Evidence of «μακεδονιστί» words in the other greek dialects and some conclusions on the unity of the Northern Greek Group and the inclusion of the Macedonians in it

Evidence of «μακεδονιστί» words in the other greek dialects and some conclusions on the unity of the Northern Greek Group and the inclusion of the Macedonians in it



In this article I’d like to present gathered all the evidence of «μακεδονιστί» words from the other ancient greek dialects that I’ve found during my research so far. My aim is to present enough ancient greek words both panhellenic and dialectal that share the macedonian phonological aberrancy in order to prove that there’s nothing “extra-Greek” in it , but it represents a phonological phenomenon that has affected thereabout all the Ancient Greek dialects (mostly the Northern ones) , with the only difference being the frequency of occurence. This frequency appears to be the highest in Macedonian , relatively high (but always a minority) in Aeolic and the Northwestern Greek dialects and the lowest (but not inexistent) in the southern Greek dialects (that is Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cypriot).

First let’s define the «μακεδονιστί» phonology , that is the “macedonian manner of speech“. Many of the macedonian glosses , personal names , month names and toponymics that have been writen down and came to us although undoubtedly related to known Greek words show a striking characteristic : they are writen down with the letters [β,γ δ] where the “standard” Greek forms have respectively [φ,χ,θ] . The phenomenon is known for more than a century and there has been an intense academic debate on it’s interpretation , and this interpretation judged whether or not the tongue of the ancient Macedonians was a Greek dialect or not.

The argument starts from the basic assumption that during the pre-Hellenistic period , that is let’s say before 300-350 BC , the greek letters [β,γ δ] had the phonemic value of voiced stops [b,g,d] respectively , meanwhile the letters [φ,χ,θ] had the phonemic value of voiceless aspirates [/ph/,/kh/,/th/] (the kind of “breathy” sound that an english speaker produces at the beginning of the words “pen” , “cow” and “ten” respectively. The phonemic values of these letters were not ment to be and from a time that conventionally is put in the Early Hellenistic Period (around 300 BC) all the above letters acquired “continuant” phonemic values : [β,γ,δ] became voiced spirants [/v/,/γ/,/δ/] , meanwhile [φ,χ,θ] became voiceless spirants [/f/,/χ/,/θ/] , that is the phonemic value that they still have in modern Greek.

I have underlined the word “conventionally” , because in reality we don’t know when each dialect begun to shift the phonemic value of it’s consonants and it is widely accepted that there was a substantial ovelapping period between the two consonantal phonemic systems. So we’re pretty sure that the Doric dialects had given a spirant value in «β» and «θ» already in the 5th century BC , when they started to substitute the letter “digamma” («F» having the emiphonic phonemic value of /w/) with «β» (βόρθιος for earlier Fόρθιος) and «θ» with «σ» («μά τῷ Σιῷ» for earlier «μά τῷ Θεῷ»). The phonemic overlap was most intense roughly during the period 450-250 BC , but it doesn’t mean that it was inexistent earlier and later.

Hence during the Early Archaic Period (750-650 BC) when the Homeric Epics were writen down and we are expecting to find [β,γ,δ] with the phonemic value of [/b/,/g/,/d/] the northern Thessalian tribal name Περῥαιβοί already attested in the Iliad shows a «β» in the place of a “digamma” , sinse the name probably means “from the sourse/edge of the river Αous” not far from Ancient DodonaΠέρῥας ΑἴFoυ» >> «ΠερῥαιFοί») and according to the Iliad [II.749-750] :

“… the valiant Perrhaebi, who dwelt about wintry Dodona …”μενεπτόλεμοί τε Περαιβοὶ οἳ περὶ Δωδώνην δυσχείμερον οἰκί’ ἔθεντο

… a name comparable to the region Παραύια located immediatelly north of the Middle Aous («παρά τον ΑἴFα» , “by the Aous“) , which was inhabited in historical times by the molossian Παραυαῖοι.

Always in the Homeric texts the word ἄβυσσος (“abyss”) is attested and it’s etymology literarelly means “bottomless” («α-βένθος/βύνθος») as we’ll have the opportunity to see below. If this is the case then from early times the word for “abyss” has turned a spirant «θ» into «σ» , which later retro-assimilated the «ν» ,thus forming the double «σσ» in the same time that τέτρα (/tetra/) and ἵππος (/hippos/) were giving a canonical aspirate «θ» in τέθριππον (/tethrippon/).

The above examples are indicatives of the existense of the “consonantal phonemic overlap” already during the Archaic Period and , in the same manner the “rural modern greek” variants δέντρο (/δendro/) , κόμπος (/kobos/) , γκαστρωμένη (/gastromeni/) preserve the pre-Hellenistic phonemic values of /dendron/ , /kombos/ , /gaste:r/.

I hope that the above examples have shown the “conventionality” of saying that between 350-250 BC greek has turned into spirants the consonants «β,γ δ,φ,χ,θ» and it’s this conventionality that creates the uncertainty in attributing exact phonemic values in words that have come down to us in a writen form.

Sinse the debate about the ancient macedonian tongue is based primarely on the interpretation of words that have come down to us only in a writen form it is logical to understand why it inherited the above mentioned uncertainty.

Having presented the uncertainty in interpreting the absolute phonemic value of a writen «β,γ δ» as [/b/,/d/,/g/] or [/v/,/δ/,/γ/] and the writen «φ,χ,θ» as [/ph/,/kh/,/th/] or [/f/,/χ/,/θ/] we can be a little more certain in the relative interpretation : that is sinse the same nebulous uncertainty covers both Macedonian and the known Greek dialects , this permites us to postulate that a lets say 400 BC Macedonian «β» is not more difficult to interpret than a Boeotian «β» of the same period. This means that the older the attested writen form is the more probable (but not 100% certain) the writen «β,γ,δ» and «φ,χ,θ» represent respectively voiced stops [/b/,/g/,/d/] and voiceless aspirates [/ph/,/kh/,/th/].


Greek is an Indo-European (IE) language and like all the other IE languages it derives from a partially reconstructed hypothetical Proto-Indo-European (PIE) precursor. That precursor was spoken most probably in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes between ca. 5000-3000 BC. As it’s bearers gradually expanded PIE was first disintegrated in regional dialects and those dialects in time became separate languages , each consisting of it’s own dialects. Each emerging language has made certain innovations common or not with other languages as it has made certain preservations again common or not with other languages.

The original PIE language according to the most accepted linguistic view was characterized by a “breathy voice” , that is it possessed a series of voiced aspirates * [/bh,/gh/,/dh/] , among with a series of voiced * [b,d,g] and voiceless * [p,t,k] stops as it also possessed a series of labiovelar consonants * [kw,gw,gwh].

From PIE to Greek there have been at least two transitional precursors:

1) Graeco-Phrygian , is the linguistic precursor of both Greek and Phrygian and is characterized by the common innovations and preservations between the two , at least until the split of the two emerging languages , that is proto-Phrygian (direct precursor of Phrygian) and …

2) Proto-Greek , that is the prescursor that gave all the known historical and prehistorical greek dialects and which first started to develop the peculiarities that Greek does not share with any other IE language.

Some of these peculiarites are:

I) The devoicing of the PIE voiced aspirates *[/bh/,/gh/,/dh/] in voiceless aspirates [/ph/,/kh/,/th/] (at least before starting to turn in spirants [/f/,/χ/,/θ/] as we have said above).

II) The preservation of the labiovelars at least until the Mycenaean Collapse of ca. 1200 BC (in the Mycenaean Linear B tablets the labiovelars appear to be intact) and the successive relatively rapid transformation of the last during the next 2-3 centuries (ca. 1150-850 BC) , transformation that seems to follow certain rules : /gw/>> /b/,/d/ and more rarely /g/ , /gwh/>> mostly /th/, /ph/ , but also /kh/ and sometimes /b/ and /d/ and finally /kw/ >> mostly /p/ and /t/ and rarely /k/.

So we enter the Archaic Period (750 BC) and the beginning of the alphabetic writing and we find Ancient Greek already disintegrated in a mosaic of dialectal branches (that according to the widely accepted classification of Ernst Risch and Walter Porzig in the 50s there are a northern Greek group consisting of the Aeolian , Northwestern Greek and Doric dialects and a southern Greek group consisting of the Attic-Ionic and Arcado-Cypriot dialects) , each one of which composed by a number of regional subdialects ( For instance Lesbian and Boeotian are both Aeolian dialects , Locrian and Aetolian are both NW Greek and Euboean and Asiatic Ionian both being Ionian ones).

What is the position of the ancient Macedonian tongue ?? Is it a dialect of Greek or a sibling to Greek language ?? Aberrant Greek dialect or sister language to Greek !! This has been the answer that most linguistists hold for a very long time. The vast majority of the historians one the other hand , due to the possibility of a global examination of the ancient Macedonian society , religion and tradition have started much earlier to settle down towards the original Greekness of the ancient Macedonians.

What kept at distance many linguists from sharing the same opinion with the majority of the historians ?

It was the belief that according to the long-established interpretation of the writen «β,γ δ» and «φ,χ,θ» as respectively voiced stops (/b/,/d/,/g/) and voiceless aspirates (/ph/,/kh/,/th/) , “Macedonian stands apart from every other greek dialect sinse it has deaspirated the PIE voiced aspirates * [/bh/,/gh/,/dh/] into voiced stops [/b/,/g/,/d/] , instead of devoicing them into voiceless aspirates [/ph/,/kh/,/th/] a property that is also shared by the other known Paleo-Balkan IE languages like Thracian , Illyrian and Phrygian.

To give some examples the PIE root *bher– “to carry”/”to bring” has given the greek verb φέρω (/phero:/ , “I bring/curry”) , but the macedonian month name of September was Ὑπερβερεταῖος (“hyper-provider”) which was also found in the macedonian (Dion , Pieria) cult of Zeus Hyperberetas . In the same manner the macedonian variant of the name Φερενίκα (“bearing Victory”) was Βερενίκα , meanwhile the name Χαιτέας from Greek χαῖτη = “mane” (/khaite:/ from PIE * ghait(s)-) in Macedonia has been attested as Γαιτέας (assumed /Gaiteas/) and the Macedonian word δῶραξ (“spleen”) and the month name Ξανδικός show a [/d/]-for-[/th/] relation to “standard” Greek θῶραξ and Ξανθός.


Here I leave aside Macedonian and I’ll examine words from the known Greek dialects that show a «μακεδονιστί» orthography that is forms writen with «β,γ δ» instead of «φ,χ,θ» from terms that have a PIE reconstructed root containing respectively the voiced aspirates * [/bh/,/gh/,/dh/].

I choose the term “orthography” and not “phonology” , because it’s the writen forms that we can compare to our reconstructions , sinse as I’ve said above there is a phonological uncertainty due to the overlapping of the two consonantal phonological systems [(/b/,/g/,/d/)-(/ph/,/kh/,/th/) vs. (/v/,/γ/,/δ/)-(/f/,/χ/,/θ/).

For the reconstructed PIE terms I’ll be using :

The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European And The Proto-Indo-European World” , by J.P. Mallory and D.Q. Adams [Oxford University Press , (O.U.P.) 2006]

And sporadically I’ll use :

The Greek Dialects” by C.D. Buck [first published by The University of Chicago Press (1955) , republished with permission in 1998 by The Bristol Classical Press]

When I’ll be refering to Mallory & Adams I’ll be writing [PIE, page] and when I’ll be refering to C.D. Buck I’ll be writing [TGD, page].

1) “Earth”

The PIE reconstructed word for “earth” is * dh(e)ghom [PIE,120]. Starting from * dhghom , greek has first transposed the complex dhgh in ghdh (as it has done with *dhghu- “fish” in ἰχθύς and with *dhghyes “yesterday” in ἐχθές , [PIE,472]) which apparently followed two paths. The “standard” Greek path gave χθῶν “earth” (hence Chthonic) and Homeric χθαμαλός , before simplifying it to later χαμηλός , meaning “low onto the ground“/”humble” (this latin analog has the same history deriving from latin humus for “earth”).

Odyssey [IX.25]αὐτὴ δὲ χθαμαλὴ πανυπερτάτη εἰν ἁλὶ κεῖται

Interestingly , there is also an “aberrant” Greek path which deaspirates «μακεδονιστί» *ghdhom into * γδῶν and from that eliminating one of the two consontants produces a plethora of Greek words like the δ-forms Δωδῶνα Μακεδονία rispectively “Zeus’ Land” and “Highland” and Ποτίδας («πότις Δᾶς» = “husband of the Earth” , originally an appellative of the archetypic maschuline god Dodonaean Zeus that later evolved into the Sea and Earthquake God Poseidon) , and Δήμητρα («Δᾶ μᾶτηρ» = “Earth Mother”) and the far more known γ-forms as γῆ,Γαῖα,γόνα providing the first synthetic of terms like Geology , Geometry and the Upper Macedonian region Πελαγονία (probably “dark land” like Pelops = “Dark faced”) and it’s river Ἐριγών probably meaning “flowing through the Dark Land” (Erig- is probably related to greek Erebos = “dark underworld” , which in [PIE,330] is derived from PIE * h1regw-es = “a place of darkness“). The modern slavic name of Erigon is Crna Reka meaning “Black River” which confirms the previous connection.

So the panhellenic terms Δᾶ and Γαῖα are the “aberrant «μακεδονιστί»” cognates of “standard” greek χθῶν , but are used by all Greeks sinse time immemorial in both Religious (Demetra , Potidas , Gaia) and Everyday (γεωργός = “earth worker” = “farmer”) language. I’ll end my “Earth” discusion with the two homeric epithets of Poseidon (Potidas = “husband of the Earth”) both meaning “Earth-Shaker” : Γαιήοχος (*dhghom “earth” , *wegh- “shake,set in motion” [PIE,391] and Ἐνοσίχθων.

2) “Be in (com-)motion”

There has been reconstructed a PIE term * dhuh2mos meaning “be in motion/commotion” and “smoke“. It’s “standard” greek cognates are θυμός (“smoke“-> “moving air stream”/”soul“-> “commotion”) and ἐπιθυμῶ meaning “to desire” (“be in motion towards something / be attracted by something”). Naturarelly , Greek has also produced aberrant «μακεδονιστί» cognates:

i) The Δυμάνες were considered to be oldest dorian subtribe and the Dorians were known for their macrochronic migrations before ending in the Peloponnese (Herodotus , I.56) not to mention that in all that time they practised pastoral transhumance , that is moved their flocks back and forth between highland summer pastures and lowland winter quarters. It it obvious why the name Dymanes was applied to a long migratory and nomadic Greek tribe as it is obvious the link with the PIE root *dhuh2mosbe in motion“.

ii) Further confirmation comes from the Odyssey. In [IX.793, XII.311] we find the phrase «νήδυμος ὕπνος» meaning “unshakable sleep” (the νη- has a “steretic” value as in νήπιοn = “small child” from νε-Fἔπος (“the one who can’t talk yet“) , meanwhile the Greek personal name Νήδυμος (with the meaning of “unshakeable”/”intrepid”) has been attested. It is interesting here the name ΑΔΥΜΟΣ found in Macedonia. The excavators related to NW Greek Hadys meaning “sweet”/”pleasant“. I do not know if the spiritus asper was evident in the inscriptions , because if it wasn’t then the etymology “unshakeable”/”intrepid” is also possible just like Nedymos and the mythic Atreus.

iii) Always from the Odyssey [VI.22] we have the phrase «ναυσίκλειτος Δύμας» “Dymas the famous (Phaeacean) Navigator“. Sinse most of the Phaeacean personal names found in the Odyssey are related to naval activities it seems to me obvious the relation between the name Dymas , the PIE root *dhuh2mos be in motion” and his activity as Navigator (“moving in Sea“).

So again we find Greek terms that date to the homeric epics , if not to the days of the Dorian Migration , that still formed personal names in historical times and present the aberrant «μακεδονιστί» phonology δ for θ). Dymas , Dymanes , Nedymos , Adymmas and possibly Adymos (if not Hadymos) have the same root (PIE *dhuh2mos) with the “phonologically standard” Greek word thymos. Again the Greeks have been using them sinse time immemorial.

3) “Zeus Thunderclapping from above”

One of the most characteristic and ancient epithets of Zeus was the Ὑψιβρεμέτης (hypsibremetes) , meaning “thunderclapping from high above” (Iliad XII.68 and Hesiod’s Works and Days verse 8). The root of βρεμέτης is without doubt the PIE root *bhrem- “making noise” (the *bh is certain because of the Latin (fremo “roar” , fremitus) and Sanskrit (bhramara = “bee”) cognates [PIE,363].

The same root gave the panhellenic word for the noun “thunderclapβροντή , the verb “to thunderclapβροντώ and the name of one of the three original Cyclopes (Arges , Steropes and Brontes) , who according tothe Greek mythology “gifted Zeus with the thunder and the thunderclap“.

Iliad , [XII.68]«Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης, Τρώεσσι δὲ ἵετ’ ἀρήγειν,»And in Hesiod’s works and Days , verse 8 :«Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης, ὃς ὑπέρτατα δώματα ναίει.»

Odyssey [XX.102-104]

ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος• τοῦ δ’ ἔκλυε μητίετα Ζεύς,
αὐτίκα δ’ ἐβρόντησεν ἀπ’ αἰγλήεντος Ὀλύμπου,
ὑψόθεν ἐκ νεφέων

and a bit later in [XX.121]

ὣς ἄρ’ ἔφη, χαῖρεν δὲ κλεηδόνι δῖος Ὀδυσσεὺς
Ζηνός τε βροντῇ• φάτο γὰρ τείσασθαι ἀλείτας.

All these panhellenic terms are aberrant «μακεδονιστί» phonologically and their respective “standard” cognates with a «φ» have never been attested. Their use in the religious-mythological language testifies for their antiquity , meanwhile their use in everyday language till today testifies for their frequency within the Greek language.

4) “Will”/”Want” and “Voice”

In [PIE,477] we have a list of the reconstructed PIE roots starting with the voiced and aspirated labiovelar *gwh. One can see roots like *gwher– “warm” (Greek Θέρος “summer”) , *gwhermos “warm” (Greek Θερμός again “warm” , hence thermic) , *gwhaidros “bright,shinning” (Greek Φαιδρός meaning the same thing) , *gwhonos “thick,sufficient” (Greek ἄφθονος “plenty”) , *gwhren “think” (Greek φρονέω , φρήν meaning respectively “I think” and “thought”/”mind”) , *gwhen “to strike” (Greek φονέω “to kill” , φονιάς “killer” , and most probably the greek name-endings -φόντης “killer/slaughter” in Linear B tablets stil “-qo-ta” [/-gwhontas/] , -φων , -φόνα as Bellerophonteskiller of the serpent” , Xenophonkiller of the Strangers” , Persephonakilled by Perseus“).

So far we’ve seen roots that gave “Standard” greek cognates , turning *gwh in «φ» and «θ». I kept the most interesting term for last. The list gives also a reconstructed term *gwhel- with the meaning “to want”/”to wish”. Latin Volere , English Will descent from it , as of course the greek variants βούλομαι (koine) , Thessalian βέλλομαι [TGD,354] , NW Greek δήλομαι/δείλομαι [TGD,61] and later common Greek θέλω all meaning “to want”/”to wish”.

As you can see , sinse the oritiginal PIE root is aspirated (*gwh) , technically speaking only the later θέλω is “standard” Greek phonologically , meanwhile all the other panhellenic and dialectal variants used widely and for long appear as aberrant «μακεδονιστί» (this is obvious comparing δήλομαι/δείλομαι to θέλω which have the relation of θῶραξ- δῶραξ , δανός-θάνατος , ξανδικός-ξανθός).

Sinse the *gwh was intact in Mycenaean Greek (Linear B “-qo-ta” for “-φόντας”) , all these phonologically aberrant terms were formed relatively lately (1150-850 BC) from a common mycenaean precursor that is obviusly Early Greek and already itself derived from proto-Greek. So there is no doubt about the “greekness” of the phonologically «μακεδονιστί» aberrant terms βούλομαι,βέλλομαι,δήλομαι,δείλομαι.

In the title of this paragraph I’ve also included the word “voice”. Close to the complex *gwh is the complex *ghw and the reconstructed cognates that initiate with it are presented in [PIE,476].

We have PIE *gwher “wild animal” which gave Latin ferus and from that English ferocious. In Greek it gave the paired variants θήρ and φήρ (the second mostly Aeolian) both meaning “wild beast”.

Beneath *ghwer we have *gwhonos “a sound , avoice”. That gives obviously the panhellenic and diachronical greek word for “voice” φωνή. Another possible root is PIE *bheh(a)meh(a) “saying” from *bheh(a)- “to speak”. The last ones gave the greek words φήμη (“fame”/”saying”) and φάσκειν (“to speak”).

What ever the derivation of φωνή is it’s time to face an old problem. The Lakonians used to say βώνημα for “speech”. This «β» for «φ» is also attested in other examples Lakonian (βάγαρον from φῶγω (“roast”) , βάλιος from φάλιος (“partially white”), βέρνα from φέρνη (“lot” from φέρω and PIE *bher-) and αἴδωσσα for αἴθουσα or Elean (βρά “brother” from PIE *bhrater , which gave “standard” Greek φρατρία = “brotherhood”.

All these examples led many scholars during the “Panillyristic warmths” of the first half (mostly) of the previous century to endorse the opinion of the Illyrian-partial Illyrian origin of the Dorians and the NW Greeks. By doing so they started to create an “imaginary” Illyrian language that was “suspiciously” similar to Greek , with only difference the phonology. Even till today practically nothing is known about Illyrian and the little that we know about it makes it look more distant to Greek that what was once thought.

In technical terms , there is nothing suspitious and non-Greek about the «μακεδονιστί» Lakonian βώνημα compared to φωνή . If the latter derives from PIE *ghwonos then βώνημα stands to φωνή exactly as βούλομαι-βέλλομαι ( *gwhel– “to wish”/”to want”) stands to φόνος ,φονέω , φόντης ( *gwhen– “to strike”). Αἴδωσσα and Αἴθουσα on the other hand , have the exact relation that θέλω and δήλομαι/δείλομαι have and the one that θυμός and νήδυμος (both widely used by the Aeolian and Ionian Eastern Greeks who wrote the Epics and who had certainly no geographical connection to the Illyrians as we’ll see below).

If again φωνή derives from PIE *bheh(a)meh(a) (like φήμη) then βώνημα is the exact analog of the clearly Greek terms hypsibremetas , bronte and Brontes (PIE *bhrem-) that we have already presented above. In this second case βώνημα is not the only aberrant «μακεδονιστί» in it’s semantic field. We shouldn’t forget the Epic (mostly) verb βάζω meaning “to speak” , “to say” («ἔπος βέβακται» “word that has been said” , Odyssey [XVIII.408]). It’s very close to φάσκω and the PIE root *bheh(a)- “to speak”.

Another term that is used in the Odyssey similar to the lakonian βώνημα is βωστρεῖν used in the Odyssey [XII.12] as “call loudly“.

What ever the precursor of φωνή and βώνημα is their phonologically aberrant cousins βάζω , Ὕψιβρεμέτης , βροντή , Βρόντης and βούλομαι-βέλλομαι were widely attested all over the Greek World and mostly they are attested in the Earliest Epics writen down by the late 8th century BC Asia minor aegean Ionian/Aeolian Greeks who almost certainly haven’t interacted with the Illyrians. Not that the Dorians have interacted with the Illyrians neither in my opinion , for the simple reason that archaeologically speaking the Illyrians have reached for the first time the Shkumbi river in Central Albania around 1000 BC (N.G.L. Hammond in Cambridge Ancient History III.1 , page 629 :”…Parthini who held the middle and upper valley of the Shkumbi. It is likely that all these tribes moved into these habitats in the late eleventh or early tenth century B.C.“) , meanwhile at that time the Dorians and the Aeolians were already in their historical positions (Peloponnese and Lesbos-adjucent coast respectively) for about a century , sinse it was the Phrygian Descent sometime between 1200-1150 BC that prompted the so-called “Great aegean Migration” !!!

5) Charybdis , the “water resorber”

In Odyssey [XII.104] we have :«Χάρυβδις ἀναῤῥυβδεῖ μέλαν ὕδωρ.»Charybdis resorbs the black water

The usual Greek verb for “to resorb” is ἀναρῥοφεῖν and we see for another time in the homeric Epic a «μακεδονιστί» «β» in the position of a “standard” Greek «φ» and an «αἰολιστί» «υ» in place of a standard greek «ο» (compare ἀγορά and ἄγυρις).

Most interestingly it permited me to etymologize (Α)Χάρυβδις as the “water resorber“. PIE *h(a)ekweh(a) (Latin aqua) appears to provide many hydronyms in the Greek mainland as «αχ» (Ἀχελῶιος , Ἀχερουσία , Ἀχέρων , Ἴναχος , Ἄχιρόη and probably related to Ἀχαιοί.

So again , Charybdis as Ἀχάρυβδις meaning “water resorber”. Both Charybdis and the homeric verb used anarrhubdein have a «μακεδονιστί» «β» instead of «φ» and there’s no doubt that this Aeolic forms (the «υ» for «ο» also) came to the Asian Aeolia from the mainland Aeolia in Thessaly during the Great migrations.

6) ” To hide ” , ” hidden ” and ” in secret ”

In [PIE,267] Mallory and Adams link the greek verb κρύπτω “to hide” with the PIE root *kr(e)ubh- meaning “gather,amass”. As you can see the PIE term is aspirated and the aspiration is hidden in κρύπτω (due to the contiguity of the following “t”) , but appears normally in the adjective κρυφός meaning “hidden”. Although in modern Greek the verb “to hide” is κρύβω , with a post-hellenistic spirant «β» [/v/] which can easily interchange with the spirant [/f/] we have an interesting «β» for «φ» in the Homeric Epics (Archaic Period , technically pre-Spirantization) that can be classed as aberrant «μακεδονιστί». Through all over the epics the adverbs κρυφηδόν and κρύβδην are being used interchangeably and with the exact meaning of “in secret”.

[Odyssey, XIV.330] «ἢ ἀμφαδὸν ἦε κρυφηδόν»“… publicly or in secret.”[Odyssey, XI.455] «κρύβδην, μηδ’ ἀναφανδά»“… in secret and not publicly …”

How can we explain the coexistence of “standard” and “aberrant” «μακεδονιστί» terms within the Epics ? One could say that both forms were available in the lexicon pool of the Asian Ionia and Aeolia. Another possibility -and that is what I personally believe- is that sinse it’s well accepted that the Epics were writen down in a hybrid language both spacialy (Ionian and Aeolian dialects) and temporarely (through all the 1000-700 BC period) it could be the case that «μακεδονιστί» κρύβδην was the Aeolian countepart of Ionian κρυφηδόν and only secondly the two terms have intermingled and were commonly used by both Aeolian and Ionian Rhapsodists.

Afterall , as M. Hatzopoulos has pointed out quite convincingly that the homeland of the Aeolian Migrants Thessaly is not devoid of «μακεδονιστί» terms itself : The lake Βοῖβη in th south borders of Magnesia and Pelasgiotis related to Apollo Φοῖβος ( [PIE,467] give the reconstructed terms *bheh2– “shine” , *bheh2tis and *bheh2es– both meaning “light” , «φῶς» ) , the name Δρεβέλαος attested only in Perrhaebia and never in Macedonia with it’s “standard” Greek Ionian counterpart Τρεφέλεως attested in the aegean Islands , the personal name Ἀμβίλογος instead of Ἀμφίλοχος attested in northwestern Thessaly , the Thessalian toponym Ὀττώλοβος instead of Ὀκτώλοφος (“eight hills”) showing the characteristic assimilating tendency of the Thessalians (for instance καββάλω and Ττολεμαῖος for καταβάλω and Πτολεμαῖος etc). Each of the terms that I’ve presented will be now examined separately because , each has more to offer.

7) Drebelaos , “Cattle” and “Drive”

The two basic reconstructed verbs for “drive” in PIE are *dhreibh– and *h(a)eg-[PIE,286,406] . As you can easily see the first gave the english verb “to drive” , meanwhile the second root gave the greek ἄγω. In [PIE,286,406] we also see the importance of “Cattle Raid” among the IE people. In most IE languages the terms “drive” and “cattle” often meet. This is the case with english “Drive” and “Drove” and of course of greek ἄγω ἀγέλη (“drove”, “cattle herd”). The metaphor of a “leader” as “cattle driver” is best seen in ancient Lakonia where the boys were grouped in teams called “agelai” (“cattle herds“) and it’s agele had it’s “Bouagos” (“Cattle Driver“) for leader.

It’s becoming obvious that the names Δρεβέλαος and Τρεφέλεως are exact etymological and semantic cognates of the very frequent greek name Ἀγέλαος and it’s NW Greek and Ionian variants Ἀγέλας and Ἀγέλεως respectively , meaning always “Leader of the people” in a common metaphora of the “The people ” as “Cattle Herd” (drive-drove , ἄγω-ἀγέλη).

After all that I will now consider the Perrhaebian personal name Δρεβέλαος and it’s Ionian counterpart Τρεφέλεως. Τρεφέλεως is the “standard” Greek expected for “people’s leader” from PIE *dhreibh- and from characeristic Ionian quantity transfer λαός>(ληός)>λέως for “people”. Why is trephe- characteristically greek ? Well it has devoiced the voiced aspirates /dh/ and /bh/ in /th/ and /ph/ and secondly it operated the so called “Grassman’s law” and deaspirated the first of the two near by aspirates : *dhrebelaos >> threphelaos >> Trephelaos > IONIAN > Τρεφέλεως.

What about Δρεβέλαος ? Not only it has turned «φ» «β» , but it also afftected the voiceless stop /t/ sinse it voiced it in /d/ (according to the usual phonemic interpretation). The last action is not unknown in Aeolic. In the epics the term μελεδήματα is used almost excusively instead of the “standard” μελετήματα [Odyss. , VI.650] and within a distance of few verses the terms μήδεα (“thoughts” , [VI.12]) and μητιόωσα (“thinking”, [VI.14]) coexist in full harmony.

I hope that the above shows that whatever the phonemic mystery is that lies beneath the altered «μακεδονιστί» orthography of greek terms this was not only happening in the Macedonian Dialect , but in the Aeolian also , and more importantly , in both sides of the Aeolian world (Helladic Aeolis in Thessaly and Asian Aeolis). Why is is this so important ? It is because the Asian Aeolians have never came into contact with the Illyrians and the Phrygians , but yet continued to use the terms , for which ancient Macedonian was being acused as “non-Greek” or as “having recieved a great deal of non-Greek phonological influence”.

None denies that ancient Macedonian due to it’s peripherical position wasn’t influenced from non Greek languages , but this influence is too small and as the Asian Aeolian similarities with Macedonian show , it’s not enough to explain the characteristic of the ancient macedonian dialect. If one really wants to move deeper in the understanding of the tongue of the ancient Macedonians he must search for intrinsic procedures within Risch’s Northern Greek Group. That is the linguistic group that disintegrated around 1200 BC and gave the dialects of the Epirotans (Epirotic and Upper Macedonian Epirotans) , Eteo-Macedonians (“Old Kingdom”) , NW Greeks and Dorians and finally Helladic and Asiatic Aeolians. Having this in mind one can understand why the «μακεδονιστί» phonology was far more frequent in the Macedonians than it was to the other “ex-Northenr Greeks”. During their migrations Dorians and Aeolians have “walked and settled” on ex-Mycenaean ground and so it’s almost certain that they found a considerable “south Greek” Substratum that “southernized” partially their Northern-Greek «μακεδονιστί» speech. The example of the historical Lakonian Ποhοιδᾶν which does not derive from the Northern Greek Ποτίδας , but from the south Greek Ποσειδῶν by elimination of the intervocalic “s” common to Lakonian is a perfect example (among others , as the double name of the Festivity Kàrneia and Yakinthia and the mystery of the double Royal House) of the important role that the “pre-Doric” substratum has played in the formation of the historical Doric Dialects.

8) Ambilogos , “the bed” and the verb “to lie”

Another «μακεδονιστί» name that has been found in an inscription of northwestern Thessaly is that of Ἀμβίλογος , instead of the standard greek Ἀμφίλοχος. It presents a double “macedonism” : «β» for «φ» and «γ» for «χ». The variant ambi for amphi has been also attested in Macedonia under the name Ambikatos.

Sinse the Ambilogos inscription in Thessaly (Aiginion , modern Kalampaka) is dated in the roman period , one can ask how can we be sure that Ambilogos was a Thessalian and not a Macedonian or worst a hellenized Roman ?

Interestingly , the second component of the common greek name Ἀμφίλοχος is linked with the verb ἔλλοχεύω (ἐν-λοχεύω)that is “set an ambush” (λόχος) and it’s PIE root has been reconstructed as *legh- “to lie” :

– [PIE,226] PIE *loghos “place to lie”, “ambush” gave greek λόχος.

– [PIE,224] PIE *leghes– “place for lying”,”bed” gave Greek λέχος and λέκτρον (again /t/ causes deaspiration like in κρύπτω κρυφός) … and from the word for “bed” we have also:

– [PIE,296] PIE *legh– gave the greek verb λέχομαι “I lie” and

– [PIE,209] PIE * sm-loghos (the m is refering to a sonorant /m/ that in greek becomes /am/>/a/) meaning “wife” = “sharing the same bed” , which gave the Greek word ἄλοχος (just like adelphos is “borther” = “sharing the same womb” , *sm-gwelbhus >> adelphos) and the Serb Church Slavonic sulogu meaning the same thing.

Now what do the Homeric Epics have to say about that ?

Odyssey [XII.116-117]ἄνδρας ὑπερφιάλους, οἵ τοι βίοτον κατέδουσι
μνώμενοι ἀντιθέην ἄλοχον καὶ ἕδνα διδόντες.
Odyssey [X.497]«κλαῖον δ’ ἐν λεχέεσσι καθήμενος»

Odyssey [VIII.292]

«δεῦρο, φίλη, λέκτρονδε, τραπείομεν εὐνηθέντε»

Odyssey [XV.393-4]

«οὐδέ τί σε χρή, πρὶν ὥρη, καταλέχθαι· ἀνίη καὶ πολὺς ὕπνος»

But when it comes to the participle “recumbent” “Homer” uses exclusively the aberrant «μακεδονιστί» term καταλέγμενος :

Odyssey [XI.62]«Κίρκης δ’ ἐν μεγάρῳ καταλέγμενος οὐκ ἐνόησα»Odyssey [XXII.195]«εὐνῇ ἔνι μαλακῇ καταλέγμενος, ὥς σε ἔοικεν·»

Now Homeric καταλέγμενος is definitelly an Aeolic variant of the “standard” καταλεχόμενος , presenting a «μακεδονιστί» «γ» for «χ» (I leave the interpretation of the phonemic values to the linguists) , which links it undoubtedly with the much later Ἀμβίλογος found in the Aeolian Thessaly.

And the aberrancy of this genre is not limited only to καταλέγμενος , but to a plethora of participles of the type «-χομενος» :

Odyssey [XIII.310]«πάσχειν ἄλγεα πολλά, βίας ὑποδέγμενος ἀνδρῶν»Odyssey [II.186]«σῷ οἴκῳ δῶρον ποτιδέγμενος, αἴ κε πόρῃσιν.»

Odyssey [XXII.380]

«πάντοσε παπταίνοντε, φόνον ποτιδεγμένω αἰεί.»

Odyssey [XX.385]

«ἀλλ’ ἀκέων πατέρα προσεδέρκετο, δέγμενος αἰεί,»

After all these aberrant «μακεδονιστί» Aeolisms , the mixed Aeolian-Ionian character of the epics is best seen in the following verse:

Odyssey [XX.367]«κακὸν ὔμμιν ἐρχόμενον»

Note that the Aeolian-Macedonian ὔμμιν is followed by the “standard” Greek (Ionian contribution) ἐρχόμενον.

The same “«γ» for «χ» before μ»” phenomenon is also seen in :

Odyssey [XVII.563]«οἶδα γὰρ εὖ περὶ κείνου, ὁμὴν δ’ ἀνεδέγμεθ’ ὀϊζύν.»

Even if we can explain the deaspiration of /kh/ in /k/ due to the operation of Grassman’s law , provoked by the following /th/ in anedekhometha , still we have to explain the morphological similarity of the voicing of /k/ in /g/, the accent change and the elimination of the “o” of this form with all the other forms mentioned above and below.

Odyssey [XIV.446]«ἦ ῥα, καὶ ἄργματα θῦσε θεοῖσ’ αἰειγενέτῃσι,»Odyssey [XXII.249]«καὶ δή οἱ Μέντωρ μὲν ἔβη κενὰ εὔγματα εἰπών,»

As you can see ἄργματα here means “the first portions of the meal” and it is definitelly an Aeolic variant of ἄρχήματα , related to ἀρχή (“start”-“beginning”) and ἀρχάριος (“beginner”).

The other term εὔγματα instead of εὐχήματα is extremely interesting because Mallory & Adams in [PIE,357] derive the greek eukhomai “to praise for”-“to vaunt” from PIE root *hieugwh– “praise”. So we have a Greek cognate deriving from a known PIE originally aspirated (gwh) term that already in the epics shows an aberrant «μακεδονιστί» orthography («γ» for «χ») , sinse I leave the “voiced stop” for “voiceless aspirate” to the linguists.

So far one can say that the aberrancy «γ» for «χ» in all these cases occures only immediatelly before a μ» and so the link of Ἀμβίλογος and καταλέγμενος may not be so obvious.

That things are not like that is best shown again from two other homeric «μακεδονιστί» aberrant terms.

Odyssey [II.341]«οἴκαδε νοστήσειε καὶ ἄλγεα πολλὰ μογήσας»Odyssey [IV.150]«μυθεόμην, ὅσα κεῖνος ὀϊζύσας ἐμόγησεν»

The standard forms of μογήσας and ἐμόγησεν are μοχθήσας and ἐμόχθησε respectively. There is no μ» immediatelly after and yet again the aberrant «μακεδονιστί» Aeolian versions seem to have the same relation that Γαῖα has with Χθῶνα , sinse a «μακεδονιστί» «γ» is appeared in the position of the complex «χθ».

Another «μακεδονιστί» Homeric term in seen in

Odyssey [XI.25] :«βόθρον ὄρυξ’ ὅσσον τε πυγούσιον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα,»

Here πυγούσιος is used instead of πήχης (“elbow”/”forearm”/ ell“/”cubit”). We are lucky that there is a PIE reconstructed term *bhaghus [PIE,180] that shows the PIE term aspirated (/gh/) , which gave in Greek the “standard” term πήχυς and the aberrant «μακεδονιστί» πυγούσιος presented i nthe homeric epic. There can’t be any doubt that this «μακεδονιστί» term was added in the epics by an Aeolian Rhapsodist , for whom the term represented the “linguistic baggage” that his ancestors brought with them from Thessaly to the Asian Aeolis.

At this point I’d like to present another couple of panhellenic and homeric words that have the relation “standard Greek”- “aberrant «μακεδονιστί»”. It’s the couple Φαίδων/Φαίδιμος-Φαέθων. Both Φαίδων and Φαέθων mean “bright”/”full of light” and φαίδιμος is used in the epics with the meaning of “illustrious”.

Odyssey [XII.16]«οὐδέ ποτ’ αὐτοὺς Ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν»Odyssey [X.251]«ᾔομεν, ὡς ἐκέλευες, ἀνὰ δρυμά, φαίδιμ’ Ὀδυσσεῦ·»

This couple of panhellenic words is interesting because the aberrant «μακεδονιστί» Φαίδων when compared to Φαέθων shows :

1) «μακεδονιστί» δ» for «θ» as in Ξανδικός-Ξανθός
2) «ι» for «ε» as the Macedonian from Strattis’ comedy and his term «κικλήσκετε» and the famous «κικλήσκουσι» [Odyss. IX.365] with which Odysseus tells to Polyphemus that “ parentsand companions call him Nobody” compared to “standard” Greek «κεκλήσκειν».

9) “Ottolobos and the image of the Hubris”

Turning back to the Thessalian toponym Ὀττώλοβος instead of the “standard” greek Ὀκτώλοφος , we are again in front of a «μακεδονιστί» «β» replacing «φ» in the word λόφος meaning “hill” and it’s cognate λοφίον meaning “crest”. Apparently the Greek roots lophos and lophion relate to the english term slope (as in mountain slope) and indeed Mallory and Adams in [PIE,511] present a PIE term *sleubh“slide” , from which all three terms derive canonically. The greek «φ» is explained by the aspirated *bh at the end of the root and for that Ottolobos is a typical «μακεδονιστί» aberration.

A very similar term with the aberrant λόβος is found again in the Homeric Epics. It is the word λώβις and it is used with the meaning of “outrage”/”hubris” as in

Odyssey [XX.169]« αἲ γὰρ δή, Εὔμαιε, θεοὶ τεισαίατο λώβην

Now please note that the more famous word for “outrage” hybris is it self very similar morphologically to the terms “super” and “hyper” denoting “elevation”. Long before the proto-Greeks settle to Greece it was a common belief through out the entire ancient world that “the gods were dwelling in the mountain tops” (the pre-Greek mountain names Parnassos , Parnitha , Parnon and the Macedonian Barnous testify for that due to their relation to the Luwian word for “House” parna) . And so the hybris , that is “the overstepping of the norm” (“hyperbasis tou metrou“) , that aimed to “reduce the distance between Gods and Mortals” (and for that punished by the former) was archetypically imagined with the act of “climbing the mountain that the gods inhabit“. The most illustrious example is that of Bellerophon who after gaining fame for having killed the Chimera , committed a hybris when he tried to reach the top of mount Olympus and for that was punished by Zeus.

So the morphological and archetypical relation of Hybris with Hyper and that of it’s synonym λώβις with the terms λόφος and λοφίον can’t be accidental.

That is why I think that homeric λώβις is another «μακεδονιστί» aberrancy related to “standard” λόφος , in the same way that Ὀττώλοβος is related to Ὀκτώλοφος.

Further comfirmation for this opinion of mine comes from the term for “leprosy” , that is the dicease that causes “crested deformations” on the skin. The “standard” Greek term λέπρα obviously derives from PIE *lep- “strip”/”peel” [PIE,496] , but the second greek name of the decease λώβα , in my opinion is related on it’s characteristical “Crested Deformations” (λοφίον). It is interesting that leprocy was unknown to the ancient greeks , until Alexander’s Macedonians first encountered it in India. So the term λώβα can be a contribution of the Macedonian dialect to the koine Greek in statu nascendi .

Summarizing , there is a great probability that the Thessalian toponym Ὀττώλοβος , the homeric synonym of hybris λώβις and the alternative greek name for leprocy λώβα are aberrant «μακεδονιστί» forms of the “standard” Greek λόφος and λοφίον (with common IE origin with the english “slope” from *sleubh-)used by the northern Greek group , sinse they appear in Macedonian as they do in Helladic and Asian Aeolic.

10) More «μακεδονιστί» terms

Here I’ll provide a list of various aberrant Greek words that present a «μακεδονιστί» orthography.

i) The greek word for “head” κεφαλή derives from the PIE *ghebhol– and we know that the Macedonians used to say κεβαλή/κέβλη with an aberrant «β» replacing «φ». Did this aberrancy occured only in Macedonia ?

From Aristophanes’ “Birds” we have the term κεβλήπυρις , meanwhile Euphorion named Athena with the epithet of κεβλήγονος (“being born from the head of Zeus”).

ii) C.D. Buck mentions [TGD,60] that the dorians of the Peloponnesian argos used to write γεγράβανται for γεγράφαται and Mallory & Adams present a PIE root *(s)grebh– “scratch”,”cut” [PIE,377] as the ancestor of the greek γράφειν.

iii) Cretan month name Ὑπερβέρετος for “January” shows the same aberrancy with the Macedonian month name for September Ὑπερβερεταῖος (“hyper-provider” , from PIE *bher– “to bring”). The striking similarity of the two names must be due to the common Northern Greek ancestry between the Macedonians and the Cretan Dorians (Herodotus [I.56]).

iv) Mallory and Adams in [PIE,271] mention : “The PIE root *lambh– is generally found to underlie words for “goods,possessions” but still retains a veral meaning “seize” in Indic (Sanskrit là(m)bhate “he seizes”/”he takes”) and Greek λαμβάνω “seize”/”take” “.

So the fact that the Sanskrit cognate is aspirated (bh) reassures the original aspiration of the PIE term. This means that the panhellenic Greek words λαμβάνω and λαβή (“handgrip”) should be considered «μακεδονιστί» aberrant terms of their other panhellenic Greek cognate λάφυρον (“booty”/”loot”) which presents a “standard orthography” (*bh>φ).

11) Coroebus , the first known Olympic victor

According to the Greek tradition Κόροιβος of Elis was the first known Olympic victor in 776 BC , meanwhile another much elder Κόροιβος (11th ce. BC ?) was considered to be the founder of the Megarian hamlet Tripodiscus.

When I first tried to etymologize the name Koroibos I came up with the “mounter of virgins” («κόρες οἰφών» , οἰφεῖν = “to mount sexually” from PIE root *yebhe- “enter”/”penetrate”). Although promissing for a phallocratic society who’s chief deity Zeus was beeing glorified for “mounting Virgins” and very close morphologically and semantically to the Κορυβάντες (the orgiastic followers of Kybele) I choose to leave this hypothesis for another one. I now think that the name Κόροιβος is related to Greek κορυφή (“summit”,”mountain top”). The kor- is related to homeric κόρυς meaning “conical helmet” and the Homeric κάρηνα = “mountain tops” like in

[Odyssey I.102]«βῆ δὲ κατ’ Οὐλύμποιο καρήνων ἀΐξασα,»

The relation between κορυφή , κόρυς , κάρα κάρηνα is easily explained by the fact that “a” and “o” are situated near the liquid “r” , like στρατός but Aeolian στρότος ( army“) and ἄρχων (“Leader”) but homeric ὄρχαμος. The -υφή of κορυφή on the other hand must be related to latin terms Obex meaning “boundary” and Apex meaning “summit”.


What ever the etymology of Κόροιβος is , in both cases the «β» is a «μακεδονιστί» aberrancy of a “sandard Greek” «φ». As you can see in the name list , the funny thing is that the “standard” form of the name Κόρυφος has been attested only once and in Macedonia , meanwhile the “aberrant” form Κόροιβος was particularly frequent in the “standard Greek speaking” Attica. Afterall the Olympic victor Κόροιβος haδ come first and for that judged as «Κορυφαῖος » (“top-ranking”).

12) “Dynamis” and “town”

The panhellenic word δύναμις meaning “power”- “ability”-“possibility” and it’s verb δύνασθαι meaning “be able to”-“have the power to” is in my opinion another aberrant «μακεδονιστί» term that is in use among greek speakers sinse time immemorial. I see it as a compound δύν-αμις : Its “dun-” is related to PIE *dhunos meaning “fortress”/”stronghold” [PIE,223] which gane the Celtic Dun placenames and the Proto-Germanic *tuna which evolved to English “town“. The “-amis” could be related to greek ἄμυνα defence” and it’s verb ἀμύνεσθαι “to defend”. From the meaning “defendable stronghold” = “place where one is able to defend himself” the meaning has shifted to “general ability to do things“.

13) “Palm” , “Tree” , and “Palm-Tree”

The tree “Palm-tree” obviously got it’s name when some Latin speaker noted it’s similarity (branches stemming from a common trunk like the fingers branching from the palm) with the palm of the hand. Could a metaphora of the genre lie behind the greek word for “tree” δένδρον ? Mallory & Adams [PIE,182] present the PIE root *dhenr– with the meaning of “palm” which gave the Old High German tenar meaning “palm” and the Greek cognate θέναρ meaning “palm”/”sole of the foot”. Starting from *dhenr we could have the root *denron , which was affected by the same epenthetic mechanism that added a “d” in ἀνήρ-ἄνδρός > ἄνδρας , thus giving the final form for “tree” δένδρον.

At this point I’like to repeat that if the «μακεδονιστί» panhellenic links in *dhunos-δύναμις and *dhenr-δένδρον don’t seem very convincing because of the *dh δ «μακεδονιστί» transition , we shouldn’t forget the already mentioned and solid relation of the “motion related” δ-terms Δύμας , Δυμάνες , Νήδυμος and Ἄδυμος with the PIE root *dhuh2mos = “be in motion”.

13) Vittore Pisani’s Old mistake

In reading the 2007 bookA Grammar of Modern Indo-European” by Carlos Quiles & Kárlos Kūriákī I happened to notice that in page 81 , talking about the ancient macedonian language , there was mentioned an old suggestion by Vittore Pisani that μάγειρος (“butcher”) was a Doric loan to Attic (which possessed the “standard” Greek form μάχαιρα = “knife”) with ultimate origin the ancient macedonian language , from a hypothetical PIE root *magh– “to fight”.

First of all I’d like to clarify that there is no PIE root *magh- “to fight”. The PIE root *magh– ment simply “be able” [PIE,205,369] which is seen in the various IE cognates : New English may , Old Church Slavonic mogo-“am able” and the most known Avestan moγu and Sanskrit maga both meaning “magician” (“spirritually able). So as you can see none of the other IE cognates refers to “fight”. The semantic shift to “battle” & “knife” was definitelly intra-greek. Not only that , but the old meaning of “be able” has also survived in Greek : μηχανή / μαχάνα (“machine” = “expedient able to perform”) , πολυμήχανος (” ingenious” = “spiritually able” , a frequent homeric appellative of the foxy Odysseus) and finally homeric Μαχάων one of the two Achaean “Physisians” who possessed the “art of healing” ,an ability very close to that of the magician rather to a “fighter”). This means that the doric μάγειρας (“butcher” = “user of the μάχαιρα“) semantically speaking is definitelly greek , sinse the shift from *magh- “be able” to *magh- “to fight” was definitelyl intra-greek. The reason that gave the greek terms μάχη-“battle” and μαχητής-“fighter” from PIE *magh-“be able” was the greek concept that only the physically able could participate in the battle , where they could express their ability and acquire gloryμάχη κυδιάνειρα» , “battle that gives glory to men” as the Epics describe it , that is an expedient –μηχανή– to acquire κλέος ἄφθιτον).

Having said so and after presenting so many «χ» turning into «μακεδονιστί» «γ» (for instance Γαῖα/Γόνα-Χθῶν , μογήσας-μοχθήσας etc) in various greek dialects , I believe we can be pretty sure that the Doric μάγειρας is not a loan from Macedonian , but along with the occasional Macedonian and Perrhaebian -μάγα female name variants of -μάχα (Attic -μάχη) ,the Thessalian Ἀμβίλογος and the homeric (Asian Aeolic) μογήσας , καταλέγμενος and εὔγματα and all the other panhellenic and dialectal greek «μακεδονιστί» cognates are a common Northern Greek heritage.

14) Tymbos , Tymphe and “be solid”

Mallory & Adams [PIE,296] present the PIE root *(s)tembh- “make stand”/”prop up”/”be solid”. The Sanskrit cognate stambhate guarantees the PIE *bh , which enables us to classify as aberrant «μακεδονιστί» all the Greek cognates with a «β» instead of a «φ».
Ἀστεμφής (“impertubable”,”firm” [PIE,296]) , the mountain names Τυμφρηστός ( Aitolia-Dolopia , modern Βελούχι) and Τύμφη (near modern Metsovo in Epeirus and form where probably came the Molossian Tymphaioi to Upper Macedonian Tymphaia) and probably the elevated lakeland Στυμφαλίς in the Peloponnesus are “standard” «φ» terms , meanwhile the panhellenic term for “tumulus”/”burial mountΤύμβος (already used in the homeric epics , for instance [Odyssey I.239 ,4.584, XII.14, XXIV.80 / Iliad II.604,793]) , the adjective στιβαρός “solid”/”robust”/”firm” and the noun στιβάς (“solid membrane” , for instance Odyssey [V.467]) are aberrant «μακεδονιστί» «β» forms.

In a closer look one could say that στιβαρός is the exact Northern Greek cognate of South Greek Ἀστεμφής sinse :

i) It has an «ι» instead of «ε» like «Φαίδων» and «κικλήσκετε» compared to «Φαέθων» «κεκλήσκετε».
ii) It has a «μακεδονιστί» «β» instead of «φ»
iii) It has a “northwestern Greek” «α» in the place of «ε» , like NW Greek Ἱαρός compared to Ἱερός.

15) “Pots , Boxes and Cavities”

Mallory & Adams presents a PIE root that has been very productive in Greek. It’s *(s)kumbh– and with the meaning of “concavity”/”curve”/”bend” [PIE,239]. We also have an already specialized cognate *kumbho-“bowl” , which gave Sanskrit “kumbha” (“pot”) , the bh of which guarantess the original aspirated form which enables to classify as aberrant «μακεδονιστί» the greek cognates κύμβη (“bowl”) and the concave musical instrument κύμβαλον. Another aberrant term that is related to this root is κύβος (“cube” , originally with the meaning of “box” = “concave contenitor”) , meanwhile “standard greek” roots are κυφός (“humpbacked” from “bend”) , κύπτω (“to bend” with deaspiration due to the following /t/) and κυψέλη (“concavity”/”concave contenitor” , again deaspirated due to the /s/ , like θρίξ (/thriks/) , but τριχός (/trikhos/) ).

16) “Bottom , Depth and the Abyss”

In [PIE,225] and in the the other work of Mallory & Adams “Encyclopedia of the Indo-European culture” (Routledge,1997) they present the PIE root *bhudhno-“bottom” and its cognates in Latin fundus and among others Sanskrit budhnà (again it functions as guarantor for the original *dh) , both meaning “bottom”. In Greek we have two very similar terms with the same meaning “bottom” : the “standard” Greek πυθμήν and it’s aberrant «μακεδονιστί» counterpart πύνδαξ ( δ» for «θ»). Mallory & Adams always in [PIE,225] mention:

“In the south-East of the IE world derivatives of this word are used to name the archetypical monster , the Greek monster Python ans Sanskrit ahir bhudhnyas (“snake of the deep“)”.

Here I would like to add a number of other Greek cognates that I believe derive from the same root *bhudhno , because of their morphological and semantical similarity with it :

βάθος or βάνθος / βένθος as it appears in the Epics , βυθός (all “depth”/”bottom of the Sea”) , ἄβυσσος (abyss “bottomless”) , βυσσοδομέυω (“machinate” = “acting secretely below surface”) and possibly βήσσα (“valley” as “bottom of a region surrounded by mountains”).

Although there’s no «μακεδονιστί» aberrancy it is interesting to see that in all the terms the deaspirated by the operation of Grassman’s law /b/ of *bhudhna has remained a voiced stop and it wasn’t devoiced into /p/.

Secondly , it is interesting to see the complex «νθ» transforming in to «σσ» (*bhudhno->bundho->buntho->busso). It is a phenomenon that we will use below.

17) Blond , Bright and Clean

In this topic I will analyze the frequantly mentioned couple : Greek Ξανθός (“yellow”,”blond”) and the Macedonian and Perrhaebian month name Ξανδικός (March). In many linguistic texts I’ve seen that the etymology of xanthos remains unknown. I really can’t understand why. Mallory and Adams [PIE,329] give a PIE root *(s)cand-“shine” that gave Latin candeo “glitter”/”shine” (hence English “candle“) , Sanskrit càndati-“shines,is bright” , note the important lack of aspiration in this term which acts as a guarantor that the original PIE root had a deaspirated /d/) and the dialectal Greek word κάνδαρος meaning “glowing coal“. Both Greek kàndaros and Sanskrit càndati have a voiced stop /d/.

So I will now explain why I think that the Greek words ξανθός , ξανδικός , καθαρός and κάνδαρος derive fro mthe same root *(s)kand- and that in reality the “abnormal” term is not the Macedonian-Perrhaebian monthname Xandikos , but the common greek xanthos itself !

Starting form *(s)kand- we have two possibilities :

1) Preserve the initial “s” and then transpose the complex “sk” into “ks”= «ξ» , bringing the velar in the front , which is the usual rule in Greek :

*dhghom > χθῶν , χθαμαλός
*dhdhghuh- > ἰχθύς
*dhghyes > ἐχθές

All those in [PIE,472] and in [PIE,516] :

*tken-“strike” > κτόνος-“killer”/κτείνω-“to kill”

So without any difficulty we produced totally normally the term ξανδός , which must not be seen as “yellow” (secondary development) , but as “fair haired” (*scand-“shine”/”glow”).

The panhellenic term ξανθός was produced by analogy , from the many -νθος endings in the greek vocabulary *we-ve seen above βένθος and we know the pre-Greek toponyms Korinthos , Zakynthos etc.).

2) The second destiny of PIE *skand- is to eliminate the “s” like in “candle” which gave the greek word κάνδαρος-“glowing coal”. Again by analogy we have the appearance of a non necessary «θ» in καθαρός (“clean”-“pure” , with an intermediate form κανθαρός). The morphological link between kàndaros and kantharòs is not disputed , meanwhile their semantic similarity lies on the “purifying ability of the glowing fire” or to the overlap of the terms “bright” and “clear” (“bright sky” = “clear sky”).

As you can see at this point there’s nothing “non-Greek” that raises “suspicions” in the Macedonian and Perrhaebian Xandikos : It simply hasn’t participated in the optional intra-greek mechanisms of analogy that produced the panhellenic xanthos. The exact relation is seen between kàndaros and katharòs.

A further comfiramtion of my approach derives from the meaning that lies behind the month Xandikos : during that month a festival of purification of the army occured called Xandika. The Macedonian army passed between the two parts of a dog which has been cut in twain. The same ritual was practised in Boiotia during the “ publicPurification” ( «δημοσίᾳ καθαρμός» , Plutarch [Mor. 290D]).

Not only we managed to derive καθαρμός and Χανδικός from the same linguistic precursor (PIE *(s)kand-) , but we’ve also maanged to see the two terms overlap in rituals of purification.

As a final note in this topic I’d like to recall the example *bhudhnoπυθμήνπύνδαξ and ἄβυσσος.

Starting from κανθαρός with it-s original meaning of “bright”/”glowing” we get the personal name Κάσσανδρος “Illustrious man” (κανθ->κανσ->κασσ) in the same manner that we get ἄβυσσος from βένθος.

In the same time the adjective and personal name Κάδμος (again “Illustrious”) and it’s verb κέκαδμαι-κέκασμαι “be illustrious”/”excell among others”) have the same meaning with the original root of κανθαρός and seem to have as a pair similar “commutatory transponition” with that of πυθμήν-πύνδαξ.

18) “Be Scared” , “turn behind” and “twister”

In [PIE,339] we have a term *tergw-“scare-threaten” with cognates in Latin torvus (“piercing wild of [of the eyes]”) , Sanskrit tàrjati (“threatens , scolds”) and greek ταρβέω (“scare”) , hence Homeric ἀταρβής (“fearless”). For a number of reasons that you’ll soon see I believe that the PIE root should be reconstructed as *stergw– with the primary meaning of “turn” , that secondarily gave cognates related to “scare”/”be scared”. The semantic connection is abvious : Someone who induces fear makes other people to turn behind (Latin tergo-“behind”). Imposing the primary meaning of *stergw– as “turn” we immediately get a plethora of cognates. “Turn” with it’s meanings of “turn”-“bend”-“rotate”-“twist” gives what I call a Latin sequence and a Greek one very similar.

The Latin sequence is :

tergo (“behind” , “turn”) , torvus (“scare”,”turn behind”) , turbare (“twist” ,”bend”) and turbolentia (“twister” , “twist”).

The Greek sequence is ἐπιστρέφω (“turn behind”) , ταρβέω (“scare”) , στρέφω , στρεβλώνω , στραβώνω , στρίβω (all verbs meaning “turn”-“bend”-“twist”) , the noun στροφή (the “turn”) and finally as in latin a “twister” cognate in στρόβιλος.

So again , we are in a situation of related panhellenic cognates that interchange «φ» and «β» : στροφή-στρόβιλος and στρέφω-στρεβλώνω. Just like ξανθός from *scand– has a linguistically unjustified «θ» the same can be said here , sinse the original root *stergw– justifies the «β». Again optional mechanisms of analogy have turned the linguistically justified «β» into an unjustified «φ». Furthermore , the verb sequence στρέφω , στρεβλώνω , στρίβω , στραβώνω shows something more :

Near the liquid “r” we have the vowels /e/, /a/ and /i/ like in ἱερός , ἱαρός , Ῐρος and it’s interesting that the “doricoid” στραβώνωἱαρός») and the “thessalo-macedonian” στρίβω («κικλήσκω») present the “justified” «β» , meanwhile the “south Greek” “e”-form στρέφω has the unjustified «φ» , but also has kept the «β» in στρεβλώνω. So in this case I believe that we are in front of an important archaism found in the northern greek dialects , sinse they appear to have kept the linguistically justified «β» , instead of changing it by analogy due to the very frequent verb ending «-φω». What do personal names say about that ?

At this point I would like to repeat that if my linguistic analysis is right then the apparent aberrancy of the «β» and δ» forms in the pairs ξανθός-ξανδός , στροφή-στρόβιλος and στρέφω-στρεβλώνω does not start from PIE voiced aspirates [*dh,*bh] , but from [*d] and [*gw] and only by purely optional analogical mechanisms produced voiceless aspirates in greek. So , we are in a situation that the “apparent aberrant” forms on a linguistic base appear to be justified , when their “apparent standard” forms appear to by “optional” and “unjustified”.

If this is the case then I wouldn’t be surprized if the other often mentioned pair δῶραξ-θῶραξ has a similar story. If thorax (“chest”) was viewed as “wooden cage“/”timberwork” (δούρειος Ἵππος = “wooden horse” and Δωριείς = “the woodmen of Pindus” , both from PIE *doru-“wood”) , then for another time starting from a PIE *d we have the linguistically justified «μακεδονιστί» δῶραξ and the linguistically unjustified θῶραξ that was produced by optional analogy in exactly the same way that the name Θεμιστοκλῆς occasionally appears in Attica as Θεμισθοκλῆς bearing an unjustified «θ» :

These examples of secondary aspiration within greek are indicative of an eminent danger in linguistics. The reconstruction of the PIE terms uses as principal indicators of original aspiration the Greek and Sanskrit cognates (and some times the Latin spirants). When all the indicators agree then the original root is without doubt aspirated [*bh,*dh,*gh] . When on the other hand we have only the greek cognate and the cognate of the large amount of IE languages that have turned the PIE voiced aspirates [*bh,*dh,*gh] in voiced stops [b,d,g] then we are assuming that the PIE term was aspirated and that greek has preserved it (creating thus the vicious circle that will classify as aberrants many «μακεδονιστί» terms) , instead of considering the possibility of an original voiced stop PIE term that was inherited in Proto-Greek as such and only secondarily was aspirated in some dialects , meanwhile in others it was left intact. We’ve seen the root *stergw– (and the labiovelar was intact at least until 1200 BC) giving both στρέφω-στροφή and στρεβλώνω-στρόβιλος , PIE *scand– providing ξανδός and ξανθός and , I repeat , the possibility of an ultimate origin of θώραξ-δῶραξ from *doru.


I have presented countless examples of «μακεδονιστί» terms of both panhellenic and dialectal use. The dialectal elements are basically concentrated in the Northern Greek Group acting as an indicator of common origin between the Macedonians , the Aeolians , the Dorians and the other Northwestern Greeks instead of isolating the Macedonians from all the other greek dialects as it has been advocated for years. Furthermore, the fact that these terms are frequent in the Homeric epics due to their Aeolian component besides the Ionian one indicates that these “phonologically aberrant” features (as we have called them for many years) are intrinsic developents of the Northern Greek Group and not non-greek influences , sinse the Asian Aeolians and the Dorians have never really any contact with the Illyrians and had a historically instantaneous contact with the Phrygians who prompted their macrochronic and long-distance migrations.

This means that Macedonians and the migrating northern Greeks (Dorians and Aeolians) have started from exactly the same grade of phonological aberrancy , but the former preserved and partially increased it due to the contact with the Phrygians (Brixhe’s model of phonological osmosis) , meanwhile the latter decreased it due to the influence of the “Mycenaean” South Greek substrata that they have encountered in their historical locations.

20) A further comfirmation of Northern Greek Linguistic Unity

In this last topic I’d like to speak about an important isogloss that I see connecting Dorians , Macedonians and Thessalian Aeolians. That is to preserve remnants of labiovelars (kw,gw) turning into “k” instead of the usual “p” and “t”.

I will start from a note from the bookThe Horse , the Wheel and Language” by David Anthony (Princeton University Press , 2008). In page 472 , note 11 he is refering to an article of the linguist Theodora Bynon (Bynon 1977:72) according to which :

“Mycenaean was in transitional state in 1350 BC when it was recorded. Some Indo-European words with /kw/ has already shifted to /k/ in mycenaean. The alternation between *kw and *p probably was already present in some dialects of Proto-Indo-European”.

This is important because it permites us to link some eccentric /k/ found in the Macedonian , Dorian and Thessalian dialects with the fact that around 1350 BC all these were living together around Pindus and the Thessalo-Macedonian borders (Herodotus I.56 : Dorians-Makednoi /Histiaiotis-Pindos , Hesiod “Catalogue of women” , fragment 7 : Macedonians and Magnetes/Pieria-around Olympus) and so present them as an isogloss.

1) The mycenaean Greek word for “horse” hikwus [“i-qo”] has normally turned the labiovelar /kw/ in the /pp/ of hippos. In Macedonia and in the Dorian cities of Epidaurus and Taras the variant hikkos has been found in the personal names : Ἱκκότας , Ἱκκότιμος and Ἴκκος :

2) The Thessalians (of Pelasgiotis mostly) used the interrogative pronoun Κὶς instead of Τὶς both deriving from PIE *Kwis.

3) The macedonian homeland Pieria , a region known to Homer and Hesiod and it means “prosperous/rich land” as it is related to the terms Pieira = “fat”/”rich”/”fertile”(Iliad.XVIII.541 , Odyssey.II.328) , Piar = “topmilk”/”fat of the milk” and the homeric adjective piôn = “fat”. Mallory & Adams present an PIE root *pihwr-“fat(ness)” [PIE,260,261] , which seems to present cognates in other languages , one of which is the name of Ireland , and recording Bynon’s obseration that many PIE dialects were interchanging /p/ with /kw/ I have to say that I find attractive the idea of an ultimate origin of the “p” terms realted to “prosperous”-“rich”-“fertile”-“fat” i nthe PIE root *kwei-“built” , which probably gave the greek verb ποιῶ meaning “to produce”-“to make” (hence poet). The semantic link between “produce” and “fertile”-“prosperous” is far than obvious.

If this is the case then the toponym Kierion in Thessaliotis (south Thessaly) and it’s river Kouarios (which has an “ou” denoting the earlier labiovelar /kw/) must be seen as the “k-analogs” of Pieria-Piar.

4) Finally , the Macedonians preserve an other “k-form”. In trying to find the common PIE origin of the various words for “war” : English war , Latin bellum , Italian-spanish-Portuguese Guerra and Greek polemos-ptolemos I came up with the root *gwel-“strike”/”stab”/”pierce” and it’s related cognate *gweru-“spear” [PIE,245]. English “War” is related to *gweru as “womb” is related to *gwelbhus (Greek delphus , belphus and possibly Doric-Macedonian belbus from the toponyms Belbina , Belbinitis in South Greece and Belbendos in Macedonia. Belbendos as “mother-land” is of extreme interest because somewhere near it is located Lebaia the legendary settlement from where the Macedonians have startd to expand) , meanwhile Latin Bellum is related to to *gwel– as bos relates to *gwous , meanwhile the modern Italian Guerra (probably a foreign loan) preserves the labiovelar intact. Greek ptolemos is interesting. From *gwel- we must devoice the labiovelar in *kwel which generates the root ptol- exactly as pemptos derives from *penkwe and aphthonos from from *gwhonos. If this is the case then in the Macedonian variant Ktolemmas instead of the usual Ptolemmas and Ptolemaios must be seen as another /kw/->/k/ expression.

Related posts:

eismakedon says:

Πολύ καλή εργασία! Συνέχισε!

Nick Nikolas says:



Ἰστέον ὅτι διαφέρει τὸ βαρβαρίζειν τοῦ σολοικί-
ζειν• καθὸ τὸ μὲν βαρβαρίζειν τὸ περὶ μίαν λέξιν
ἐστὶν ἁμαρτάνειν• κατὰ τόνον μὲν, ὡς ὅταν τὸ ἄν-
θρωπος ὀξυτόνως εἴπωμεν ἀνθρωπός• κατὰ γραφὴν, ὡς
ὅταν τὸ Νεῖλος διὰ τοῦ ι γράψω• κατὰ κλίσιν, ὡς
ὅταν τὸ Αἴας Αἴου κλίνω• κατὰ χρόνον, ὡς ὅταν τοῦ
Αἴας τὸ α συστέλλω• κατὰ πνεῦμα, ὡς ὅταν τὴν
ὑπὸ πρόθεσιν ψιλῶ. Σολοικίζειν δέ ἐστι, τὸ περὶ
τὴν σύνταξιν καὶ τὴν φράσιν ἁμαρτάνειν, τουτέστιν,
(722.) ἑκάστης λέξεως καθ’ ἑαυτὴν κειμένης καλῶς ἐχούσης,
ἐν δὲ τῇ συντάξει καὶ τῇ φράσει ἀτάκτως καὶ ἀνα-
κολούθως παραλαμβανομένης, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ, ἐγὼ περι-
πατῶν ὁ τοῖχος ἔπεσεν. Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἑκάστη
λέξις καθ’ ἑαυτὴν οὖσα καλῶς ἔχει, ἐν δὲ τῇ συν-
τάξει ἀτάκτως καὶ ἀνακολούθως παραλαμβάνεται.
Ὅθεν καὶ σολοικισμὸς λέγεται, οἷον ὁ τοῦ σῴου λόγου
αἰκισμὸς, ἤγουν ὕβρις τοῦ ὁλοκλήρου λόγου.





ΠΛΑΤΩΝ…. Στοιχεῖον τὸ συνάγον καὶ διαλύον τὰ σύνθετα


Μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἐπὶ Δευκαλίωνος κατακλυσμὸν οὐδεὶς τῶν περιλειφθέντων
Ἑλλήνων ἐφύλαξεν αὐτῶν τὴν μνήμην, πλὴν τῶν Πελασγῶν τῶν ἀφ’ Ἑλλάδος
εἰς βαρβάρους πλανηθέντων, οὓς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς δίους καλεῖ,
φάσκων καὶ Λέλεγες καὶ Καύκωνες δῖοί τε Πελασγοί•
παρ’ ὧν μαθόντες πρῶτοι Φοίνικες εἰς Ἕλληνας ἤγαγον, γείτονές τε
βαρβάρων ὄντες καὶ συνεχεῖς ἐμπορίας ποιούμενοι• ὅθεν καὶ Φοινίκεια
κτητικῶς ὀνομάζονται. Οἱ δὲ φοινίκεια λέγουσιν αὐτά, οἱονεὶ φωνίκεια,
ἐπειδὴ φωνῆς ἐγγραμμάτου δυνάμει εἰκόνες εἰσί, μεταβολῆς γεγονυίας
τοῦ ω εἰς τὴν οι δίφθογγον κατὰ τὴν τῶν Βοιωτῶν διάλεκτον, ὥσπερ
ἀγκώνη ἀγκοίνη



Ὄνομα μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ φωνὴ σημαντικὴ κατὰ συνθήκην
ἄνευ χρόνου, ἧς μηδὲν μέρος ἐστὶ σημαντικὸν κεχωρισμένον.




Dimokritos says:

Bravo Andrea, eisai kataplhktikos !!

Thank you very much for this excellent work !!
🙂 🙂