# Etymology of Ancient γρᾰμμή



## Michael Zwingli

I think I realize the following: both *γρᾰμμή* ("a line or stroke of writing") and* γράμμα* ("a picture", "a letter") are derived from *γρᾰ́φω* ("I write"), and* γράμμα* < *γρᾰ́φω* + -*μα* , but what is the suffix of *γρᾰμμή*, and how does *γρᾰμμή* relate to *γράμμα* semantically...how do the two suffixes relate semantically?  Thank you in advance.


----------



## sotos

I think the suffix of γραμμή is -ή. If you are searching for a rule why γραμμ-ή means "line" and why γράμμ-α means "letter", there isn' t any. A relevant phenomenon seems to happen with στρέφω > στροφή , στρέφω > στρέμμα. Also βάπτω (N.Gr. βάφω) > βαφή and βάμμα.


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> I think I realize the following: both *γρᾰμμή* ("a line or stroke of writing") and* γράμμα* ("a picture", "a letter") are derived from *γρᾰ́φω* ("I write"), and* γράμμα* < *γρᾰ́φω* + -*μα* , but what is the suffix of *γρᾰμμή*, and how does *γρᾰμμή* relate to *γράμμα* semantically...how do the two suffixes relate semantically?


1. γράφ-ω > γράφ-μή > γραμ-μή > γραμμή. *φ*, as a labiodental consonant, was assimilated by the *μ *of the following suffix -μή.                                                                                                                      
2. γράφ-ω > γράφ-μα > γράμ-μα > γράμμα. *φ*, as a labiodental consonant, was assimilated by the *μ *of the following suffix -μα.

In both cases, the fricative labiodental consonant *φ* is assimilated by the *μ* of the following suffixes -*μή* and -*μα* (the same assimilation before *μ* happens when the last letter of the verbal stem is the plosive bilabial *π* or the fricative labiodental *β*).

-μή and -μα are simply productive suffixes. There is no semantic relation between them as they were and are used to produce a vast number of different nouns (and even adjectives) from verbs in the Greek language (both Ancient and Modern). Suffix -*μή* [accentuated or not] produces feminine nouns, such as άλμη, δέσμη, δραχμή, εβδόμη, παλάμη, πυγμή, σπιθαμή, στιγμή, and suffix -*μα* produces neuter nouns, such as ακρόαμα, άλμα, δράμα, θέαμα, κόμμα, όραμα, παράδειγμα, πλέγμα, πράγμα, συνάλλαγμα.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

sotos said:


> If you are searching for a rule why γραμμ-ή means "line" and why γράμμ-α means "letter", there isn' t any.


Thank you, Sotos. That is precisely what I was wondering, which I guess is the same as asking, "do/did -*μα* and -*μή* have any particular, precise semantic value, apart from simply being nominalizing suffixes? Did each, for instance, create _certain_ _types_ of nouns, or nouns with certain senses?" I am going to research the analogies which you have provided.


ioanell said:


> -μή and -μα are simply productive suffixes. There is no semantic relation between them as they were and are used to produce a vast number of different nouns (and even adjectives) from verbs in the Greek language (both Ancient and Modern). Suffix -*μή* [accentuated or not] produces feminine nouns, such as άλμη, δέσμη, δραχμή, εβδόμη, παλάμη, πυγμή, σπιθαμή, στιγμή, and suffix -*μα* produces neuter nouns, such as ακρόαμα, άλμα, δράμα, θέαμα, κόμμα, όραμα, παράδειγμα, πλέγμα, πράγμα, συνάλλαγμ


And, I guess that answers that question! Thanks again, Ioanell. I enjoyed reading your phonetic discussion, as well.


----------



## sotos

ioanell said:


> 1. γράφ-ω > γράφ-μή > γραμ-μή > γραμμή.
> 2. γράφ-ω > γράφ-μα > γράμ-μα > γράμμα.


That's right. But the noun γραμμή changes only the last -ή. Isn't this a reason to accept -ή as the suffix *of the noun*?


----------



## Michael Zwingli

sotos said:


> A relevant phenomenon seems to happen with στρέφω > στροφή , στρέφω > στρέμμα. Also βάπτω (N.Gr. βάφω) > βαφή and βάμμα.





ioanell said:


> -μή and -μα are simply productive suffixes. There is no semantic relation between them as they were and are used to produce a vast number of different nouns (and even adjectives) from verbs in the Greek language (both Ancient and Modern).


You know, I have been thinking about this in the "back of my mind". I think that, even though -*μα* and -*μή/-ή* don't have any semantic value _per_ _se_, there may be a rationale for their usage based in grammatical gender. For instance, "a letter" or "a figure" is clearly something more abstract than "a line", since either letter or figure usually acts as a symbol for something else: a sound (a phoneme), a quality, or what have you, while a line generally just is what it is, a geometric object. Clearly, the more abstract thing would seem to demand the more neutral (the neuter) suffixation than the more concrete thing, to which a consideration of gender might attach, would you not think?


----------



## ioanell

Michael Zwingli said:


> "a letter" or "a figure" is clearly something more abstract than "a line"


I don't think I can agree that "a letter" or "a figure" is clearly something more abstract than "a line". If you look up *γράμμα *in LSJ, you 'll see that γράμμα is that which is drawn, in the plural: lines of a drawing, picture, and γραμμή is a stroke, a line of a pen. That is, a letter is a drawing made by a stroke, by a line or lines. 



Michael Zwingli said:


> Clearly, the more abstract thing would seem to demand the more neutral (the neuter) suffixation than the more concrete thing


To help make it more clear that there isn't any rationale for their usage based on grammatical gender, you could just examine two derivatives of the verb ῥήγνυμι [=break apart, rend, shatter], one with the suffix -μὴ, *ῥωγμὴ*, and one with the suffix -μα, *ῥῆγμα*, which are synonyms [=breakage, fracture]. Neither *στίγμα *is abstract in relation to *στιγμή*, to mention another example.



sotos said:


> the noun γραμμή changes only the last -ή. Isn't this a reason to accept -ή as the suffix *of the noun*?


I presume that by “the noun γραμμή changes only the last -ή” you mean that, when inflected, the noun shows the forms γραμμ-ής [genitive sing.], γραμμ-ές [nominative/accusative plur.] and γραμμ-ών [genitive plur.]. If so, we should have in mind that in the inflected languages, like Greek, the part of the word that changes when inflected is called “ending” [κατάληξη in Greek] and we shouldn’t confuse (at least in Greek) the term “suffix” [επίθημα in Greek] with “ending” [κατάληξη]. Suffix is a productive morpheme, attached after the verbal stem [in our case], which forms nouns showing the gender in nominative sing., while ending is a morpheme serving to change the word form and to express grammatical meanings, such as number and case. So, in the noun *γραμμή* the part -*μή* is the (productive) suffix [επίθημα] and the final -*ή, -ής, -ές, -ών* are the endings of the inflected forms/cases [καταλήξεις]. Of course, in a vast number of other cases the morpheme -*ή* [or -*η*] alone is the suffix itself for making feminine nouns, as, for example, the nouns *γραφ-ή*, βλάβ-η, θήκ-η, κοπ-ή, κλοπ-ή, λήθ-η, τριβ-ή, φρίκ-η etc.


----------



## sotos

OK. I understood suffix as ending or katalexis.
It passed from my mind too a possible semantic difference between -μή and -μα, but was only a categorization bias. It doesn't apply to βαφή/βάμμα.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> I don't think I can agree that "a letter" or "a figure" is clearly something more abstract than "a line".


Well, more _symbolic_ for sure, which I was taking to mean "more _abstract_".


ioanell said:


> That is, a letter is a drawing made by a stroke, by a line or lines.


Yes, but it is more than the sum of it's parts, though, and therefore (if we take _abstraction_ in it's etymological sense, to mean "the state of being drawn away" from it's essence), being "drawn away" from it's essence as a mere figure of lines, takes on a new abstract significance.


ioanell said:


> To help make it more clear that there isn't any rationale for their usage based on grammatical gender,


Ah, well. Now I have it "right from the horse's mouth"!


----------



## neszar

Michael Zwingli said:


> I think I realize the following: both *γρᾰμμή* ("a line or stroke of writing") and* γράμμα* ("a picture", "a letter") are derived from *γρᾰ́φω* ("I write"), and* γράμμα* < *γρᾰ́φω* + -*μα* , but what is the suffix of *γρᾰμμή*, and how does *γρᾰμμή* relate to *γράμμα* semantically...how do the two suffixes relate semantically?  Thank you in advance.


Hi Michael.

The 2 words 'γρᾰ́φω' and 'γράμμα' are related semantically by their root γραφ-[graph-] which was produced because of the sound of the utensil scratching the hard and solid writing surface. That is why the word γράφω [grapho] means to scratch, to inscribe, to paint, to ascribe in writing. 

It is the root, not the suffixes, that relates semantically the two words.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

neszar said:


> root γραφ-[graph-] which was produced because of the sound of the utensil scratching the hard and solid writing surface.


Oh, wow! So, the root is onomatopoeic in origin? That's really cool.


----------



## neszar

Michael Zwingli said:


> Oh, wow! So, the root is onomatopoeic in origin? That's really cool.


Onomatopoeic. That’s right.


----------



## Αγγελος

ioanell said:


> -μή and -μα are simply productive suffixes. There is no semantic relation between them as they were and are used to produce a vast number of different nouns (and even adjectives) from verbs in the Greek language (both Ancient and Modern). Suffix -*μή* [accentuated or not] produces feminine nouns, such as άλμη, δέσμη, δραχμή, εβδόμη, παλάμη, πυγμή, σπιθαμή, στιγμή, and suffix -*μα* produces neuter nouns, such as ακρόαμα, άλμα, δράμα, θέαμα, κόμμα, όραμα, παράδειγμα, πλέγμα, πράγμα, συνάλλαγμα.


Also note that there is a similar masculine suffix -μός as well, mostly used to form nouns of action (θερισμός, ερχομός, σκοτωμός...) in modern Greek, although, judging from ισθμός, πορθμός, βωμός..., Ι would guess it was more widely used in ancient Greek.


----------



## apmoy70

neszar said:


> Hi Michael.
> 
> The 2 words 'γρᾰ́φω' and 'γράμμα' are related semantically by their root γραφ-[graph-] which was produced because of the sound of the utensil scratching the hard and solid writing surface. That is why the word γράφω [grapho] means to scratch, to inscribe, to paint, to ascribe in writing.
> 
> It is the root, not the suffixes, that relates semantically the two words.


So, does that mean that the Germanic carve (Eng.), kerben (Ger.), Slavic ждреб (BCS) are onomatopoeic? Because all of the aforementioned words (γράφω included) come from the same PIE root *gerbʰ-


----------



## ioanell

apmoy70 said:


> So, does that mean that the Germanic carve (Eng.), kerben (Ger.), Slavic ждреб (BCS) are onomatopoeic? Because all of the aforementioned words (γράφω included) come from the same PIE root *gerbʰ-


Although neszar's quote doesn’t answer the initial query as it was exactly put, it looks very probable that this might be the case, because all these words have “scratch, carve, cut” as their first meanings. Of course, as it is understood, this onomatopoeia must have happened in the farthest past of IE and then, when the Proto-languages were formed, the words acquired further meanings; according to the “Beeke’s Dictionary” the meaning of the PIE root *gerbh is “scratch, carve”, while the same/similar meaning is given by “M. De Vaan’s Dictionary” to the similar PIE root *skreibh / *sker [“to carve”] for the Latin “scribo [write]”.


----------

