Ionic as though the strait of Euboeaconstitutedan important phy-
sicalbounclarybetweenEretria and the mainland. Bartonik was moved
to proposea changein the traditional terminology,replacing'Attic-Ionic'
wiih the tripartite'Attic-iluboean-Ionic',and I think that Eretriaand facing
Oropusarea usefulsymbolof the generalpictureof arealdevelopmentthat
is necessary for my argument.l2'I'hereis anotherdiaiectwhich hasa parallel
developmentof palatalizedgerrinatesto tt and dd, that of central Crete.
This is not, of course,relevantto our ostracoll,but there is a theoretical
connection if we acceptthe idea that this developmentwas particularly
characteristicof WestGreek(slightlyparadoxicalin the caseof rr, which is
thonght of asthe markerof Attic par excellence), and that WestGreekinflu-
.r.,.. .un be seenin the developmentof the lJoeotianand Attic consonant
systems.
My suggestionis, then,that the doubledd retTex which is associated with
Boeotian was heard within the bordersof Attica: to put it another rvay,
therewasa varietyof Attic which contirinedthis feature,a varictywhich we
rnight call a socialdialect.Recaiiingthe divisionof Attic territoryirrto three
brtiaclareas(the City, the Coast,and the Inland), we couid specr"rlate that
this varietywasassociated with the Inland or the Coastalregiorrs,while the
other basilectfor which we haveevidence.thc proto-Koinervhich the Old
Oligarchc<rmplains ol wasan (Jngangssprache of the City and the Piraeus
(that is, *. tt.i.i not assumea simpiesliding scaleof socialdialectin Attica
'top' 'bottom').1ttThere is other evidencethat this f'eaturewas
frorn to
heardmore widelv in CentralGreece.Dnuble dd is t'ounclirr'l'hessalian,at
lea.stin the south-westernarea,the'Ihessaliotis(i!{avaxo6€r'IG ixlz. zSZ.
g-9, Sotairosinscription). There are alsospellingswith (i3) and (() froni
other areasof Thessaly,which indicatesthat there may have been sonte
variation:at any rate,Blilmel is perhapsincautiousin assumingthat the dd

r0 "I'he tn d.pp,vetc. is another f'eatureof Attic rviclelvregnrdedas cliagnosticof the

irp
6ialect,bui in faci tire distribution of this assimilationis so messyacrossthe Greekworicl
that it can harrily havebeenas markeda {'eatureasrz {c1.Buck l95s:$8i:).
rr Alletr (1958:176),folklwedby Divcr {1958)and others'
12 Bartonik (ro7z: For tire lluicl clialectof Oropus secMorpureo l)avies (1993)'
9).
'r Old Oliga..'h:ps.-Xcn.Ath. Pol.2.7-8 (.c.4r.s nr:'?).
 SocialDialea in Attica 103

is the standardor'original'reflex.raThe evidencefor Corinthian,qtroted

by Bartondk and Schwyzer,is an isolatedform zl{p}<uson a vasedated
to c.57o,and is dismissedby Mdndez Dosuna,perhapsrightly. Howevcr,
Wachterhas publisheda new readingzlels on a Corinthian pinax, rvhich
makesthe casefor Corinthian a little stronger.r5 Megariand-forms are not
epigrirplric,lrut attestedin the manuscriptsof Aristophanes'Acharniatrs
and open to the suspicionthat they are falsedialectforms. lt seemsto me
unlikely that Aristophaneswould have made such an egregiouserror in
the caseof Megarian,a dialectAtheniansmust havebcenperfectlyfamiliar
with (Colvin 1999:r6+-s). If it is the casethat N{egarian(likc Attic, on this
view) had both variants,we could imagine that the playwright used the
fbrm that was most rnarkedfrom the perspectiveof standardAttic, and
if in addition this featurewas stigmatizedby associationwith lloeotian,
'lhble
then so much the better. z.r illustratesthe position of Attic between
conflicting influences:

Tanrr lt. Palat:alized

Aricals and Dorsals

Boeotia
*t'r'(with *ts) and "k'k'tall together(probablyas *t'l'): mergewith rt

Attica, Eretria
(+ boundary)*t't' and .k'k'fhll together:mergewith /l Itpdno type\ A

(- boundary)"t?'(with nh^)> s I g 1 o o st y p e l V

Clclades, Ionia v
(- boundary) "r'r' (with *rr) > s [p/oos typel v
(r boundary)*f't'and "k'k'> ss type]
Idpe/orrc,.'

Boeotia
* d'd' and *g'g' fall together and mergervith r/rJ

Attica,Erctria 1'hessaLly?ivlcgara?C.orinthi
*gg'fall together:mergewith drl]
[*diC'and
"d'd'and *g'g'fall togetheras"d'd'> zd V

Cyclades,Ionia
*d'd' and *gg' fall together as "d'd' > zd
* d'd'and -gg'fall togetheras *d'd'> dz> zz
12.1^

' For rvhichseeNagy(tgzo:pl). The detailsof depalatalization

in Greekarecomplex
anddisputed: followsDiver(rqs8).
theoutlineherebroadly
ra Bliinrel(rs8r:uo): cantraGarclt
Rarn6nbgSi:t,+z).
r5 BartonEk(r9zz:rsr) and Schwyzer (gSg:S16)on z1[B]eus(Beaziey,
,4IJlr9tr,no. l4l,
contraNl|.ndezl)osuna(1993:9o);seenowWachter(zoor:r49,# COP7Sa).
rc)4 StephenColvin

I have tried to er.plain on general grounds why we need not exPectthat

eachof our conventionallydelineatedGreekdialectswould haveonly one
reflex of a depalatalizedgeminate,and why it might not be surprisingif a
gerninatestol'rwereheardin Attica in placeof the lamiliar clusterIzd]' Now
we can considerwhat cvidencethere might be besidesthe new ostracon.
We noted abovethat the interchangeof t\ and ( in Attic insriptions is
rare:thoseinstancesthat existcome,perhapsunsurprisingly,from Lang's
Athenian Agorapublication of gr:a{fitiand dipinti. The hrst exampleis a
graffito on a black skyphos:
(o) Lang(rgz6:t)t no' C 33,mid-fourthcenturyBC
(a) @eto}ooia
iarrd6eIr]er)
(h) A(amaorprn)

The obsceneverb lnrr<i(<lvand its cognatesarefrecluentin comedy:in this

caseonce could hardly ask for a better match betweenlinguistic register
and subjectmatter (the deltais broken,but still t1earlya delta).The second
example(inventoryscratchedon a saucer)is lessexciting,but could still be
regarrledas an appropriatelymundane object (the sort of word ttne might
get in comedy):

(z) Lang(rg76:ro):no.B t3,fourthcenturync

ir tr par.
/3 rlr-]'tableware'

These two exampleshardly prove the argun-Ient,although it should be

rememberedthatstatistically( is a rareletter.Theremayl"rea further pointer
to a non-standardpronunciation in a curious snippet of Old Comedy
preserved
'd, by an ancient commentator,in which 6 ,tsEe'is quoted for
Zei.t6 Here the playwright has substitutedthe phonaestheticallyof-
fensivecluster (FS) for the initial (O of Zeus: added point comes from
'brcak wind'; and if the comment dgesrelateto
the echo of the verb p$i.o
Lysistrdtctg4o(asc6mmonly assumed),then this meaningwill fit well with
Kinesias'irritation at his rvife'smessingaround with perfumewhen he has
more urgent concefns.Allen (1987:56) seesthis as support for an Attic
pronunciationof ( as [zd] ratherthan [dz], if anywereleeded: but the joke
works better,ir: my view, if the underlying for:mthat resonatesis /e0 (in
this caseKinesiasstartsolf with rude protestat the perfurneand changes
it half-way through to a standard expletive,one however associatedwith
substandardregister).
,u IrCG viii.83 (Anon, Decom.,proleg.de com.vl) d 7r1,\,rsrils xa7'qt6k,slx r< Al.f<<,tv
xai rpoypdrcov-lyet,rlv o6rrrrrorr',i* ptrl z{s ilJeds xctti rlt'inorts izrra ' ' ' €xrov xor'
t{alAayi1v,,,is "ri <1,B6eri6/oaotc,,d"tri 'o^ <" Ze^-'
 SocialDialect in Attica lo5

from Plato'sCnstyluswhich might appearto

Tlrereis, finally, a passage
lend support to the theory of a competingrl-variantin the fifth century:r7
(8) Plato,Cratylus
4r8n-n
(.!-r.) o[o1a 6rt of ro,)aroi of fiy"lrepotrQ itira xai rQ 6'!Ma e3 pdla
iyp<itvro,ra) oJx i1*rora of yuvaixes,atncpp<{Arorar}1, dpyalav$covilvolot{ouot.
vfv c\drivzl p.tv roi itiru I ei i) fira Trrraorpi.$ouow,lu,rt6d zof 31)z,r (i1ru, i,s
6'l p.eyoAotp<r(orepo6vra .
(Jarr.) xut 16 ye (uL1tyoto|,z <izrSuoytizol ron)arotlxdAouv.
(Kp".) II6.vuye.
(Iax,) . . vAv62 (uydv.
You know that our ancestorslovedthe soundsiota and delta,not leastthe wol.llen,
who are rnost liable to preserveold forrns of speech'But now people changeiota
to eta or epsilon,and delta to zeta,thinking that they sound grander. . . And you
know that the ancientspronounced(uydvas\uoydv . . . now,however,we say(uydu.

The evidence from the Cratylus is' however, dubious: for one thing, all
remarks in this diaiogue need to Lretreated with a great deal of cautiort;
'old'pronunciation
and secondly, it might be that the that Plato refers to is
in fact the orthodox Attic [zd] as opposed to the voiced fricative [z] which
spreadquite rapidly in the fourth century.

4 SummaryandConclusion

The new ostracon is the best piece of evidencethat has corne to liglit
tbr a situation which is not a prior:i unlikely, namely the existenceof a
variety of Attic which shared a d-rellex with lloeotian as the result of
an earlier depalatalization.l'he ostraconwas a protest vote by a citizen
who was not eupatrid,and whose linguistic repertoirereflectedthis. We
have some reason to think that this feature, if it existed in Attic, will
have been stigmatized.Firstly, it is characteristicof Boeotian, a dialect
which the Athenianswishedto dissociatethemselves from, in spiteof some
inescapable We canspeculatethat this maybe a reasonwhy the
isoglosses.ls
chancellerylanguagetook sucha long time to let go of the disyllabicdativc
plural that we mentioned above.This phenomenonhas many parallelsin
" Teodorsson(rg7g:3zg),
arguing ( = [zd]in Attic.
against
rs Intheostraconthesecondletterofdorpari66seemstohavebeencorrectedfrom(7).
'I'his
is interestingin vielv of the lact that zr for oz is fbund in literary (not cpigraphic)
sourcesfor Boeotian:c{. 6nn0otilu (6nw0o-) in passage(5) from Strattis (Lejeuner97z:
Srro). It suggeststhat the Atheniansheard somethingwhich the lloeotians chosenot to
systematizein the writing system.lror the possibleimplicationsof the reversca-bar sigma
seeLang (tg8z: Bt-z).
ro6 Coh,in
St:ephen

modern sociolinguisticresearch:in a language-attitudestudy in Indiana,

for example,Preston (rg88) found that respondentstried to dissociate
themselvesfiom Kentucky,wherethe languagevariety is almost identical,
butwhich is considered'southern'.Secondly,the Athenianshad a certaitr
pride in their dialect,and this seemsto havebeen extendedto their zeta
if we can trust the report of Dionysiusof Halicarnassus( first century Bc),
who describesit asa sweetsound,and the noblestof the doubleconsonants:
(q) D.I-t.Decontpositione
verborumt4
orir,iIsc.ro rc ( xlo,i
Srz'l,i6dA(youorv "d ( ral zdll i)ro,"3rr).
rd o{v9eraeh'at
rd pdu { Sid rorl o rai 5 . . . { Errird y<itpat'it(.yerv Sueivypaptp"d'rav iv rais
ouiiopnis napaloy.fiavdp"evov ypast"yd"rav
{xtroror' , . . rptitv Di rciv rir\)c'rv ii
6d Drrr,l,ixuAeiratli { p,i}iov-ri6ipgr-riv&xoiv r<iv tr(pav. ri p.tv yd'pt Erit'
roJ r rai zd r/ 6rri rot, n r6v oupLyltt\v d.no6t6Loot tltlt?w dvruv d'p"$or(puv,
roAro 6' ioixi rt! trvedp.art \aodverotxot-ig:l-lllty utrnv*gt, vrrr"rr .
They [sc, (, t,rl,l are called doubleeither becausethey are composite(the (
being composedol'o and 6) . . . or becausethey are eqrrivalenttcl two letters
in the syllablesin which they are for.rnd.. . . Of the three other letterswhich
are calleddouble the ( pleasesthe ear more than the rest.For the { and the I
give off a whistling sound (becausethey contain r and " respectively,and are
voiceless),whereas( has a pleasantvoiced qualitv and is the noblestof this
series.

REFERENCES
'Sorne
Allerr,W. S. 1958: Problemsof Palatalizationin Greek',Lingua,T :n3*33.
---- t987:VoxGraeca,3rdedn. (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversitvPress).
Barton€k, A. t97z: Classilicationof the WestGreekDkile.ctsat the Time aboutj5o nt:
(Prague:Acadernia).
Bliimel, W. r98z: Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie rnd Morphologie der in'
sclviftlichen Texte nus generativer Sicht (ZeitschriJtfiir vergleichendeSprach-
fo rschung,suppl,3o; G<ittingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht).
"'Portraits"
Brenne,S, r99z: auf Ostraka',MineilungendesDeutschenArchhologi'
schenInstitut:s(Athen.Abl), ro7:16r-85.
----'- tgg4:'Ostrakaand the Processof Ostrakophoria',in Coulson (rygq), ry-24.
----- 2oo2i'Die Ostraka(487-ca.r+6 v. Chr.) als Testimonien',in Siewert(roo:,),
36-166.
'l,a
Brixhe, C. 1988: langue de l'6tranger norr grec chez Aristtlphane',in Lonis
(r988),rr3-38.
Broneer,O. 1938:'Excavations on the North Slopeoi thc Acropolis,1937',Hesperia,
7: 16r-263('Ostraka', zz8-4).
Buck, C, D. 1955:The GreekDialecrs (Chicago:tiniversity of ChicagoPress).
 SocialDialectin Attica u)7

'Attico "volgare" e Ioni in Atene alla line clcl secoloA.C.',

Cassio,A. C. r98r: 5
AION, 3t 79-93.
- (ed.). t999:KatitDiitlckton:atti delIII colktquiointennzional.edi dinlettologia
greca {Napoli-Fininw d'Ischin, z5-:8 setten*trery96 (AION' Sez. filologica-
Lcttcraria,rg lrggzl; Naples:istituto UniversitarioOrientale).
Colvin,S.1999: DialectinAristophuresandthePolitiuofLanguageint\ncientG'eek
Literature (Oxford: Clarentlon Press).
Coulson,w. (ed.). rgg4:TheArclraeology of AthensandAtti.caunderlhe I)ernocracy
(Oxlbrd: Oxbow).
Crespo,8' et aI. (eds.).rgg3:Diolectologicn Groeca:Actasdel II Col' Iut' de Dialec-
tologiaGriegaryy (Madrid: Universidad Aut6norna de Madrid).
Dillon, M., and Garland, 1,. (eds.)' tgg4t Ancienl Greece:Sttcialafld Historic:al
'l'hne (London: Routleclge)'
Documentsfrom Archaic s to the Death of Socrates
'On of Greek Consonantis m', Worcl,l4; r-25.
Diver,\{, 1958: the Pre-l{istory
'The Attic l)ocumentary Inscriptions',
[)over, K. I. rg8r: Languageof Classical
Transactionsaf lhe Phiklogical Socitty, r-14; repr. in ic1.,Greekad the Greeks
(Oxford: Blackwell,1987),3r-4r.
Fisiak,J. (ed.).rg88:Internationalcon.ference onHistoricalDislectology (llerlin: de
Gruyter).
'Geografla
GarclaRam6n,l.-L. tgSz: intradialectaltesalia:la fon6tica',Verbum,vs'.
.r(rr-)J.

Irrrmerwahr,H. I. r99o: Attic Script:A Survey(Oxford: OxforclUniversityPress).

leffery,L.H. r99o: TheL,tcalsdpts of ArchaicGreece,zndedn, rev.A. \{t. lohnston
(Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).
Lang, lv{. 1976:Grafiti and Dipitrti (Athenian Agora, 2r; Princ:cton:Princeton
UniversityPress).
- 'Writing
rglJz: and Spellingon Ostraka',Hesperin,suppl'19(Sttuliu Presented
t<tLugene Vander o oI\, 75-97.
p
---- (r99o): Ostraka(AthenianAgora,z5;Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress).
Lejeune,M. tgTz;Phonttiquehistttriquedu nrycinienetdu grecancien(Paris:Klinck-
sieck).
Lonis, R. (ed.), rps8:L'Etrangerdansle nnnde grec(Nancy:PressestJniversitaires
de Nancv).
'On (Z)
Mdndez D6suna, I. rqg:: lbr (,i) in ClreekDialectal Inscriptiorts',/)ie
Sprache,35: 8z-1r4.
ivtilroy, 1,.t98o: Languageand SacialNetworks(Oxford: Blackwell).
Morpurgo l)avies,A. 1993:'Geography, I'Iistoryand Dialect:The Caseof Oropos',
in Crespoet al. (tggil,26i-79.
- - r999:'Contattiinterdialettali:il formulario epigrafico',in Cassio(tgpq)' z-:-t.
'I'ransfornntion
Nagy,(). tgTo: Greekl)iale$s and the of an Indo-EuropewrProcess
(Carnbriclge,Mass.:I{arvard UniversityPress).
'Changes
Preston,D. 1988: in the Perceptionof LanguageVarieties',in l;isiak(1988)'
475-504.
ro8 StephenColvin

Schwyzer,E. 1939:GriechischeGrammatik, vol. i (Munich: Beck)'

siewert, P. (ed.). zooz: ostrakismos-Testimonien,voL i (Historia Einzelschriften,
r55:Stuttgart).
Teodorsson,S.-T.1979:'Onthe Pronunciationof Ancicttt GreekZeta', Lingua,47:
34-32.
'fhe
Thomsen, R. r97z: Arigin of Ostracism(Copenhagen:Gyldendai)'
Wachter. R. zoor; Non-Attic Greek \hse Inscriptions (Oxford: Oxforcl University
Press).
'Ostraka', Mixeilungen desDetttschenArchiiologischenInstituts
Willernsen,F. l96j:
(Athen.Abt.), 8o: roo-e6.
, --- (196g),'Die Ausgrabungenim Kerameikost966" Archaiologikon Deltion, z3:
chron. z4-32.