Tsakonian Digital VaultTsakonian is divided into three main subdialects: Southern, Northern, and Propontis Tsakonian. This page compares the key linguistic differences between them. For individual descriptions, see 4.1 Southern Tsakonian, 4.2 Northern Tsakonian, and 4.3 Propontis Tsakonian. For the historical and social background, see 1.2 History and Status.
Subdialect Overview
| Subdialect | Area | Status | Key Traits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Southern (Peloponnesian) | Southeastern Peloponnese coast | Active (endangered) | Best documented; basis of most grammars |
| Northern (Peloponnesian) | Mountain villages of Arcadia | Active (endangered); higher SMG influence | Greater population mobility; primary schools accelerated contact with SMG |
| Propontis | Sea of Marmara (Vatika, Havutsi) | Extinct since ~1922 | More conservative than Peloponnesian; influenced by Thracian Greek |
After the 1922 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Propontis Tsakonian speakers were scattered throughout Greece and shifted to Standard Modern Greek (Liosis, 2017).
Syntactic Differences
Clitic Pronoun Placement
Clitics are unstressed pronouns that cannot stand alone and must lean on a verb. Whether they come before (proclitic) or after (enclitic) the verb is one of the most striking differences between subdialects, and is treated in detail in 5.9 Particles and Clitics and 5.8 Syntax. One of the most theoretically interesting differences between subdialects is the placement of clitic pronouns (Liosis, 2017):
| Subdialect | Rule | Example | Translit. | Gloss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Propontis | Enclitic after initial verbs; proclitic otherwise (medieval Greek pattern) | θωράκαϊ ν’ τον αγό | zorákaï n’ ton agó | ’They saw the rabbit’ (verb-initial → enclitic) |
| Propontis | (continued) | μα τ’ παρακαλέσ’ | ma t’ parakalés' | 'I will ask you’ (non-verb-initial → proclitic) |
| Peloponnesian | Proclitic in almost all environments | νι ενέντζε | ni enéndze | ’S/he brought it’ |
Clitic Clustering
When a clitic pronoun and the clitic auxiliary co-occur, their relative order differs (Liosis, 2017):
| Subdialect | Clitic Order | Example | Translit. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propontis | Auxiliary + DO clitic | πουλώ τα-σι ένα γρόσ’ | pouló ta-si éna grós’ |
| Peloponnesian | IO + Auxiliary | μ-εκι αούα α μαμού μοι | m-eki aoúa a mamoú moi |
Morphological Differences
Plural Case Marking
In Peloponnesian Tsakonian, the plural is essentially uninflected for case, but masculine nouns show allomorphy between -οι (-oi) (+animate) and -ου (-ou) (−animate) (Liosis, 2017):
| Feature | Suffix | Examples | Translit. | Gloss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| +animate | -οι | αθρίπ-οι, υζοί | azríp-oi, yzzoí | ’people’, ‘sons’ |
| −animate | -ου | τόπ-ου, ακhού | tóp-ου, akhoú | ’places’, ‘vessels (made from animal skin)’ |
Semi-speakers of the northern subdialect tend to restore -ου (-ou) as an accusative plural marker (e.g. nom.pl. οι ελάφοι (oi eláfoi) vs. acc.pl. τιρ ελάφου (tir eláfou)). This constitutes enrichment of the declensional system — a rare example of reversal of grammaticalization (the general expectation that grammatical categories simplify over time rather than become more complex) (Liosis, 2017). For a fuller explanation, see 4.2 Northern Tsakonian.
Future Particle
The Propontis subdialect forms the future with the particle μα (ma), which cannot be derived from the grammaticalization of the auxiliary θέλω (thélo, ‘want’) as in SMG and most dialects. This remains an unresolved issue in Tsakonian linguistics (Liosis, 2017).
Phonological Variation
Several phonological contrasts in Tsakonian function as sociolinguistic variables, correlated with speaker sex, age, location, and literacy (Liosis, 2017):
| Variable | Description | Sociolinguistic Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Aspirated vs. unaspirated consonants | /kʰ/ vs. /k/ | Contrasts tied to regional identity are more resilient to decay |
| Palatal vs. palate-alveolar consonants | /c/ vs. /tʃ/ | Emblematic contrasts take on increased “social load” |
Semi-speakers produce hybrid forms that combine Tsakonian-specific rules with SMG phonological rules. For example, a metathesized Tsakonian form [aiˈθa] (aïzá) ‘sister’ may receive additional SMG palatalization, yielding the hybrid [aiˈθça] (aïzcha) (Liosis, 2017).
Northern (K) vs. Southern (Λ): The Eleven Differences
Kostakis systematically catalogued eleven key differences between Northern Tsakonian (Kastanitsa = K) and Southern Tsakonian (Leonidio = Λ) (Kostakis, 1951):
I. Consonant Mutation Before /i/
In the Southern dialect, labial and dental consonants (μ, π, φ, β, τ) undergo a shift before /ι/: μ→ν, π→κ, φ→θ, β→δ, τ→κ. The Northern dialect preserves the original consonants.
| Gloss | Northern (K) | Southern (Λ) |
|---|---|---|
| ‘friend’ | φίλε (fíle) | θίλε (zíle) |
II. Retention of /l/ Before Back Vowels
Northern Tsakonian has restored /λ/ (/l/) before /α, ο, ου/ under Koine influence, while Southern Tsakonian lost it in those environments. For example, Northern (K) λάδι (λάδι) ‘oil’ retains the /λ/, while Southern (Λ) shows its loss.
III. Aspiration Frequency
Northern Tsakonian shows more frequent aspiration of stops (κʰ, πʰ, τʰ) due to greater contact with neighboring non-Tsakonian Greek varieties. For example, where Southern speakers use unaspirated κ (k), Northern speakers may pronounce κʰ (kh).
IV–XI. Grammatical and Lexical Differences
The remaining differences (IV–XI) involve a range of grammatical forms and vocabulary choices. In these areas, Northern Tsakonian consistently shows more influence from Standard Modern Greek. Examples include:
- The article: accusative plural masculine τίρ (tír) in (K), formed by analogy with the feminine; vs. τούρ (toúr) in (Λ), formed by analogy with the masculine singular.
- Noun plural extended particles: Southern uses particles -νε / -νανε / -τε (-ne / -nane / -te) more extensively. E.g. (Λ) τα σπίτια-νε (ta spítia-ne) ‘the houses’ vs. (K) τα σπίτια (ta spítia).
- Verb forms: (K) tends to use SMG-influenced forms where (Λ) preserves more archaic Tsakonian forms.
- Vocabulary: Several everyday words differ between the two, with (K) borrowing more from SMG.
- Overall, Northern Tsakonian is described by Kostakis as “closer to the common language” (i.e. SMG) than the Southern variety.
References
- Liosis, N. (2017). Tsakonian Studies: The State-of-the-Art. Tsakonian Studies State of the Art.md
- Kostakis, A. P. (1951). Σύντομη Γραμματική της Τσακώνικης Διαλέκτου (Sýntomi Grammatikí tis Tsakónikis Dialéktou). Institut Français d’Athènes. Kostakis Short Grammar of Tsakonian 1951.md