νεογνός, νεόγονος
(Philemo [Vindob.] 395.24, Poll. 2.8)

D. General commentary

This entry (A.1), from the excerpt from Philemon’s Atticist lexicon preserved in cod. V (Vindobonensis phil. gr. 172, 15th century CE), proscribes the form νεογνός ‘newborn’ and recommends the variant νεόγονος instead. Like many of Philemon’s entries, this has a parallel lemma in Thomas Magister's lexicon (B.3) that, in this case, was not noted in Reitzenstein’s edition of cod. V. Meanwhile, Pollux (A.2), discussing different synonyms for ‘newborn’, expresses his preference for νεογνός on the strength of its attestation in Herodotus (C.3) over νεογιλλός, used by Isaeus (C.7), but nonetheless warns that the former is ‘Ionic’ (see F.1 for further discussion).

The compound adjective νεογνός exemplifies the prehistorical sound change to which it lent its name (for references to the ‘νεογνός-rule’ in linguistic literature, see, e.g., Weiss 2020, 123), describing the loss of laryngeals in the second member of a compound or, more generally, in ‘long’ words. According to the rule, the compound *neu̯o-ǵnh₁-ó- ‘newborn’ became *neu̯o-ǵn-ó- already at the Proto-Indo-European stage, which then regularly gave Greek νε(ϝ)ογνός (for reflexes of *-ǵnh₁-ó- > *-ǵn-ó- in other Indo-European languages, e.g. Latin privi-gn-us ‘stepson’, see NIL 139; Gothic niuklahs ‘νήπιος’, if dissimilated from *niu-knahs, may be a direct cognate of νεογνός). The root *ǵenh₁- (‘to beget, to give birth’) produces no other Greek compound in -γνος: thus, νεογνός is an archaismArchaisms (explainable only in terms of an Indo-European process and not a Greek one) and a synchronically isolated form that was susceptible to replacement by more productive formations. Moreover, νεογνός may have been perceived as IonicIonic or ‘poetic’Poetic language: it occurs in the Homeric Hymns (C.1, C.2), Herodotus (C.3), Hippocrates (2x), and in tragedy (Aesch. Ag. 1163, in a lyric section, Eur. 7x: see C.4, C.5). In Attic prose, it is attested only in Xenophon’s technical works (Oec. 3x, Cyn. 2x) and Aristotle’s On the Parts of Animals (1x): these occurrences attest that νεογνός may also have been regarded as inappropriate for use in reference to human newborns since it is frequently employed for animals’ offspring (as observed by LSJ s.v.). Philemon’s assertion that ‘no one’ used νεογνός may be justified with reference to canonical Attic authors, but according to that criterion, νεόγονος is hardly a better choice: it is equally poetic and even rarer. In classical literature, it is only used by Euripides (1x Cyc. = C.6, 3x Io.), one of those authors who also employ the proscribed νεογνός; in imperial literature, meanwhile, the term is used in hymnic poetry by Mesomedes (5.8) and in prose by Galen (17b.634.5 Kühn), Irenaeus (fr. 33.5), and Aelian (NA 8.26.4). This limited resurgence of νεόγονος beginning in the 2nd century CE may be connected with the approval of (at least some) Atticist lexicographers. Nonetheless, Brown (2008, 199) observes that ‘νεόγονος […] is less common than the standard Attic νεογενής’: the latter is indeed relatively more common, and it was likely perceived as less ‘poetic’ than the two previous forms, having occurred in both drama (Aeschylus) and prose (Plato, Xenophon). Both adjectives are formed according to productive processes: compounds with a second member -γόνος are ubiquitous (over 120 are listed in Buck, Petersen 1945, 279–80), and compound adjectives in -γενής are an old and very productive category (see Blanc 2018, 279–87; more than 260 items listed in Buck, Petersen 1945, 723–4). In fact, an Ionic formation morphologically comparable to Attic νεογενής is already found in the Homeric language (νεηγενής, only in Od. 4.336). Meanwhile, Atticising writers in the 2nd century CE did not reject νεογνός: Lucian, in particular, uses it quite liberally, with 13 occurrences (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 339); however, he never uses νεογενής (νεογιλός appears once in the pseudo-Lucianic Halcyon 3.9); see also Dio Chrysostomus 1.98.26 (Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 127).

Philemon may have understood the relationship between νεογνός and νεόγονος not as one between two morphologically distinct formations, showing different ablaut grades of the same root, but as one between phonological variants, with νεογνός being the product of syncope. Indeed, while Philemon’s lexicon contains several entries that appear to be preoccupied with this phenomenon, however it may be interpreted from a modern perspective (see Brown 2008, 226 and see entry ἀριθμός). The lemma preserved in the highly abridged text of cod. V is not explicit on this point. However, it should be noted that a doctrine conveyed in the etymological lexicon of Orion (B.1) and reflected in later Etymologica does describe the relationship between νεογνός and νεόγονος precisely in terms of syncope (see also the apparatus to A.2). The substitution of νεόγονος for νεογνός was doubtlessly influenced by analogyAnalogy: a synchronically isolated form was normalised according to a productive pattern; after νεόγονος was created, however, it quite naturally became the basis for the explanation of νεογνός. It remains unclear whether the Atticists wished to condemn an actual contemporary tendency to drop the vowel in νεόγονος, producing a form that – aside from the position of the accentAccent – would have been identical to the inherited νεογνός. The post-classical syncope of unstressed vowels mainly affected the high vowels /i/ and /u/, particularly when they occurred before /r/, but it was accompanied by the phenomenon of ‘Kretschmer’s Law’Kretschmer’s Law (first formulated for Classical Greek by Kretschmer 1909, 34–59), whereby ‘an unaccented (etymologically short) vowel is deleted when adjacent to a liquid, nasal or sibilant if the preceding or following syllable contains the same vowel’ (CGMEMG vol. 1, 65; see also Meyser 1970, 123; Gignac 1976, 306–7). Theoretically, this change may have been applied to the second /o/ in νεόγονος, which is followed by a nasal and flanked by two other /o/-vowels in the adjacent syllables. However, as noted above, νεόγονος was a rare, literary word that is unlikely to have occurred in unguarded speech with sufficient frequency to make it a likely target for Kretschmer’s Law (which, moreover, would have produced *νεόγνος). Overall, it seems more likely that Philemon was simply comparing two different lexical items, although he may have understood the relationship between them in terms of syncope, as other lexicographers did.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

In a continuation of the process of lexical renewal that replaced the inherited νεογνός with νεόγονος and νεογενής, these latter were in turn supplanted by the even later νεογέννητος, unattested in classical times: Photius (B.2) uses it to gloss the Homeric νεογιλ(λ)ός (‘newborn, young’). Verbal adjectives in -γέννητος were originally connected to the verb γεννάωγεννάω (Pi.+), created as a denominal derivative to ἡ γέννα (‘descent, birth; offspring’) and imbued with a transitive/causative function (‘to beget’) with respect to γίγνομαι (see LSJ s.v. γεννάω); consequently, compounds in -γέννητος are only attested since Aeschylus (the simplex γεννητός since Plato). Compared to compound adjectives in -γενής, which had an ambiguous derivational relationship with the verb γίγνομαι, given that they could also be perceived as containing the s-stem noun γένος (Blanc 2018, 279), compounds in -γέννητος had the advantage of being more clearly connected to a verbal stem with the appropriate transitive meaning ‘to beget, to give birth’. Nonetheless, νεογέννητος did not oust all competition at once: authors in the medieval and early modern periods continued to use the classical forms νεογνός, νεόγονος, and νεογενής alongside it, while also occasionally creating new variants. For instance, νεογεννής, apparently a hybrid between νεογενής and the family of γεννάω, -γέννητος, is used by ‘Manganeios Prodromos’ (cod. Marc. gr. XI 22.2r, 12th century CE) and Meletius of Athens (11.6.7; 17th century CE); it has classical antecedents such as θεογεννής ‘begotten of a god’ (Soph. Ant. 834) and ἀγεννής ‘low-born’ (Hdt., Ar., Plat., etc.; see Blanc 2018, 524–5). The hapax nom. sing. νεογνής, describing a παῖς in Theodorus Metochites ᾿Ηθικὸς ἢ περὶ παιδείας 204.14 (14th century CE), could be a product of a late syncope from νεογενής, but also a hybrid between it and νεογνός, or possibly a t-stem modelled after such forms as ἑτερόγνης ‘of different kind’ (Hdn. Περὶ καθολικῆς προσῳδίας GG 3,1.83.2, EM 435.32), the proper names Γνῆτες (‘native inhabitants of Rhodes’), Ἴγνητες (‘Indigenous’), although these have recessive accents. In Modern Greek, νεογέννητος is the usual form used to denote ‘newborn’ (both as an adjective and as the neuter substantive το νεογέννητο ‘newborn baby’). νεογνός only exists as a substantived adjective (τό νεογνό ‘infant’, also said of animals), which is a learned internal borrowing from Ancient Greek.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Poll. 2.8 (A.2)

In this passage of the Onomasticon, Pollux expresses his dislike of the term νεογιλός for ‘newborn’ used by Isaeus in the oration Against Aresaechmus (or Against Aristomachus: see the critical apparatus in A.2). Expressions of subjective preference are not infrequent in Pollux: Bussès (2011, 72–4) discusses this and other occurrences of οὐκ ἀρέσκει and similar phrases, observing that their motivations are not always made clear. The recensio brevior of the Onomasticon presents a more impersonal formulation of the same judgement, simply stating that the term is ‘not approved’ (οὐ δόκιμον). Pollux’ negative evaluation of νεογιλός is all the more noteworthy given that it is the only case in which he criticises Isaeus, whom he quotes frequently in the Onomasticon (45 times) and typically endorses as a model of good Attic. The etymology of νεογιλλός or νεογῑλός is obscure (see DELG 744 and EDG 1007–8); Mathys (2008)    suggests that it may have evolved from νεογνός itself as a suffixed formation – *νεογν-ιλ(λ)ός – of expressive or colloquial character, with simplification of the cluster -γν- (for the diminutive and hypocoristic function of the suffix -ιλ(λ)ος, see Chantraine 1933, 248–9; García Ramón 2000, 431–6). As an anonymous reviewer suggests, νεόγιλος could go back to *νε(ϝ)ο-γυ-λος, with γυῖα in the sense of ‘lap’, perhaps via a segmentation as *νεογ-υλος that allowed the by-form νεόγ-ιλος. This adjective has a single Homeric occurrence (Od. 12.86Hom. Od. 12.86), after which it appears in late poetry (Theoc. 17.58, Opp. C. 1.99) and prose (Plu., Alciphr., Synes.), arguably as a literary word due to its Homeric credentials. Thus, Isaeus’ use of the term would have been isolated in terms of what we know of classical Attic prose: indeed, it may be the case that the term’s rarity was in itself a reason for its rejection by Pollux (see Bussès 2011, 73; Conti Bizzarro 2018, 102–3). Additional reasons may include the fact that the word is used in the Odyssey to refer to dogs’ puppies or that it was perceived as a low-register or dialectal variant; compare the etymologies offered by some medieval erudite sources (Su. ν 182, Eust. in Il. 434.2, 485.22, in Od. 1.168.16, 2.14.11, 2.290.35) explaining νεογιλός as derived from a hypothetical form νεογινός (from νεὸν γίνεσθαι) with an Attic change ν > λ, as exemplified by νίτρον > λίτρον and πνεύμων > πλεύμων (see entry ἀφρόνιτρον). Pollux suggests νεογνός as a better alternative but observes that it is IonicIonic: as discussed above (D.), the word’s distribution in older literature justifies this label to some extent. The more recent synonyms νεογενές and νεόγονον are given at the beginning of this passage in the list of acceptable expressions for ‘newborn’. It may be noted that at 5.16.1Poll. 5.16.1 Pollux includes the neuter plural νεογνά among synonyms for animals’ offspring without further comment.