Talk:Ancient Greek phonology

Editors who are interested in improving this article are encouraged to read this talk page discussion and the previous discussion at the Archive 1 and Archive 2.

articles that we need to check

Please use this section only for things that we need to look up, that might be relevant to this article +MATIA ☎ 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• George Babiniotis, The question of mediae in Ancient Macedonian Greek reconsidered (this study is also at ISBN 1556191448).
• A History of Ancient Greek - From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. Edited and translated by A.-F. Christidis, University of Thessaloniki, Greece http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521833078 Biography: http://www.greeklanguage.gr/christidis/pubs.htm
• N. Andriotis, Greek Language History: Four essays, reprint, 1995, pp. 168 (€ 6). ISBN 960-231-058-8.
• Ανδριώτης Ν., Ιστορική γραμματική της αρχαίας ελληνικής. Μέρος Α': Φωνητική (πανεπιστημιακές παραδόσεις), Θεσσαλονίκη 1969
• Συμεωνίδης Χ., Ιστορική γραμματική της αρχαίας Ελληνικής. Μέρος Α': Φωνητική (πανεπιστημιακές παραδόσεις), Εκδοτικός Οίκος Αφών Κυριακίδη, Θεσσαλονίκη 1989.
• E. H. Sturtevant, The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, Philadelphia 1940.
• F. T. Gignac, A grammar of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods. Vol. 1: phonology. Milan 1976.
• L. Threatte, The grammar of Attic inscriptions, Vol. 1. Berlin 1980.
• Sven Tage Teodorsson:
  • "The phonemic system of the Attic dialect 400-340 BC" (Göteborg, 1974);
  • "The phonology of Ptolemaic Koine" (Göteborg, 1977); and
  • "The phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic period" (Göteborg 1978).

• Geoffrey Horrocks: "Greek: a history of the language and its speakers" (London, 1997); or
• Randall Buth: Η κοινή προφορά: "Notes on the Pronunciation System of Phonemic Koine Greek"

Summary of previous discussions

One editor, User:Thrax wants to include in this article the hypothesis that the pronunciation of Ancient Greek was very similar to that of Modern Greek, whereas all other editors have the opinion that this is a marginal view and should only be mentioned in one sentence. Andreas 03:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The other editors are not professional linguists and are out of their depth. The reconstructed pronunciation is no longer valid in the field of modern linguists and its claims and dates of alleged sound changes and the nature of the alleged changes themselves can not be scientifically justified. There is overwhelming evidence from the inscriptional record and comparisons with the evolution of Semitic languages that proves that all of the elements necessary for modern Greek pronunciation were intrinsic to the Phoenician based script the ancient Greeks adopted from the time the script was devised since all of the symbols representing plosives were also allophones for fricatives in proto-Semitic by necessity. Comparisons with Latin along with biblical Hebrew show that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the dasea in ancient Greek were anything but fricatives, and the account of Dionysios Thrax makes no since at al unless the mediae were fricatives. Thefore the evidence reconstructed pronunciation is wither non-existent or inconclusive. With no conclusive evidence it is fraudulent to claim that so-and-so is how Attic Greek was pronounced. The reconstructed pronunciation is not a valid scientific theory but nothing more than an out of date convention and Wikipedia must label it and all of its claims as such and state the places of contention and the lack of evidence. --Thrax 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses to RFC

This area is for editors who have not participated in the discussion until now. Please put your responses here. Please, do not edit the individual responses, but put your comments at the end of the section. Limit your comments to a few sentences.

Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.

Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.

If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies.

Thank you. Andreas 03:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Being an expert of the Ancient Greek language, I can assure the readers that the reconstructed pronunciation is indeed 100% valid, and it is found in all respectable handbooks, also in the most recent ones. Even if the pronunciation of the "dasea" as fricatives may have been anticipated in certain dialects and in certain registers in the Classical period already, nothing suggests that it was adopted universally until the Roman period. --Enkyklios 16:40, 22 December 2005 (CET)

WRONG ! Dionysios Thrax contradicts everthing you say. You might be an expert on the reconstructed pronunciation but you are not an expert on the Greek language. Dionysios Thrax definition of the mediae makes absolutely no sense unless the dasea were fricatives. There is absolutely no evidecne in the historical record to indicate that the dasea were anything but fricatives. Even Latin renders them as fricatives and Sanskrit renders Xi as a fricative to. The Greek translation of the Hebrew bible also indicates that the dasea and mediae were fricatives since 280 BC in both languages according Hebrew linguists therefore the reconstructed pronouncation must be is wrong. --Thrax 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let us not start the discussion once again (or move it to somewhere else). Even if we cannot agree on the true Ancient Greek pronunciation, one thing cannot be contested even by you: that the modern scholars are supporting the "Erasmian" pronunciation virtually unanimously.

WRONG ! The majority of modern scholars do not support the Erasmian view or the reconstructed pronunciation. The reconstructed pronunciation is considered by the majority of linguists to be scientifically invalid and untennable. The only reason why its is still taught is as an English speaking convention and no supporting evidence for it is provided since there isn't any. All the modern evidence including inscriptions and Semitic linguistics shows the reconstructed pronunciation is wrong. --Thrax 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Caragounis, Thrax' authority, represents a minority view which is not even cited by the respected linguists. He may of course be right anyway, but the point is that a Wikipedia page should reflect the mainstream view or views, or it will be misleading for the non-experts who are looking for a brief but balanced overview of the current state of scholarship. Enkyklios 11:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How can Caragounis be a minority view when it is support be all Semitic linguists who state that the dasea and mediae in both Hebrew and Greek were already fully established as fricatives in the time of Alexander the Great. This implies that even in classical times they must have been pronounced as fricatives as well which is what Caragounis is claming and that totally invalidates the reconstructed pronunciation in its entirety since once Semitic linguistics is accepted that the plosives in the Phoenicians alphabet were also allophones for fricatives so that all the fricative in proto-Semitic can be represented there can be no evidence to support a non fricative nature of the dasea and mediae before classical times.

It is totally misleading to readers to present the reconstructed pronunciation as a valid theory on the matter and as unchallenged. The fact is that the reconstructed pronunciation is a 19th century theory that was never proven by its advocates at the time it was created and has still not be proven no can it be since all the modern evidence goes against it. Furthermore the Erasmian and reconstructed pronunciations are based on a documented lie and on racism which Caragounis has shown was the primary motivation of the advocates of this theory in its creators own words. --Thrax 16:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not WRONG! me once more. As far as I know, you have not been able to cite one single modern linguist specialised in Ancient Greek who has written an article or a book in which he or she argues that Classical Attic was pronounced just like Modern Greek (Caragounis is not a linguist). All handbooks written in English, German, and French agree on the reconstruction as it is now presented on the Ancient Greek phonology-page. So, it is the majority view. Period. Enkyklios 16:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-bloat measures

It seems Thrax can't be stopped from bloating talk pages with rambling, repetitive confrontational stuff. Maybe it's just as well for the moment, for anybody who comes in on the RfC to see immediately what's going on. But in the future I propose we should find a way of keeping talk pages reasonably clean.

Thrax, please, put your argumentation somewhere, in one place together, once. I suggest you make it a sub-page of your own talk page. Then, whenever you feel you have to remind us of some argument of yours, just link to it with one short remark here.

Else, I might adopt a policy of deleting anything you write even on the talk page if it exceeds some reasonable limit (i.e. moving it to an archive of its own, or to your talk page, and replacing it with only a link.)

I know, you're going to shout censorship now, but there's no point repeating yourself over and over again here, and you may have noticed that people have by now stopped replying to you. Lukas 08:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting a contributor on the talkpage is a rather extreme measure, but seeing what Thrax just did to the new sections "Summary of previous discussions" (which went from two-and-a-half lines on my screen, to 15, and is no longer a summary) and "Responses to RFC", a section specially provided for outside comment, I agree with Lucas. Thrax, nobody wants to stop you from responding to comments, even in those sections, but please do it in the way Lucas requests, or he will IMO be justified in removing your comments to a more convenient place and linking to them. Incidentally, writing in ALL CAPS is seen as shouting. Please don't greet people who are here to help (specifically at your own invitation, on the RFC page), with a shout of "WRONG!" It's just counterproductive. Please be friendly, calm, and welcoming. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)