The Suffixes -ˈaδa and -iˈa in Modern Lesbian: Aspects of Polysemy and Morphological Competition

Abstract

This paper investigates two derivational suffixes of the Lesbian dialect -ˈaδa and -iˈa, focusing on their shared characteristics, historical development, and semantic range. Both suffixes display dual etymological origins, form feminine nouns, and exhibit notable polysemy. The study focuses on assessing the degree and patterns of polysemy associated with these suffixes in the Modern Lesbian dialect, with particular emphasis on their comparison to Standard Modern Greek and on cases of morphological competition. It is argued that both suffixes are closely linked to a subjectively delimited reality, as shaped by direct perception and observation in everyday life, and at the same time they function within a complex morphological ecosystem, where they display areas of both competition and functional differentiation. The suffix -ˈaδa typically refers to a property or state directly observable by the speaker, and thus to an entity defined by a dominantly noticeable characteristic. In contrast, the suffix -iˈa is considerably more polysemous than ˈaδa, conveying individualization, and forming nouns that reflect the speaker’s viewpoint while denoting entities perceived as bounded.

1. Introduction

This study investigates the derivational suffixes -ˈaδa and -iˈa1 in the Modern Lesbian dialect, focusing on their polysemy and on aspects of morphological competition. Both suffixes are highly productive across Lesbos (cf. Ralli, 2017, 2019; Alekselli, 2021). The etymology of the suffixes remains a subject of scholarly debate, as it appears to result from a complex development that may involve two or even three different sources (see, among others, Andriotis, 1967; Petrounias, 1987; Efthymiou, 1998, 1999; Bouzoudi, 2024). The suffix -ˈaδa in certain words derives from the Ancient Greek suffix -ˈas (e.g., δεκάδα [δeˈkaδa] ‘group of ten’ < Ancient Greek δεκάς ’group of ten’), while in others it originates from the Venetian suffix -ada (e.g., λεμονάδα [lemoˈnaδa] ‘lemonade’ < Venetian limonada ‘lemonade’). Similarly, the suffix -iˈa in some cases is connected to the Hellenistic denominal suffix -ˈea (> -ˈia> -iˈa) indicating the name of a plant (e.g., μηλιά [miˈʎa] ‘apple tree’< Ancient Greek μηλέα ‘apple tree’); in other cases, it is linked to the Ancient Greek denominal collective suffix -ˈia (e.g., στρατιά [stratˈça] ‘army’< Ancient Greek στρατιά ‘army’); and in yet other cases, to the ancient denominal suffix of abstract feminine nouns -ˈia (e.g., παρηγοριά [pariɣorˈʝa] ‘consolation’< Ancient Greek παρηγορία ‘consolation’).

The scholarly debate concerning the etymology of the suffixes is reflected in researchers’ differing views on whether we are dealing with a single suffix or with several homonymous ones (Petrounias, 1987; Efthymiou, 1998, 1999; Bouzoudi, 2024; among others). The analysis builds on prior research on related affixes in Standard Greek (cf. Efthymiou, 1998, 1999, 2013; Bouzoudi, 2024), remains neutral on whether they are polysemous or homonymous, and is based on data drawn from the local glossaries of the Lesbian villages of Polichnitos (cf. Makris, 2000) and Mantamados (cf. Paraskevaidis, 2025).

Efthymiou (1998, 1999) and Bouzoudi (2024), respectively, analyze the suffixes -iˈa and -ˈaδa by adopting Danielle Corbin’s associative and stratified model of derivational morphology (1987, 1991). Within this framework, priority is assigned to the interaction between morphology and semantics, as derivational morphology is viewed as an autonomous and internally stratified component. The internal structure of the lexicon mirrors the complexity of the form–meaning relationships that characterize constructed words. In this perspective, the meaning of a constructed word is shaped simultaneously with its morphological structure, reflecting the principle of associativity (Corbin, 1987, 1991; Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, 1992; Efthymiou, 1999). A morphological formation results from the application of a word-formation rule that combines categorial, morphosyntactic, and formal information. Such a rule encompasses a structural operation, a semantic operation, a morphological paradigm, and a set of constraints (cf. also Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, 1992; Ralli, 2003; Koutsoukos & Efthymiou, 2023).

A central criterion for identifying a word as constructed is the compositionality of its meaning. Forms that exhibit internal structure but lack compositional meaning may be segmented into formatives, but they should not be treated as outputs of a word-formation rule (Corbin, 1987, 1991).

Another important notion in Corbin’s model is that of the class marker, a semantically empty, suffix-like ending whose role is to provide a word with the appropriate morphological shape in terms of grammatical category and reference class. For example, the segment -ˈia in the non-derived noun μπουνιά [buˈɲa] ‘fist, punch’ has been analyzed by Efthymiou (1999) as a class marker rather than as a derivational suffix (cf. also Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, 1992; Ralli, 2003; Koutsoukos & Efthymiou, 2023).

Since meaning is central in Corbin’s approach, the studies by Efthymiou (1998, 1999) and Bouzoudi (2024) provide a detailed and systematic account of the semantic properties associated with words formed by the respective suffixes.

In line with the reasoning of Corbins’s model, the following items are excluded from the proposed analysis:

i.

Words in which -ˈaδa or -iˈa are not bona fide derivational affixes but class markers (cf. Corbin, 1987), indicating that the derivative belongs to a particular semantic or lexical category (1a). In some instances, class markers are also employed to adapt and integrate loanwords into the language (1b–c):

	(1)	a.	χαστουκιά [xastuˈca] ‘a single occurrence of giving a slap’
			< χαστούκι [xaˈstuci] ‘slap’.
		b.	γουλιά [ɣuˈʎa] ‘sip’ < Latin gula ‘esophagus’.
		c.	μπαμπουκλιά [babuˈkʎa] ‘white, light-colored thread
			of European origin’ < Turkish pambuklu/pamuklu ‘made of cotton’.

ii.

Words in which -ˈaδa or -iˈa is an incidental ending, and the -aδ- or -i- is part of the stem. Illustrative examples are provided in (2):

	(2)	a.	μαγιά [maˈʝa] ‘yeast’ < Turkish maya.
		b.	ρουπάδα [ruˈpaδa] ‘well-aged olive tree’ < Hellenistic ρωπάς [roˈpas] ‘low-growing tree’.

iii.

Words in which we identify a final segment -ˈaδa or -iˈa and a segment that, synchronically, does not have the status of a morpheme, since it lacks meaning. A representative example appears in (3).

(3)

ουλιά [uˈʎa] ‘wine sediment’ (of unknown etymology).

The proposed analysis also excludes structures that pose challenges for morphological analysis, primarily parasynthetic ones (cf. Efthymiou, 1999, 2015; Ralli, 2022):

	(4)	a.	καταμουτσ’νιά [katamutsˈɲa] ‘a slap in the face’ <
			κατά +μούτσ’νου + ιά ‘towards+ face + -iˈa’.
		b.	αμπουρισιά [aburiˈça] ‘inability to carry out a task’
			< α + μπορώ/μπορεσ- + ιά ‘privative + be able to + -iˈa’.
		c.	σκατουπαραδιά [skatuparaˈδʝa] ‘extreme shortage of money’
				< σκατό + παράς/παραδ- + ιά ‘shit+ money+ -iˈa’.

Parasynthesis is commonly referred to as a word-formation process in which a prefix and a suffix are attached to a lexical base simultaneously (e.g., Darmesteter, 1874; Lieber, 2022). As the examples in (4) illustrate, parasynthetic formations are formed by a verbal or nominal base and two derivational affixes or affixoids (a prefix and a suffix), which are simultaneously added to the right and to the left of the base.

Although various suggestions have been made to explain the peculiar relationship between base and parasynthetic formations, they remain a debated topic. Some scholars reject the approach of simultaneously adding affixes, arguing instead for a two-stage derivation. They propose that parasynthetic formations are derived from potential but non-attested bases (e.g., Scalise, 1984; Corbin, 1987; Efthymiou, 1999; Ralli, 2004) or suggest a circumfixal hypothesis (cf. Crocco Galèas & Iacobini, 1993). Additionally, some scholars (e.g., Corbin, 1987; Efthymiou, 2015; Anastassiadis-Symeonidis & Masoura, 2012) argue that the suffixes in parasynthetic formations are not bona fide derivational affixes but class markers, signaling the integration of the derivative into a specific semantic or lexical category. More recent approaches (e.g., Booij, 2010; Efthymiou, 2015; Masini & Iacobini, 2018) propose that the formation of parasynthetic formations can be seen as the unification of two schemas (e.g., prefixation and suffixation) into a complex schema that develops a life of its own. Other recent approaches propose a dual structural approach that distinguishes either between phonological and morphosyntactic representations (e.g., Lieber, 2022) or between two underlying bases, one semantic and the other formal (e.g., Hathout & Namer, 2014). All these solutions have been criticized and revised (cf. also Efthymiou, 2015; Iacobini, 2020).

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a morphosemantic analysis of the suffix -ˈaδa, Section 3 examines the suffix -iˈa from a morphosemantic perspective, and Section 4 explores the various dimensions of morphological competition. The study concludes by highlighting the key insights emerging from this analysis.

2. Morphosemantic Examination of the Suffix -ˈaδa

The suffix -ˈaδa derives feminine nouns. Regarding the lexical category of the base, the suffix primarily attaches to adjectives (5a–c) and nouns (6a–c), and less frequently to verbs (7a, b) and adverbs (7c):

	(5)	a.	λαφράδα [laˈfraδa] ‘stupidity, siliness’ < λαφρύς [laˈfris] ‘stupid, silly’.
		b.	κακουτσιφαλάδα [kakutsifaˈlaδa] ‘grumpiness’ < κακουτσέφαλους [kakuˈtsefalus] ‘grumpy’.
		c.	καπυράδα [kapiˈraδa] ‘baked bread’ < καπυρός [kapiˈros] ‘dry, dehydrated’.
	(6)	a.	ψιακάδα [psaˈkaδa] ‘bitterness’ < ψιατσί [psaˈtsi] ‘poison’.
		b.	βρουμάδα [vroˈmaδa] ‘slut, dirty woman’ < βρόμα [ˈvroma] ‘filth, dirt’.
		c.	σπιρτάδα [spirˈtaδa] ‘sour smell, wit’< σπίρτου [ˈspirtu] ‘match, alcohol, smart person’.
	(7)	a.	καπαντσμάδα [kapaˈdzm-aδa] ‘fainting, diziness’
				< καπαντίζουμι [kapaˈdizumi] ‘faint’.
		b.	κουμμάδα [kuˈmaδa] ‘fatigue, lack of energy’ < κόβου [ˈkovu] ‘cut, tire, ruin’.
		c.	κουτουράδα [kutuˈraδa] ‘recklessness, approximate dealing’ < κουτουρού [kutuˈru] ‘roughly’.

Words derived with the suffix -ˈaδa fall into three main semantic categories:

• A property associated with direct perception and observation, referring to evaluations grounded in immediately observable behaviors or in various sensory functions, as illustrated in (8):

	(8)	a.	λαφράδα [laˈfraδa] ‘stupidity, silliness’ < λαφρύς [laˈfris] ‘stupid, silly’.
		b.	κακουτσιφαλάδα [kakutsifaˈlaδa] ‘grumpiness’ < κακουτσέφαλους [kakuˈtsefalus] ‘grumpy’.
		c.	ψιακάδα [psaˈkaδa] ‘bitterness’ < ψιατσί [psaˈtsi] ‘poison’.
		d.	παλαβάδα [palaˈvaδa] ‘madness, silly thing’
			< παλαβός [palaˈvos] ‘mad’.

2.

An animate entity (possessing the feature [+female]) (9) or a non-animate entity (10) characterized by a defining, dominant property, which can be directly perceived through observation:

	(9)	a.	βρουμάδα [vroˈm-aδa] ‘slut, dirty woman’ < βρόμα [ˈvroma] ‘filth, dirt’.
		b.	σ’χαμάδα [sxaˈmaδa] ‘ugly and disgusting woman’ < σ’χαμένος [sixaˈmenos] ‘disgusting’ (or σ’χαμερός [sxameˈros] ‘disgusting’).
	(10)	a.	καπυράδα [kapiˈraδa] ‘baked bread’ < καπυρός [kapiˈros] ‘dry, dehy-drated’.
		b.	κουτσ’νάδα [kutsˈnaδa] ‘poppy, a flash of red’ < κότσ’νους [ˈkotsnus] ‘red’.

3.

A physical state, directly perceivable and observable by the speaker, derived from a verb indicating a change in bodily condition (11):

	(11)	a.	καπαντσμάδα [kapaˈdzm-aδa] ‘fainting’ < καπαντίζουμι [kapaˈdizumi]
				‘faint’/καπαντισμένος [kapadiˈzmenos] ‘fainted’.
		b.	κουμμάδα [kuˈmaδa] ‘fatigue, lack of energy’ < κόβου [ˈkovu] ‘cut, tire, ruin’/κουμένος [kuˈmenos] ‘tired’2.

The examination of derived words reveals that the suffix -ˈaδa in the dialect of Lesbos shares many morphosemantic similarities with its counterpart in Standard Modern Greek, such as its combination with nominal and adjectival bases (Efthymiou, 1998, 1999; Bouzoudi, 2024), while also displaying certain differences. For example, in the dialect of Lesbos the suffix also combines with (de-)verbal stems, unlike in Standard Modern Greek, and consequently exhibits a broader semantic function, additionally indicating a physical state that falls within the speaker’s direct perception.

Nonetheless, the similarities surpass the differences. In both Standard Modern Greek and Modern Lesbian, a shared feature of derived words with -ˈaδa is the concept of a property or state directly accessible to the speaker’s observation (12a–b), and, correspondingly, the meaning of a subjectively delimited inanimate or animate [+female] entity characterized by a dominantly observable property (13a–b) (cf. Efthymiou, 1998, 1999; Bouzoudi, 2024).

	(12)	a.	ψιακάδα [psaˈkaδa] ‘bitterness’.
		b.	καπαντσμάδα [kapaˈdzm-aδa] ‘fainting’.
	(13)	a.	κουτσ’νάδα [kutsˈnaδa] ‘poppy, a flash of red’.
		b.	βρουμάδα [vroˈm-aδa] ‘slut, dirty woman’.

The following section focuses on the morphosemantic analysis of the suffix -iˈa.

3. Morphosemantic Examination of the Suffix -iˈa

Words formed with the suffix -iˈa are feminine in gender. As for the base’s lexical category, this suffix is predominantly added to nouns (14a), adjectives (14b), and verbs (14c):

	(14)	a.	xλιαριά [xʎarˈʝa] ‘spoonful’ < χλιάρ’ [ˈxʎar] ‘spoon’.
		b.	αγληγουριά [aɣliɣurˈʝa] ‘quickness’ < αγλήγουρους [aˈɣliɣurus] ‘quick’.
		c.	πλαλιά [plaˈʎa] ‘running’ < πλαλιώ [plaˈʎo] ‘run quickly’.

Less frequently, the suffix attaches to phrases (15a) and onomatopoetic words (15b):

	(15)	a.	ανουκατιά [anokatˈʝa] ‘the reverse side of a fabric’ < άνω κάτω
			[ˈano] [ˈkato] ‘upside down’.
		b.	πατσγιά [patˈʝa] ‘a slap, represented onomatopoeically by the ‘pats’ sound it produces’ < pats sound produced by the smack.

The following section outlines the core semantic categories linked to the suffix -iˈa. It will be shown that nouns formed with -iˈa exhibit a wide range of polysemy.

3.1. Core Semantic Categories Associated with the Suffix -iˈa

Words derived with the suffix -iˈa are distributed across various semantic fields, the main ones of which are the following:

• Single hit (or blow) (16):

	(16)	a.	καμτσιά [kamˈtsia] ‘whip strike’ < καμτσί [kamˈtsi] ‘whip’.
		b.	καυκαλιά [kafkaˈʎa] ‘blow to the skull, slap’ < καύκαλου [ˈkafkalu] ‘skull, shell’.
		c.	μπαλταδιά [baltaˈδʝa] ‘strike with a cleaver’ < μπαλτάς [baˈltas] ‘cleaver’.

2.

Quantity or content (17):

	(17)	a.	xλιαριά [xʎarˈʝa] ‘spoonful’ < χλιάρ’ [ˈxʎar] ‘spoon’.
		b.	στουμιά [stouˈmɲa] ‘a mouthful of food’ < στόμα [stoma] ‘mouth’.
		c.	χουχτιά [xuxtˈça] ‘a handful’ < χούχτα [ˈxuxta] ‘palm of the hand’.
		d.	τρουβαδιά [truvaˈδʝa] ‘a sackful < τρουβάς [truˈvas] ‘small sac’.
		e.	κασμαδιά [kazmaˈδʝa] ‘the amount you dig with one strike of a pickaxe’
					< κασμάς [kaˈzmas] ‘pickaxe’.
		f.	μπουχτσιαδιά [buxtsçaˈδʝa] ‘a bundle of clothes tied in a square piece
				of cloth’ < μπουχτσιάς [buxtsˈças] ‘women’s head covering’.
		g.	καραβιά [karaˈvʝa] ‘shiploads, a whole lot of entities’
			< καράβι [kaˈravi] ‘boat’.

3.

Stain or trace (18):

	(18)	a.	δαχτλιά [δaxtiˈʎa] ‘finger smudge’ < δαχτύλ’ [δaˈxtiʎ] ‘finger’.
		b.	πιτσλιά [pitsˈʎa] ‘stain from a drop of liquid; spot; freckle’
			< πιτσλώ [pitsˈlo] ‘to splash, to splatter’.
		c.	τιμπισιριά [tibisirˈʝa] ‘line drawn with chalk’ < τιμπισίρ [tibiˈsir] ‘chalk’.
		d.	μουτζαλιά [mutzaˈʎa] ‘ink smudge’ <μουτζαλώνω [mutzaˈlono] ‘to smudge’.
		e.	ρουδιά [ruδˈʝa] ‘tire mark on the asphalt’ < ρόδα [ˈroδa] ‘tire’
				(example from Alekselli, 2021).

4.

Group (19):

	(19)	a.	χαλατσιά [xalatsˈça] ‘a pile of stones from a ruined wall’ < χαλώ [xaˈlo] ‘ruin’.
		b.	καπαλιά [kapaˈʎa] ‘pile of dead shells’ < κάπαλου [ˈkapalu] ‘scab’.

5.

Place (20):

	(20)	a.	χουσιά [xuˈsça] ‘hiding place, hiding < χώνου [ˈxonu] ‘hide’.
		b.	μπαμπουριά [baburˈʝa] ‘hornet’s nest, dangerous area’ <
			μπάμπουρας [ˈbaburas] ‘large, dangerous wasp’.
		c.	καθσιά [kaˈθsça] ‘vacation home’ < κάθουμε [ˈkaθume] ‘to sit’.

6.

An object typically and functionally linked to a particular material, item or body part (21):

	(21)	a.	αλιβριγιά [alivriˈʝa] ‘flour-based sweet’ < αλεύρι [aˈlevri] ‘flour’.
		b.	φρουκαλιά [frukaˈʎa] ‘broom’ < φρούκαλου [ˈfrukalu] ‘trash’.
		c.	τραχ’λιά [trax ˈʎa] ‘A shirt that was put on a child over the neck,
			which symbolized an act of adoption’ < τράχηλος [ˈtraçilos] ‘neck’.

7.

Tree (22):

	(22)	a.	μουσκλιά [muˈskʎa] ‘plum tree’ < μούσκλα [ˈmuskla] ‘a type of plum’.
		b.	σκαμ’νιά [skaˈmɲa] ‘mulberry tree’ < σκάμ’νιου [ˈskamɲu] ‘mulberry fruit’.
		c.	καϊσιά [kaˈiça] ‘apricot tree’ < καϊσ’ [kaˈis] ‘apricot’.

8.

A quality or state that indicates a person’s observable behavior, habitual actions, daily life, and interactions with others or an action characterized by this quality (23).

	(23)	a.	γρουνιά [ɣruˈɲa] ‘dirty trick, mess’ < γρουν’ [ˈɣruɲ] ‘pig, vulgar person’.
		b.	αγληγουριά [aɣliɣuˈrʝa] ‘quickness’ < αγλήγουρους [aˈɣliɣurus] ‘fast, quick’.
		c.	μπαγαπουντιά [paɣapuˈdʝa] ‘fraud, sly behavior’< μπαγαπόντ’ς [paɣaˈpods] ‘cunning, unreliable’.
		d.	ζαμπνιά [zaˈbɲa] ‘sickness’ < ζαμπούν’ς [zaˈbuɲs] ‘sick, weak’.
		e.	οκνιά [oˈkɲa] ‘laziness’ < οκνός [oˈknos] ‘lazy’.
		f.	τζαναμπετιά [dzanabeˈtça] ‘pigheaded behavior, conduct typical of a stubborn, contrary person’ > τζαναπέτ’ς [dzanabeˈts] ‘someone who is bad-tempered, difficult, and not very decent in their dealings with others.’

9.

A unique action and its observable or measurable result, or the way in which it is performed (24):

	(24)	a.	τσιντιά [tsiˈdʝa] ‘pinch, nip, sting’ < τσιντώ [tsiˈdo] ‘to pinch, to nip, to bite’.
		b.	τριψιά [triˈpça] ‘live pressing, a dose of pressing’ < τρίβου [ˈtrivu] ‘to crush, to grate, to grind’.
		c.	πλυσιά [pliˈsça] ‘laundry, clothes washing’ < πλύνω [ˈplino] ‘wash’3.
		d.	γλιθυμιά [ɣliθiˈmɲa] ‘fainting’ < γλιθμώ [ɣliˈθmo] ‘to faint’.
		e.	πουρπατηξιά [purpatiˈksça] ‘way of walking’ < πουρπατώ [purpaˈto] ‘walk’.
		f.	χαψιά [xaˈpça] ‘bite’ < χάφτω [ˈxafto] ‘take a bite, eat quickly’.

Considering the range of meanings shown by nouns with the suffix -iˈa, the next section explores how the base contributes to the derivative’s overall meaning.

3.2. The Semantic Role of the Base

This section examines the relationship between the previously discussed semantic categories and specific base types, providing representative examples, starting with derivatives formed on nominal bases, which are the most common. Derivatives based on lexical units denoting body parts denote the following (cf. also Efthymiou, 1999):

• A strike directed toward the entity denoted by the base noun (25):

(25)

καύκαλου [ˈkafkalu] ‘skull, shell’ > καυκαλιά [kafkaˈʎa] ‘blow to the skull, slap’.

2.

The content of the entity denoted by the base noun (26):

	(26)	a.	χούχτα [ˈxuxta] ‘palm of the hand’> χουχτιά [xuxtˈça] ‘a handful’.
		b.	στόμα [stoma] ‘mouth’ > στουμιά [stouˈmɲa] ‘a mouthful of food’.

3.

Trace produced with the help of the entity denoted by the base noun (27):

(27)

δαχτύλ’ [δaˈxtiʎ] ‘finger’ > δαχτλιά [δaxtiˈʎa] ‘finger smudge’.

4.

An object typically and functionally linked to the base noun:

	(28)	τραχ’λιά [trax ˈʎa] ‘A shirt that was put on a child over the neck,
		which symbolized an act of adoption’ < τράχηλος [ˈtraçilos] ‘neck’.

Derivatives based on a lexical unit denoting an instrument denote the following:

• A strike carried out using the entity denoted by the base noun (29):

(29)

καμτσί [kamˈtsi] ‘whip’ > καμτσιά [kamˈtsia] ‘whip strike’.

2.

Amount generated through striking the entity denoted by the base noun (30):

(30)

κασμάς [kaˈzmas] ‘pickaxe’> κασμαδιά [kazmaˈδʝa] ‘the amount you dig with one strike of a pickaxe’.

Derivatives based on a lexical unit denoting a container refer to the content of the entity denoted by the base noun (31):

	(31)	a.	χλιάρ’ [ˈxʎar] ‘spoon’ > xλιαριά [xʎarˈʝa] ‘spoonful’.
		b.	τρουβάς [truˈvas] ‘small sac’ > τρουβαδιά [truvaˈδʝa] ‘a sackful.

Derivatives based on a lexical unit denoting a plant (or tree) fruit denote the plant (or tree) that bears the fruit denoted by the base noun (32):

	(32)	a.	μούσκλα [ˈmuskla] ‘a type of plum’> μουσκλιά [muˈskʎa] ‘plum tree’.
		b.	σκάμ’νιου [ˈskamɲu] ‘mulberry fruit’> σκαμ’νιά [skaˈmɲa] ‘mulberry tree’.

Derivatives based on a lexical unit denoting a substance denote:

• A mark or stain produced by the base noun’s referent (33):

(33)

τιμπισίρ [tibiˈsir] ‘chalk’ > τιμπισιριά [tibisirˈʝa] ‘line drawn with chalk’.

2.

A product, or more generally, a concrete entity characteristic of the base noun’s referent (34):

(34)

αλιβριγιά [alivriˈʝa] ‘flour-based sweet’ < αλεύρι [aˈlevri] ‘flour’.

Derivatives formed from animal denoting nouns that can be employed as adjectives denote a quality that indicates a person’s behavior or an action characterized by this quality (35):

(35)

γρουνιά [ɣruˈɲa] ‘dirty trick, mess’ < γρουν’ [ˈɣruɲ] ‘pig, vulgar person’.

In general, derivatives in -iˈa, formed from nominal bases, convey the idea of an individual reality endowed with maximum salience within the realm of everyday human experience. The suffix -iˈa links these derivatives as an operator of individualization, shaping their meaning and referential range according to the base noun’s nature, in terms of both quantity and quality (cf. Efthymiou, 1999).

The adjectives that serve as bases for derivatives formed with the suffix -iˈa are qualifying adjectives. Many of them denote characteristics that carry negative connotations, as they deviate from socio-moral norms and established social stereotypes (36). These adjectives generally describe behavior, attitudes, or ways of being, that is, characteristics that invite evaluative judgments shaped by social stereotypes, and they consistently convey the speaker’s subjective perspective (cf. Efthymiou, 1999):

	(36)	a.	μπαγαπόντ’ς [paɣaˈpods] ‘cunning, unreliable’ >
			μπαγαπουντιά [paɣapuˈdʝa] ‘fraud, sly behavior’.
		b.	ζαμπούν’ς [zaˈbuɲs] ‘sick, weak’ > ζαμπνιά [zaˈbɲa] ‘sickness’.
		c.	ανίφαγους [aˈnifaɣus] ‘who did not eat at all, who does not eat much’
				> ανιφαγιά [anifaˈʝa] ‘anorexia, starvation’.

Derivatives in -iˈa, formed from bases that convey an evaluative or subjective judgment in relation to socio-moral norms, denote qualities or states that are perceived as distinct, salient, and individualized. This individualization stems from the fact that these non-inherent properties or states, which lie outside the socio-moral norm, acquire salience within the microcosm of interpersonal relations and are associated with the speaker’s individual opinion regarding a singular, individual, and perceptible behavioral manifestation.

Typically, when the base adjective denotes a quality that indicates a person’s observable behavior, the derived noun may also refer to an action characterized by this quality (36a) (for a detailed analysis, see Efthymiou, 1999).

As shown in (37), deverbal -iˈa nouns are usually based on verbs denoting physical actions and denote individual or instantiated events, visible results or quantity. When derived from perfective verbs, they indicate singular events (37a). Some derivatives also convey certain aspects or modalities of the process, but in all cases, the emphasis is on the perceptible “external” form of the process. For example, derivatives based on verbs that necessarily produce visible results refer to the visible and individualized outcome of the process (37c, d).

When the base verb denotes a process affecting a mass or quantity, the derivative can indicate the amount of material affected by a single occurrence of the process (37b). Derivatives from non-perfective motion verbs typically indicate the way the action is performed (37e). Finally, derivatives formed from verbal bases that inherently incorporate a locative parameter typically denote the place where the action is carried out (37f) (cf. Efthymiou, 1999, 2013).

	(37)	a.	τσιντώ [tsiˈdo] ‘to pinch, to nip, to bite’> τσιντιά [tsiˈdʝa] ‘pinch, nip, sting’ <.
		b.	τρίβου [ˈtrivu] ‘to crush, to grate, to grind’ >
			τριψιά [triˈpça] ‘live pressing, a dose of pressing’.
		c.	πλύνω [ˈplino] ‘wash’> πλυσιά [pliˈsça] ‘laundry, clothes washing’.
		d.	γλιθμώ [ɣliˈθmo] ‘to faint’> γλιθυμιά [ɣliθiˈmɲa] ‘fainting’.
		e.	πουρπατώ [purpaˈto] ‘walk’ > πουρπατηξιά [purpatiˈksça] ‘way of walking’.
		f.	χώνου [ˈxonu] ‘hide’ > χουσιά [xuˈsça] ‘hiding place, hiding’.

The next section synthesizes the key points of the preceding analysis and, following Efthymiou (1999, 2013), proposes a unified treatment of their diverse meanings. Specifically, it suggests that the overall semantics of these nouns can be traced back to the fundamental concept of individuation.

3.3. Summary and General Discussion: The Notion of the Individualized Entity

The semantic analysis of derived words reveals that the productive suffix -iˈa in the dialect of Lesbos has similar morphological and semantic characteristics to the corresponding suffix in Standard Modern Greek. As in Standard Modern Greek, in Modern Lesbian, the common denominator of the derived words ending in -iˈa is the concept of an individualized (or singular) entity (cf. Efthymiou, 1999, 2013), which has been individualized either quantitatively (38a–d) or qualitatively (39a–e), as it is perceived through experiential experience and sensory perception within the context of everyday life. The suffix -iˈa has inherent characteristics related to the concept of individualization, forming nouns that express the speaker’s perspective and denote entities perceived as bounded and without internal structure.

	(38)	a.	xλιαριά [xʎarˈʝa] ‘spoonful’.
		b.	χουχτιά [xuxtˈça] ‘a handful’.
		c.	καυκαλιά [kafkaˈʎa] ‘blow to the skull, slap’.
		d.	τσιντιά [tsiˈdʝa] ‘pinch, nip, sting’.
	(39)	a.	ζαμπνιά [zabˈɲa] ‘sickness’.
		b.	αγληγουριά [aɣliɣurˈʝa] ‘quickness’.
		c.	γρουνιά [ɣruˈɲa] ‘dirty trick, mess’.
		d.	δαχτλιά [δaxtiˈʎa] ‘finger smudge’.
		e.	πουρπατηξιά [purpatikˈsça] ‘way of walking’.

Also, the interaction of the suffix with the meaning of the base results in further semantic specialization of the derived word. For instance, the aspectual information of the suffix ‘an action performed once’ can be considered as an expression of individualization or singularization in the domain of deverbal nouns (40a) or denominal nouns denoting a strike (40b) (cf. Efthymiou, 1999, 2013). Notably, the suffix -iá seems to parallel the Italian suffix -ata, which, according to Gaeta (2000), carries inherent quantitative properties, in that it temporarily bounds the situation expressed by the base verb):

	(40)	a.	τριψιά [triˈpça] ‘live pressing, a dose of pressing’.
		b.	καμτσιά [kamˈtsia] ‘whip strike’.

Other interesting cases that testify to the anthropocentric nature of the suffix and its close connection to the concept of individualization are the deadjectival or denominal derivatives, which denote a subjectively defined quality linked to direct perception and observation, or an action characterized by this quality (41a–b) (for a detailed analysis, see Efthymiou, 1999).

	(41)	a.	μπαγαπουντιά [paɣapuˈdʝa] ‘fraud, sly behavior’.
		b.	γρουνιά [ɣruˈɲa] ‘dirty trick, mess’.

The following section examines the morphological competition between -ˈaδa and -iˈa.

4. Aspects of Morphological Competition

Competition between linguistic forms is considered an inherent and universal feature of natural languages. Within the domain of word-formation, it refers to the coexistence of different morphological processes for the expression of the same concept (cf. Aronoff & Anshen, 1981; Plag, 1999; Lindsay & Aronoff, 2013; Aronoff & Lindsay, 2014; Aronoff, 2019; Gardani et al., 2019; Nagano, 2023; Salvadori & Huyghe, 2023). Competition may occur between morphological processes belonging to the same operation (e.g., between rival affixes), and between patterns belonging to different operations (e.g., between affixes and affixoids) (Renner, 2020).

When two or more derivational processes are eligible to convey the same meaning, two scenarios can usually be observed. In the first one, one of the means will gradually become extinct. In the second, the morphological means will tend towards a complementary distribution, specializing in terms of different dimensions (i.e., semantic, pragmatic, phonological or morphological) (e.g., Plag, 1999; Szymanek, 2005; Aronoff, 2019; Gardani et al., 2019).

However, overlaps in domains may occur, thus prompting the attestation of forms derived from the same base and with the same meaning but with a different affix. Overall, recent studies stress that rival morphemes continuously compete for dominance within the language system and typically coexist as elements of a complex functional ecosystem, each occupying distinct semantic or other domains (Aronoff, 2019; Fradin, 2019; Renner, 2020; Nagano, 2023).

The morphosemantic analysis of the suffixes discussed above demonstrates that -iˈa is considerably more polysemous than ˈaδa. It also shows that the derivational processes involving the suffixes -ˈaδa and -iˈa, although they display, at least on a surface level, a variety of non-overlapping meanings, appear to function to some extent competitively, since both suffixes denote a subjectively delimited property associated with direct perception and observation. In other words, this competition is not total but partial, as it does not occur across all semantic fields, but rather within a shared semantic domain (Huyghe & Varvara, 2023).

Although the available data are limited and do not allow for the formulation of generalized conclusions, we can, at a preliminary level, make the following observations: Both suffixes attach to qualifying adjectives to denote a property that refers to directly observable behavior, but there are certain points at which they differ. The suffix -iˈa appears more frequently in formations that denote a property referring to the typical manner of a person’s actions, and actions or events characterized by that specific property (42):

	(42)	a.	μπαγαπουντιά [paɣapuˈdʝa] ‘fraud, sly behavior’.
		b.	γρουνιά [ɣruˈɲa] ‘dirty trick, mess’ < γρουν’ [ˈɣruɲ] ‘pig, vulgar person’.

In contrast, the suffix -ˈaδa appears to be primarily associated with general evaluations, which are based not only on observable behaviors, but also on inherent properties and sensory qualities such as taste and smell (43):

	(43)	a.	παλαβάδα [palaˈvaδa] ‘madness, silly thing’.
		b.	ψιακάδα [psaˈkaδa] ‘bitterness’.

Furthermore, our analysis did not identify any cases of derived word formations (doublets, triplets, etc.) sharing the same base.

The joint examination of -ˈaδa and -iˈa within the semantic field of property reveals that they coexist as members of a complex functional ecosystem, displaying both partial competition and notable distinctions among them. The study of additional material and the investigation of the morphological constraints of the suffixes may further enrich the analysis and lead to more reliable and comprehensive conclusions.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, two productive Lesbian prefixes, -ˈaδa and -iˈa, were examined, with emphasis on their polysemy and the exploration of aspects of morphological competition. The morphosemantic analysis of the suffixes highlighted their anthropocentric character and their close connection to subjectively delimited reality, as this is linked to direct perception and observation within the context of everyday life. The suffix -ˈaδa refers to a property or state directly observable by the speaker, and thus to an entity characterized by a prominent, perceptible feature. By contrast, -iˈa expresses individualization, creating nouns that reflect the speaker’s viewpoint and denote entities perceived as bounded and lacking internal structure.

Furthermore, the analysis showed that these suffixes coexist as elements of a complex morphological ecosystem, displaying points of partial competition and differentiation. The present study complements previous literature on the suffixes -ˈaδa and -iˈa, offering new data from the Modern Lesbian dialect, as well as a first comparative examination of their shared semantic field, highlighting aspects of the competition between them.