what does Δημητριος mean

[Marinakis]

just wondering, what would you guys translate Δημητριος into english as Demetrios or Dimitrios? I have seen both

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Demetrios. Eta to an "e" always. I can't think of any exceptions off hand.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Demetrios. Eta to an "e" always. I can't think of any exceptions off hand.

He could be talking about a Slavic transliteration, like "Dmitri" or "Dmitrius" or something. But other than that, yeah, I've been studying Greek for 3 years now, and eta to short "e" pretty much.

Where did you see it as "Dimitrios"?

[hellenes]

He could be talking about a Slavic transliteration, like "Dmitri" or "Dmitrius" or something. But other than that, yeah, I've been studying Greek for 3 years now, and eta to short "e" pretty much.

Where did you see it as "Dimitrios"?

η is what in english is called eta=itta
Now there is this dual universe where while in Greece people have one perception of Ancient Greek pronounciation in the rest of the world (mainly in the west) have invented a pronounciation based on ROMAN scripts...
Now If e=η what is ε? Or if β=b how ones writes v?
Anyway it is fruitless to argue when everyone knows that neither will change their minds.

Hellenes

[Teleklos Archelaou]

η is what in english is called eta=itta
Now there is this dual universe where while in Greece people have one perception of Ancient Greek pronounciation in the rest of the world (mainly in the west) have invented a pronounciation based on ROMAN scripts...
Now If e=η what is ε? Or if β=b how ones writes v?
Anyway it is fruitless to argue when everyone knows that neither will change their minds.

HellenesWhat is the point of this?

Eta is written in english as a plain E if you don't use macrons (which aren't used in english). See, in english, an E can actually be sounded multiple ways. So it can represent both the epsilon and the eta. That's the end of the story. Unless you want to invent a new english letter that is.

[Urnamma]

η is what in english is called eta=itta
Now there is this dual universe where while in Greece people have one perception of Ancient Greek pronounciation in the rest of the world (mainly in the west) have invented a pronounciation based on ROMAN scripts...
Now If e=η what is ε? Or if β=b how ones writes v?
Anyway it is fruitless to argue when everyone knows that neither will change their minds.

Hellenes

And the Greeks largely base it off of wishful thinking, whereas the rest of the world actually studies ancient linguistics. Don't bring this up again. Someone asked an honest question, and I don't feel like closing the poor guy's thread.

[hellenes]

And the Greeks largely base it off of wishful thinking, whereas the rest of the world actually studies ancient linguistics. Don't bring this up again. Someone asked an honest question, and I don't feel like closing the poor guy's thread.

Although the assumption that the Greek academic community, the Greek Universities and all the modern Greek scholars are studying Ancient Greek off wishful thinking is not correct, as I said in my OP neither side will be convinced or had its mind changed on the topic thus any debate is pointless.

Hellenes

[Zenith Darksea]

W.S. Allen wrote an excellent book on this subject, 'Vox Graeca'. I am of the opinion that ancient Greek must have sounded considerably different to modern Greek (consider for a moment just how much Greek grammar has changed), and Allen's arguments are generally conclusive. Certainly in my Greek philology lectures we would transliterate the word as 'Demetrios'. The 'eta' was roughly pronounced as an elongated 'eh' sound, not as an 'i' sound as many Greeks often state (I don't wish to generalise, but all the Greeks with whom I have spoken on this subject are remarkably naive, imagining that their form of the language is exactly the same as the Classical form).

[Urnamma]

Zenith: Great book reccomendation. And I share your opinion completely, what's more.

Also, it is necessary to note that ancient greek had no 'v' sound. It was introduced from Slavic influence in the middle ages.

[Idomeneas]

Zenith: Great book reccomendation. And I share your opinion completely, what's more.

Also, it is necessary to note that ancient greek had no 'v' sound. It was introduced from Slavic influence in the middle ages.

to all the greeks around the (then) known world? i really doubt that. From so many greek or greek influenced populations, from so many texts and psalms (yes at the same time slavs arrived)... if you are right then all those groups and elements of frozen language would sound different. They dont... hmm...

Guys i know we have discussed the issue before here. I dont expect some one to agree with me, after all we are greeks what do we know? The situation here reminds me a greek saying ''John buys drinks, John drinks''. So whatever i or anygreek will write even if he is a reknown professor will simply not count for you cause simply you dont want dialogue. Guess you must have tapes of Leonidas.

I ll say one thing only. Many try to make a case by presenting the everyday spoken slang or transformations by an idiotic state in year 1982 to grammar. Instead of doing that read an official document or an essay or simply an army document. You will be amazed by the quantity of pure ancient words and even grammar rules.

What i suggest is if you really care about the subject break off the books and divine figures (professors that know everything), take a trip to greece and visit not just Olympia Mykonos and Athens, travel in small villages and mountainous areas of pelloponessos, Krete and Macedonia, and find out yourselves the relation of todays Greek with ancient. I dont by any mean suggest they are the same. English are not the same in a span of hundreds of years. But they are closer that you claim.

Thats all from me, but again dont mind me, i dont have some papers on the wall, i just live this language through my self and all my family and people before me.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

My blood and ancestry in and of itself make me absolutely no better at answering a question about my forefathers than anyone else. If someone else wants to make that claim about themselves they can.

[Idomeneas]

My blood and ancestry in and of itself make me absolutely no better at answering a question about my forefathers than anyone else. If someone else wants to make that claim about themselves they can.

that was not my arguement and i hoped you got it. If you think arrogant a Greek (with interest on the subject) saying an opinion imagine how arrogant people that propably never even heard real greek (yes the modern ones) making conclusions so easily and make characterizations as ''wishfull thinking''. I cant say in general but till this moment all the academics i heard speaking Greek sound like german broken telephone. Im sure there are people that spend years in studies and researches over here as well and not only inside their bookselves. I wonder those people can be so certain and absolute in their conclusions?

Anyway as i said ''Yiannis buy the drinks Yiannis drinks them'' so whatever i or anybody will say you will have your own opinion. Its your right, but its not the only one.

[Zenith Darksea]

after all we are greeks what do we know?

Yeah, what do you know?

Ask me to comment on how Old and Middle English were spoken, and I couldn't tell you. But I do know that they were considerably different to today's English (and that's a time difference of 1000-500 years). So when there's a time difference of 2,500 years, how can we expect a modern Greek to intuitively know everything about Classical Greek? Answer - you can't, because he doesn't.

True, it's all opinion these days. But some opinions are considerably more likely (and backed up by scholarly research) to be more believable than others. I mean, imagine that the sounds of a language (one which has been infiltrated by so many different foreign peoples) remained static for 2,500 years. What are the odds of that happening? Close to zero.

[QwertyMIDX]

Especially when it was subject to massive lingustic influences and movements of populations.

[Arman]

Especially when it was subject to massive lingustic influences and movements of populations.
Athens theaters never stoped playing plays in Ancient Greek, and Greeks monks never stopped writing and reading. Do you think they would not noticed that significant changed in sound ipsilon?

The church anthems created in yearly medeival have minor diferences comparing to modern Greek.

Greek professors also study the sources and also have their own arguments. West base it's study on roman enterpritation of Greek alphabeth, which could be initially wrong since some sound was dificult for them to pronounce and to hear. Like word Hoplites that most continue writing like Hoplites while actually it was writen as oplites, from word oplo - weapon, which didn't changed up to now. I spoken with spanish guys and was surpriesed to find out some spanish words the start from ho, pronounce like starting from o, just the same way as word spelled hoplites in pronounced like oplites and spelled like oplites in greek.
There is isolated Greek comunities over the world like Greek colonists living in Black Sea area since Ancient time and Greeks in Central Asia, their language was developing independently and still ipsilon is ipsilon for them.
And BTW Ancient Greek in Greek interpritation still sounds VERY diferent from model, it simply does not sound like drunk German speach version of western interpretation.
Ipsilon could sound like something in between epsilon and ipsilon, but denfinetly not like Ε otherwise there would be no sense to have two version of Ε. I read ancient text on Parthenon, and gramar didn't change as much I you think. Very many words are writen exactly the same way.
If opinion over this issue would be simply opinion of greek patriots not greek academics that spent their live studing Greek I would agree with West.
At least Iliad that supposed to be singed in rithm in Greek academics version sounds almost like song, while it sounds like barking of the dog in record I heared from one of the British Universities, with words being simply not pronouncable composition of sounds. If would hear both version it would be clear for you which one sounds more realistic.
Note to mention that Greeks scholars had never stoped speaking ancient Greek, even in Byzantium time.

As for professiors reputation, so many times they have been wrong and proved wrong by next generation of professors, so I woudn't never really base my opinion on single side statements.

[Arman]

True, it's all opinion these days. But some opinions are considerably more likely (and backed up by scholarly research) to be more believable than others. I mean, imagine that the sounds of a language (one which has been infiltrated by so many different foreign peoples) remained static for 2,500 years. What are the odds of that happening? Close to zero.

I can't tell you how Old English sound, I heared Schakspear play in Old English, and I can't tell you doesn't sound so much diferent so that I would not understand that this is English, people who do not know English but simply know how it sounds would recognized it immidiatelly.

Greek academics do not state that it's absolutelly sounds similar, and as I said it sounds diferent but recognizable as Greek.

If you would compare Western interpritation of Ancient Greek and Greek one, you would be shocked. Nothing similar absolutelly! The most basic words are corrupted to unrecornizable condition. lliad with some constantly barking sounds with absolutelly no rithm, sounds like Martian for Greeks.

Taking into account that when even I who never learned Ancient Greek and not really fluent in modern Greek can understand some Ancient Greek phrases and expressions when reading them. And the phact that the basic words like water, sky, mother, father haven't, truth and very many other words didn't change I trust Greek scolars completelly, at the end they base their knewleges of houdreds of generation Greek scolars that was passing Ancient Greek language knewlage to each other and not learned it by reading Latin text.

[Malrubius]

Shakespeare isn't Old English, it's not even Middle English, it's almost modern English (only 400 years old). We use versions of the Bible from about the same time period with little difficulty.

You might be able to read Middle English and understand it, but to hear and understand would be entirely different. One example: "knight" in modern english rhymes with "night", but in Middle English, the 'k' is pronounced, as well as the 't', giving the word 3 syllables. Within a couple hundred years, there were some big changes to pronounciation, even when spelling was almost the same.

[QwertyMIDX]

Once again, long e and short e, they're 2 different sounds, thus 2 different greek letters can be the same letter in english. Same for ο and ω, they both become o in english, because in english o can make 2 different sounds. I always hear people supporting the "ancient greek is the same as modern" argument use this; it makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
...in addition, the long e has an interesting adventure in Indo-European languages; in some of them it evolved into i while it's retained in others. Kurdish is a fine example of the transition process: ê is preserved in fluency but many would just pronounce it i.
.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hehe. It just makes me think of the changes that Greek underwent going from the Bronze Age to the Classical Period. I suppose that it really was the same in the Bronze Age too? Maybe indo-european itself is pure modern greek too, and it's just the other languages that changed. :laugh4:

Something else that's fun to notice:
Keep in mind that the scholarly view today is that a theta was pronounced closer to a plain "t" than a modern english "th". More like the little extra "huh" noice you make when you say "hat" (which really sounds a little like "hat-uh" if you listen carefully when you say it). But some people claim that the classical theta was pronounced just like modern greek theta's (like a "th" that you would hear in the word "then" in english). But take a look at Linear B if you would...

Transliterations into English like "te-o-i" for the word "gods" (where'd the "th" go?! :grin:) just happen to start with the exact same symbol (consonant group) as a word like "te-me-no" for the word "temple/temenos". There is no difference there, or when you find it in the middle of a word like "mater" (which means mother in english) or "theke" ("to place") in classical greek. There was no difference to them in the way they wrote the sound for sure.

[Arman]

Same for ο and ω, they both become o in english, because in english o can make 2 different sounds. I always hear people supporting the "ancient greek is the same as modern" argument use this; it makes absolutely no sense at all.
You mean that Greek accademics that spent their life studing language of their ancestors are wrong? Saying that ipsilon is ipsilon not epsilon?

[Arman]

.
...in addition, the long e has an interesting adventure in Indo-European languages; in some of them it evolved into i while it's retained in others. Kurdish is a fine example of the transition process: ê is preserved in fluency but many would just pronounce it i.
.
Isn't Kurdish is turkic language?

[Arman]

Transliterations into English like "te-o-i" for the word "gods" (where'd the "th" go?! :grin:) j
In modern greek it pronounced as th-e-i, I don't know how it was pronounce in Ancient Greek tho, probably th-e-o-i.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

What I'm saying is that Bronze Age greek shows no difference in writing the dental for "theoi" or "mater" or "theke" or "temenos". Classical greek uses a theta, but it's not that different from classical tau as some people would like to think. It's just got a little extra aspiration after the "t" sound itself. It's only after the classical period that the theta starts sounding like a "th".

[Arman]

Once again, long e and short e, they're 2 different sounds, thus 2 different greek letters can be the same letter in english. Same for ο and ω, they both become o in english, because in english o can make 2 different sounds. I always hear people supporting the "ancient greek is the same as modern" argument use this; it makes absolutely no sense at all.
You write as if you are expert of Ancient Greek languages knowing all aspects of posible interpretation of Greek alphabet symbols. Gah, how are you so sure I wonder?

Unless you really beleave that Greek sceintist are inccompetent idiots that know about Ancient Greek much less than you how wouldn't you be so sure !

It's like if I would be stating that Old English did not existed it was French and simple people language was Saxon wich was pure German so there is no English till 11-13 century at all. And since my opinion is actually also supported by some mainland european accademics. So I would say French sceintists know history of english language much better than British and they are not biased.

You people simply refuse even to try to think that Greek sceintists might be competent and right..... What can I say. There is no prove of any point of view. There is no record of voice, it's all pure assumption. So lets Yani drink the water he bought!

And if Greek Vita would mean B, Cyrill and and Methodi monks would not invent the new "Б" symbol for sound B specifically for cerilic alphabet because Greeks do not have and did never had character for "B" sound.

Lol, what can I say, let Illiad remaint barking Satikek matikek for you :-)
:-) I retire from debate!

[Arman]

What I'm saying is that Bronze Age greek shows no difference in writing the dental for "theoi" or "mater" or "theke" or "temenos". Classical greek uses a theta, but it's not that different from classical tau as some people would like to think. It's just got a little extra aspiration after the "t" sound itself. It's only after the classical period that the theta starts sounding like a "th".
Posibly two sounds were significantly diferent from each other, simply new specific symbol was introduced later.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's sad that you and others like you must malign over and over that any non-greek who tries to replicate the sound of ancient greek. "They sound like dog's barking!" or "they sound like a broken telephone!" People who spend their whole lives working on it, who don't have some kind of political or cultural agenda in working on the ancient pronunciation - none of that matters to you because it sounds different from what you are used to hearing. It's like the southern american hillbilly who says "Hey, dat ain't right! He's talkin' funny talk! Listen to dat 'edujucashun' talkin' there!" when he hears someone pronouncing proper British english. It don't sound right to him, but that don't mean it hain't right. :grin:

[Arman]

It's sad that you and others like you must malign over and over that any non-greek who tries to replicate the sound of ancient greek. "They sound like dog's barking!" or "they sound like a broken telephone!" People who spend their whole lives working on it, who don't have some kind of political or cultural agenda in working on the ancient pronunciation - none of that matters to you because it sounds different from what you are used to hearing. It's like the southern american hillbilly who says "Hey, dat ain't right! He's talkin' funny talk! Listen to dat 'edujucashun' talkin' there!" when he hears someone pronouncing proper British english. It don't sound right to him, but that don't mean it hain't right. :grin:
You didn't understand. Pure German sounds fine, pure English sounds fine for me... but language they speak do not sound fine.
And BTW did you ever tried polishing pronounciation?
I tried with English... I didn't spoke english at all 8 years ago, you know how many tapes, movies, records, I was listenning to to POLISH pronouciation a little bit. I still have very inpure english after 8 years of polishing. How can you beleave that scentiest without record, without movies not living in natural environtment with some indirect mentions of pronounciations from third party non Ancient Greek sources speak even slightlessly well pronounced Ancient Greek?

Think logically Ancient Greeks could not write how specific symbols pronouced, there is need for other language speaking people to try do describe those sounds in non - Acnient Greek alphabete . Right otherwise Greeks would say ipsilon is pronounced as ipsilon! That's whole explanation they could do.
Now think, who can write description of the language? Egiptians - nooooo they had erogliths, Persians? hm may be but who knows how ancient Persian was pronounced to make comparisions. Well Romans? He are you really sure it was pronounced like they read it now? 2500 years later.
If romands did records, when they did it? 50BC - 150AC... is this Classic era ancient greek?
Read Russian transcription of English alphabete, you will be surprised how diferently they read symbols comparing to the actuall sounds they corespond too :-)

[L'Impresario]

I assume you 're talking about attic.
Personally I wonder what hides behind the term "greek academics", I'm interested in hearing names. It doesn't do them a great service bunching 'em all together.
My first contact with the issue was in the 3rd class of the gymnasio (junior highschool), where, amongst the other school material, we were given a small booklet of about 70 pages written by Professor D. Tobaidis (known by his work on the pontic dialects), intending to familiarise the students with the evolution of the greek language. In the few lines where he deals with pronounciation, Tobaidis doesn't say anything really different than "Vox Graeca", and gives examples like the change of "υ" ("ου" in ancient Greek) to "υ" as ü and finally to "υ" as today's "ι", and notes that this evolution took more than 1000 years in order to be completed.
I wonder if there are people who don't accept that Greek was a phonetic language that ended up keeping an historical orthography...that would be a short discussion heh

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Very few academics today would insist that a classical phi was just like a modern greek phi. Very few of them would insist that a classical theta was just like a modern greek one. Same with dipthongs alpha-iota and some other vowels. Most modern academic opinions are in concert with Allen and his Vox Graeca.

It just so happens that most of the folks who don't agree with this opinion and have a dramatically different point of view would favor a scenario where modern and ancient greek have only the slightest differences, and things like the thetas and phis sound the same.

It also just so happens that most of those people who hold the point of view that greek hasn't changed (except just a teeny-tiny bit) are greeks.

[oudysseos]

I'm not an expert in semantics, philogy or any of the scientific disciplines relating to the study of languages, but I do find the topic very interesting and have read loads of laypersons books about it- the latest by the way is the excellent 'Empires of the Word' by Nicholas Ostler- check it out!- and I am at least aware that academic opinion regarding the pronounciation of ancient greek and classical latin is based on more objective evidence than our comrades posting here will admit- I mean the ones who talk about drunken germans and dogs barking. How sad. If you can't back up your postition without insulting someone or mindless nationalism (greeks know most about greek!) then I wish you would spare us. True maturity, IMHO, is the ability to conceive that your most cherished beliefs might be wrong.

Something interesting that I have lately seen is that genetic studies have confirmed a large element in the Greek gene pool is from sub-saharan africa- this despite 1500 years of slavs, albanians, vlachs, turks and others. At the same time I read an article where the author (a linguist) claims that 50 % of ancient greek vocabulary is non indo-european- a non-controversial claim - and that this element, usually labelled 'Pre-Hellenic', can in fact be plausibly derived from semitic sources such as ancient egyptian. This is fascinating when taken with the belief of writers like Herodotus who clearly believed that Egypt was the source of much of Hellenic culture. I had always been taught that it was the Mycenean/Minoan culture that preceded and gave birth to greek civilization- but it looks as if Herodotus may have been right! How cool.

[Arman]

Very few academics today would insist that a classical phi was just like a modern greek phi. Very few of them would insist that a classical theta was just like a modern greek one. Same with dipthongs alpha-iota and some other vowels. Most modern academic opinions are in concert with Allen and his Vox Graeca.


It just so happens that most of the folks who don't agree with this opinion and have a dramatically different point of view would favor a scenario where modern and ancient greek have only the slightest differences, and things like the thetas and phis sound the same.

Most of argument is about ipsilon it's the biggest point of disagreement. Some pontic still pontic "ou" as "ou" not u, as well as "au" not "av". I hear that my self, I have a lot of pontic friends instead of "auti" as Athenians say they say autan... there is still variable pronouciation even within Greece.

And I'm not Greek I'm Soviet with some Greek origin, I just started learning Greek 4 years ago and my Greek is much worse than my English.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I don't understand what the issue with epsilon is. It's hardly a big issue when you consider some of the other differences that are thought to exist or not exist between modern and ancient greek.

The ancient greek epsilon was a short vowel, much like the vowel in the english word "pet". Modern greek has it a little more open than the vowel of english "pet", but it's not a huge issue here I don't think. Sometimes the greek epsilon was transcribed as a Latin 'i', but that had more to do with the fact that the latin vowel 'i' was an open one and just as near to greek epsilon as to greek iota. But if we aren't talking about going into Latin, but instead into English, there is absolutely no issue here. Ancient greek epsilon is best represented as a modern english 'e'. That's it.

[L'Impresario]

oudysseos,
as interesting that would 've been, this study you mention is a very bad example of mixing genetics and politics. There's a not-so-hidden political agenda there,do some (minimum) research on it and you'll easily find out information regarding its credibility.
Genetic biology, politics and history make strange bedfellows.

[Arman]

True maturity, IMHO, is the ability to conceive that your most cherished beliefs might be wrong.
I don't have any special reasons to insist, I don't see any part of Ancient Greek culture survived expect of stones in modern Greece.
I wouldn't be so insisting if your doubt just slightly but don't "conceive that your most cherished beliefs might be wrong.".

To understand my "barking" expression try to pronounce Greek phrases as suggested. I said that Western Ancient Greek interpetaion sounds barking and innatural. No German or English languages, so I don't understand what you folks being offended with.

[Arman]

But if we aren't talking about going into Latin, but instead into English, there is absolutely no issue here. Ancient greek epsilon is best represented as a modern english 'e'. That's it.
agreee about epsilon :-) what about ipsilon?

[Arman]

Ok, wont ague more :-) I think it will settle down by it self. if ipsilon was short e sooner or later even Greeks will believe in that if it was not than others will change opionion or it will stop mater at all.

[oudysseos]

I am and was aware that the study in question has the priamry political motive of establishing who has the right to call themselves Macedonian- however-

The study “HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks” is presented in the Danish medical journal “Tissue Antigens”, February 2001, volume 57, issue 2, pages 118-127.
Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan
(Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these
relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.”

The study used the following samples for their calculations: 172 unrelated ethnic Macedonians from Skopje; 98 Moroccans; 98 Berbers; 94 Moroccan Jews; 176 Spaniards; 80 Basques; 228 Portuguese; 179 French; 102 Algerians; 91 Sardinians; 284 Italians; 80 Ashkenazi Jews; 80 non-Ashkenazi Jews; 135 Cretans; 85 Greeks from the Aegean; 95 Greeks from Attica;
101 Greeks from Cyprus; 59 Lebanese from Niha el Shouff; 93 Lebanese from Kafar Zubian; 100 Iranians; 228 Turks; 105 Armenians; 101 Egyptians from Siwa; 83 Oromo; 98 Amhara; 38 Fulani; 39 Rimaibe; 42 Mossi; 77 San (Bushmen); 192 Senegalese; and 86 South African Blacks.

Now, if you ask me, Will this genetic evidence finally resolve the Greek-Macedonian dispute ? (the title of the article in the Macedonian Herald), the answer is, NO, of course not. The Greek-Macedonian dispute is not about genetics. However, dendrograms are well established and respected tools for analyzing genetic relationships between groups, and the methodology of the study seems respectable. It is true that Macedonian scientists from Skopje took part, but so did Spanish scientists from Madrid and the study was published in Denmark. Since I am not drawing any political conclusions but rather making some archeological/historical speculations based on what seems to be some solid scientific evidence, I think I'll leave my bedfellows where they are. I did do some minimal research before I posted.

[O'ETAIPOS]

If somebody is using argument that people were passing knowledge about sth that can change for centuries WITHOUT intention to preserve it, but just by using this thing (for example language, or way the pottery is made) then he is stating that whole archeology is wrong.

Archeology is proves the fact that people do not see the slight differences in the things that they are using. If you have multi layer site then every layer is slightly different than others.
The whole idea is the same, but new pot can have slightly different ornament or shape than earlier. We are almost sure that those people wanted to make the pot to be the same as the earlier one. But they simply can't if they do not use manufacture production.

Imagine society using some language to be a group of pot makers (tens of thousands at least). Each of them want to make the same pot. How many pots will be exacly the same?
Now they, they sons, and so on do this job for 1000 years. Each of them sees only the pot made by his direct ancestor. How this pots will look like when you compare starting point and ending?
You may be almost sure that those pots will be different. In fact almost completely different. But if you ask somebody along the process, one of those involved he will say his pot is identical to this, that his ancestors did.

Representation of language on paper is like one dimention drawing of our pot. It will only show some representation. Still if you use it new pots will be more similar to the starting one. but as the time progreses people seem to see different things - one wil concentrate on ornament, other on shape (I remind you that there are tens of thousands of them). they will also do some drawing of his pot. During the time 90% of drawins will be lost, so some people will be using earlier, some more recent representations, so pots will be even more diversed.

Arman, you claim that we do not have recordings of ancient greek. This is true, but we have something similar.
Texts writen by people that tried to show readers how they should say some names from other languages. YES those latin writers that modern Greeks dismiss as a source. Theyre transliteration of greek words to latin was made to allow latin speakers to pronounce them properly.
In my opinion transliteration used in current period is better source than pronounciation that is used in the region 2000 years later. Pronounciation affected by normal change process (described above) plus so many invasions - Celts, Romans, Slavs, Normans, Turks.

[Arman]

I was far as I read results of this research were discarded as not valid regarding to wikipedia.

[Arman]

Texts writen by people that tried to show readers how they should say some names from other languages. YES those latin writers that modern Greeks dismiss as a source. Theyre transliteration of greek words to latin was made to allow latin speakers to pronounce them properly.

I was mentioning this my self. just few post above that there were records for romans who want to study greek. Any of such records do not give any percision in prononciation. As example I mention modern records in Russian given to Russian to learn how to pronounce English. Which I my self studied 8 years ago, and you know what I have found when I started speaking to real English speaking people. I have found that every 3 english sound was given wrong in my Russian textbook there is simply no proper analog in Russian language so they replace it with closest one, which sounds very wrong.
So we shouldn't expect those sound realy match the latin sounds. There were simply no better symbols to represent them. It's imposible to learn pronouciation from records on the paper you tape or native speaking person.
Anyway, I don't want argue let we don't argue to badly.
I just remembered, when I was living in central Asia, there is such as sound used in Uzbek language (Samarkand, Buhara, Tashkent)... it's hard to explain... it's something you can say is I and something you can say is E.... something in bitween, I wonder could ipsilon be sound like that?

[O'ETAIPOS]

But tose are still from the period, while modern greek went through so many changes during last 2000 years ...
I remember reading that many of todays similarities in modern greek were put into official "new greek" by some classics scholar who was part of Greek government just after winning independence. He tried to combine as many old greek words with language used by the major part of greeks in his time.

[L'Impresario]

[Ofcourse all this is off-topic]
Well I assumed you weren't aware of the wide criticism Arnaiz-Villena has received (a quick google search can lead here (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b.html), a quite laconic refutation nonetheless).
BTW this isn't the only part of the research that has been termed problematic.
Who said that this had anything to do with an attempt to bring an end to the Macedonian issue anyway? Just because something is not connected directly with a political issue doesn't mean that it can't affect parts of the public opinion and be used by the involved parties to support their rhetoric.

[khelvan]

Well, it appears with the release of the OB people have become willing to take up this issue again. Who am I to stop it?

However, I will say that objective research can be done by anyone with the requisite knowledge. Having a language as one's native tongue does not make that person any more able to discern differences in the ancient language than someone who was not born with the modern language as their first language.

In any case, references have been made to "Old English." Old English significantly differs from modern English, in many ways. Shakespeare did not write in Old English. Try Chaucer, and even then I think he's considered Middle English. Chaucer is all but incomprehensible to a modern English speaker. I have a rather good grasp of the English language, I believe, and Chaucer reads like gibberish to me.

[L'Impresario]

Try Chaucer, and even then I think he's considered Middle English. Chaucer is all but incomprehensible to a modern English speaker. I have a rather good grasp of the English language, I believe, and Chaucer reads like gibberish to me.

C'mon, it's much more comprehensible to an English speaker (perhaps with a decent knowledge of French) than Thucydides is to a modern Greek one. I remember browsing through "The Knight's Tale" and being able to make sense of the whole thing, as opposed for example to Geoffrey deVillehardouin's "Conqueste de Constantinople par le François", a work that has an incredible way with corrupted latin words. But Chaucer's syntax is easy to comprehend, and quite similar to modern English, while a modern Greek speaker is doomed to a lifetime of headaches while reading Thucydides' works. Ofcourse I'm comparing 14th cent. literature to a much older history book, so ..hmm.

[khelvan]

Then you, sir, are a more cunning linguist than I. :book:

[Arman]

Well once we had argument with my friend about with whom Menelae were compared when Athena made him brave. I have found the place in ancient text which mentioned it, despight the fact in consits of many chapters and pages. I have pointed him in proper place, and were understanding bit of text, but I got to say the diference is not that much in meaning of the words but as in logical compositions and audioms used, which I completelly can't recognize, like there were phrase "my blood" but in current context it's translate "my identity" or some sentenses are seems to be composted with words positioned upside down comparing to modern Greek.
I can't read Ancient Russian texts propertly as well to hard, many words simply changed meaning, while didn't changed gramar. And some are completelly not in use anymore. This common to all old languages.

[Arman]

He he 16th century Russian text is still very hard to read. Because great reforms were made in 17th aiterating traditions and language.

[khelvan]

C'mon, it's much more comprehensible to an English speaker (perhaps with a decent knowledge of French) than Thucydides is to a modern Greek one.I have no idea how difficult it is for a modern Greek speaker to understand ancient (for instance, Attic) Greek, though I have had a modern Greek speaker or two say it is incredibly difficult.

This is damn tough for me to read:


Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee bifalle
Boece or Troylus for to wryten newe,
Under thy long lokkes thou most have the scalle,
But after my makyng thow wryte more trewe;
So ofte adaye I mot thy werk renewe,
It to correcte and eke to rubbe and scrape,
And al is thorugh thy negligence and rape.Though perhaps the problem is more in spelling and perceived pronunciation.

[Big_John]

heh, this is my quick eye-balling of it...


Adam scriveyn(scribble? as in 'write this down'?), if ever it [befalls you]
Boece or Troylus for to [written new?],
Under [your] long [locks (of hair) you must] have the [scale? (maybe some reference to judgement?)],
But after my [making] [you write] more [true];
So [oft(en) a day??] I [made your work (re)new??],
It to [correct] and eke(??) to [rub] and scrape,
And [all] is thorugh [your] negligence and rape(??).


:uneasy:

edit: hmm, it seems to be about writing in general.. maybe "adam" is another writer that chaucer knew or something?

[QwertyMIDX]

Chaucer is not Old English, its Middle English. Beowulf, on the other hand, is in Old English.

The first 20 lines of Beowulf, in Old English (circa 1100 AD), good luck:


Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra

ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!
Ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned,
geong in geardum, þone god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat

þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf wæs breme (blæd wide sprang),
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.

If you want to try more, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/beowulf-oe.html

In modern English,

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!
To him an heir was afterward born,
a son in his halls, whom heaven sent
to favor the folk, feeling their woe
that erst they had lacked an earl for leader
so long a while; the Lord endowed him,
the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown.
Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him,
son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.

[Arman]

1100AD, that could even be called Saxon rather than Old English probably.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Are you trying to say it's not Old English? It's not like early Middle English is any easier for someone who doesn't have experience with them in the first place. Claiming it's not english ("probably") doesn't help the argument that Greek only changed a teency-tinecy little bit over three thousand years.

[paullus]

Ahhh, Old English. Someone should put up "The Wanderer"--most glorious piece of writing ever.

Actually, a fellow grader of mine, who is just polishing up her dissertation (I have many moons to go), is a native Greek, and she says the differences between modern and ancient are considerable. Sheesh, pronunciation changes a good bit in the ancient world from place to place, not to mention spellings, meanings, and even letters.

[hellenes]

Are you trying to say it's not Old English? It's not like early Middle English is any easier for someone who doesn't have experience with them in the first place. Claiming it's not english ("probably") doesn't help the argument that Greek only changed a teency-tinecy little bit over three thousand years.

Tilekle
If you knew modern Greek, and I mean the educated one not the "hilly billy", you would change your mind about the similarities, espessiallly with the Alexandrian Kini (Κοινη)...

Hellenes

[oudysseos]

I read Beowulf with the help of a tutor (fifteen years ago) and he called it Old English- but referring to my (autographed!!) copy of Seamus Heany's translation the language is interchangeably called Old English or Anglo-Saxon. It was composed between the seventh and tenth centuries (not 1100 AD). He liked to read it out loud with a decidely Northern Irish accent, but confessed when I asked him that he had no objective grounds for doing so, he just liked it that way. I think it is important to distinguish between facts and preferences.

I was always told by my greek tutors (westerners, every one of em) that
1. Attic was most likely pitched instead of stressed- like chinese
2. There are major differences between modern greek and attic/koine- but less difference than between latin and the romance languages.

With all due respect I don't think that being a native speaker of modern greek necessarily qualifies one to have the definitive say on an issue that is, after all, relatively objective- I have a german friend with an advanced degree in Irish Gaelic who speaks it better than me and everyone I know who were born here. In a case like this academic expertise definitely has great value, regardless of where the expert comes from.

[hellenes]

I read Beowulf with the help of a tutor (fifteen years ago) and he called it Old English- but referring to my (autographed!!) copy of Seamus Heany's translation the language is interchangeably called Old English or Anglo-Saxon. It was composed between the seventh and tenth centuries (not 1100 AD). He liked to read it out loud with a decidely Northern Irish accent, but confessed when I asked him that he had no objective grounds for doing so, he just liked it that way. I think it is important to distinguish between facts and preferences.

I was always told by my greek tutors (westerners, every one of em) that
1. Attic was most likely pitched instead of stressed- like chinese
2. There are major differences between modern greek and attic/koine- but less difference than between latin and the romance languages.

With all due respect I don't think that being a native speaker of modern greek necessarily qualifies one to have the definitive say on an issue that is, after all, relatively objective- I have a german friend with an advanced degree in Irish Gaelic who speaks it better than me and everyone I know who were born here. In a case like this academic expertise definitely has great value, regardless of where the expert comes from.

Logic dictates that in orther to compare 2 things one must know in equal measure BOTH.
Now I seriously doubt that if one has a limited or none knowledge of Modern Hellenic can compare it to the Ancient counterpart.

Hellenes

[Teleklos Archelaou]

No need to compare really. Only modern greeks may think there is a need to do that. This just insists that no one who isn't modern greek can tell you how ancient greek sounded and that's just an attempt at monopolizing knowledge. "Only we can know the real truth! An auslander can never really know history!"

Academics who specialize in ancient greek in most of the universities in the world will tell you what the most commonly accepted view is (by far) of how ancient greek was pronounced. If a relatively small group (dare I say those at the extreme end) wishes to say everyone else is wrong, then let them believe whatever they want to. They can drink whatever they are paying for, whether it's coming out of the wallet of Johnny or Yiannis or whoever.

Now when it comes to the voicemod (which I just contributed to; I'm not running it or anything else around here), I'm so absolutely and ridiculously fed up with inactivity there that I'd be willing to have a modern greek version of it to be honest. But I'd be clear and state that it's a modern greek pronunciation that the person was insisting on performing.

[oudysseos]

Can't help you with the greek voice mod- most of my greek work was done in homer and although we did read it out loud we made no pretence at authenticity. If you need someone to do german voices for the Sweboz I can swing that- Trotz unserem Graechischem Freund, jemand der kein Muttersprecher ist kann doch Sprachfaehig und fliessend in einem Fremdsprache werden. But knowing as I now do the impressive credentials of the EB faculty I'm sure you have someone on staff who is an expert in 3rd century BC proto-germanic.

Actually, I don't have a microphone. Schade.

[hellenes]

No need to compare really. Only modern greeks may think there is a need to do that. This just insists that no one who isn't modern greek can tell you how ancient greek sounded and that's just an attempt at monopolizing knowledge. "Only we can know the real truth! An auslander can never really know history!"

Academics who specialize in ancient greek in most of the universities in the world will tell you what the most commonly accepted view is (by far) of how ancient greek was pronounced. If a relatively small group (dare I say those at the extreme end) wishes to say everyone else is wrong, then let them believe whatever they want to. They can drink whatever they are paying for, whether it's coming out of the wallet of Johnny or Yiannis or whoever.

Now when it comes to the voicemod (which I just contributed to; I'm not running it or anything else around here), I'm so absolutely and ridiculously fed up with inactivity there that I'd be willing to have a modern greek version of it to be honest. But I'd be clear and state that it's a modern greek pronunciation that the person was insisting on performing.

Well do you speak modern Greek? Do these Academics? If they dont how they know if it is different, much different or not different? For one if a future Archeologist found English transliteration of modern (as today) Greek he or she would have a much skewed image of the modern Greek language...So I say it MIGHT be that the Roman transliterations of Greek arent the Holy Grail of the Ancient GREEK not Roman pronouciation...

Hellenes

[QwertyMIDX]

I read Beowulf with the help of a tutor (fifteen years ago) and he called it Old English- but referring to my (autographed!!) copy of Seamus Heany's translation the language is interchangeably called Old English or Anglo-Saxon. It was composed between the seventh and tenth centuries (not 1100 AD).

Old English and Anglo-Saxon are the same. My 1100 AD was refering to the dating of the manuscript that text came from, the poem was composed earlier obviously.

[Arman]

hellenes:
Lol imagine in 2500 years someone will find Greek transcription of English language! :-) Lol.
They will read Greek characters describing English sound and will try figure out how English was pronounced.

And you know how greek spell English sounds?

Tzarli Tzaplin
Ntonalnt Ntak
R-A-M-B-O
peKha(pH)
Kul (cool)
Tzarlz Ntikenson
Son Koneri

So if you we take Greek reprezentation of English sounds then

D - Nt
Ch - Tz
J - still Tz
Sh - s
G - gh

S-o mi ntier fr-i-e-nnts this wai Inglis will bi pronouncent in tu tousant years. If p-i-p-l w-i-l be stunting it from Grik transcription.

:-) no offense to anyone simply my fantasy. But this is reall issue. If they will be studing English from Greek transcription, that indeed will be what they will get. :-)

Just food for thoughs.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

You clearly are preparing your arguments for a peer-reviewed journal article on the topic it seems. Best of luck with it.

If this is all that can be mustered, I think another one of these has run its course. Glad you guys had fun again for a while.

[Arman]

Thanks, that's anyway in best case some hobbist debate, knewlageble people most probably have better arguments anyway. At the end what can we acheeve debating here except of some fun? :-) No one is going to take this thread as reference in his sceintific report ( I hope ) :-)

Let everybody keep his opinion, I hope no body got offended since I didn't mean any offence.
In any case in 2500 years, Modern Greek will become Ancient So however we pronounce it now in 2500 years todays Greek will be matching Ancient Greek absolutelly :-)

[Mouzafphaerre]

Isn't Kurdish is turkic language?
.
Kurdish is an Iranian language. (Indo-European > Indo-Iranian > Iranian)

The ê of Kurdish is already i in Farsi. Compare eg. erê vs. آری ("yea")
.

[hellenes]

You clearly are preparing your arguments for a peer-reviewed journal article on the topic it seems. Best of luck with it.

If this is all that can be mustered, I think another one of these has run its course. Glad you guys had fun again for a while.

I apologise Tilekle if I offended you but using a separate language to figure out ANOTHER language's pronounciation doesnt sound that serious...Does it? I know that the west has a decent amount of admiration about Rome and Latin in general thus Erasmus' whole efforts to disregard the Medieval Hellenism and to separate it from its roots have beared fruits in deed...
Its an undeniable fact that NO historian can prove beyond any doubt the pronounciation of ancient Hellenes, it seems that in the anger of labelling others "nationalists, analysts, sadomazochists" and anything ending to "-ists" this vital fact is being overlooked.

Hellenes

[khelvan]

Someone interested in finding evidence, not fitting evidence to a preconceived notion, will take the fact that there are no absolute proofs regarding ancient history as their first premise. It is similar to science. And, just like in science, those more interested in fitting evidence to an agenda don't take "we will never prove anything 100%" as a starting point, but use it as some sort of defense, or argument, rather than just sticking to supporting an argument with evidence.

[Arman]

Someone interested in finding evidence, not fitting evidence to a preconceived notion, will take the fact that there are no absolute proofs regarding ancient history as their first premise. It is similar to science. And, just like in science, those more interested in fitting evidence to an agenda don't take "we will never prove anything 100%" as a starting point, but use it as some sort of defense, or argument, rather than just sticking to supporting an argument with evidence.
Yes, but in this particular case we can provide only logical assumptions as an evidence to the case. I don't think that any link to similar to this discussion published in the web would be sufficient evidence in any case.

[Arman]

"Υπέρ της Αχαϊκής Συμπολιτείας πολεμήσαντες
Ανδρείοι σεις που πολεμήσατε και πέσατ' ευκλεώς·
τους πανταχού νικήσαντας μη φοβηθέντες."
Is this Ancient Greek?
Most of those words are still understandable.

"ΑΙΡΕΥΟΝΤΑΙ ΕΝ ΑΝΤΙ ΑΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΟΙ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΙ ΚΛΕΟΣ ΑΕΝΑΟΝ ΘΝΗΤΩΝ ΟΙ ΔΕ ΠΟΛΛΟΙ ΚΕΚΟΡΗΝΤΑΙ ΟΚΩΣΠΕΡ ΚΤΗΝΕΑ"

in this phrase I understand only "ΑΡΙΣΤΟΙ", "ΠΟΛΛΟΙ ", "ΚΤΗΝΕΑ".
Hellenes if he is native greek understand more probably.
Taking into account that Acient Greek is 2500 I can say it has changed considerably much less than some much younger languages. In that Algo-Saxon poem, you hardly find one familiar word.
This is irrelevant to discussion, just note, that Greek have been stabelized and established language, the changes are significant but still incomparable to how much other languages changed.

[oudysseos]

Arman- actually that is part of a poem by Constantine P. Cavafy, and so is in modern greek. Cavafy was one of modern Greece's first great poets- anyway he's the only one that I know about. When I was in school my tutor used Cavafy to illustrate someof the differences between modern greek and classical greek. I like Irony and Solipsism, which is why I used it as my signature.

[oudysseos]

It is true that the persistence of a greek language that is closer to its classical root than most other modern languages is remarkable.

I think it is only fair to point out that this outcome had a little help.

Καθαρεύουσα/Katharevousa was the 'official' form of greek until 1976, and had been 'invented' by Adamantios Korais mostly in Paris, as a pure form of greek free of all the trukish, slav, latin and italian loan words and grammar, essentially as a form of thelanguage that would have existed had greece remained continuously independent for 2500 years. Now, I didn't grow up in greece so I'm sure that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I have read that the Demotic form of greek that is used today (even for official purposes) was influenced to some extent by the years of Katharevousa's preeminence. This surely has some affect on the ability real or supposed of modern greeks without an eductaion in the subject to read classical greek more or less easily.

This is a similar process to what happened in my country BTW. Irish Gaelic as a modern language aften looks and sounds suspiciously like english written in a "Celtic" style. I over-exaggerate of course but there are an awful lot of loan words for modern objects and concepts that gaelic never had the chance to develop words for as it it had all but died out until revived by the nationalists of the late 19th century. Recreating an Irish/Gaelic identity was part and parcel of the nationalist political agenda, and the use of Irish continues to be a part of some Republican groups' ideologies. But in order to achieve all this the language itself had to be more or less reinvented, especially in literature. I mention this only because I believe that a very similar process happened in Greece. I do know from a book tha I read about Byron and Codrington that the English Philhellenes became disenchanted with many of the 'Greek Nationalist' soldiers/banditos, not least because lots of them spoke Albanian, Slavic and Vlach dialects or Turkish but not a lot of GReek.

[L'Impresario]

Cavafy was one of modern Greece's first great poets- anyway he's the only one that I know about. When I was in school my tutor used Cavafy to illustrate someof the differences between modern greek and classical greek. I like Irony and Solipsism, which is why I used it as my signature.

Yes, an excellent choice. Actually Cavafy uses a mix of demotic and katharevousa, with those 2 forms helping to construct an extra layer of complexity in his poems, modifying the characters and the overall style of each poem in various way.
In short (and I'm being here a bit simplistic), demotic reveals the more earthly and realistic tones in his work, but with a superfluous expressiveness that comes along everyday speech, something that is being concealed behind the rigid,strict katharevousa. Katharevousa adds a somewhat cold objectivity, that in the end appears solely to be a mask with a giocondesque smile.


Καθαρεύουσα/Katharevousa was the 'official' form of greek until 1976, and had been 'invented' by Adamantios Korais mostly in Paris, as a pure form of greek free of all the trukish, slav, latin and italian loan words and grammar, essentially as a form of thelanguage that would have existed had greece remained continuously independent for 2500 years. Now, I didn't grow up in greece so I'm sure that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I have read that the Demotic form of greek that is used today (even for official purposes) was influenced to some extent by the years of Katharevousa's preeminence. This surely has some affect on the ability real or supposed of modern greeks without an eductaion in the subject to read classical greek more or less easily.

It's true indeed. The natural language of 18th and 19th century greeks was quite far from demotic, not to mention katharevousa. It was actually a compromise between the various factions that loathed each other to death, but a construction nonetheless. Ofcourse with the rise of nationalism, most nations sought to justify their new status by delving deep into the annals of history, normalising the different traditions and customs found within the perceived borders of their state and turning them into folklore. Any standardization of the official language is definately relying on the ruling elite's decision to place the new state into a certain continuing historical timeframe that also provides legitimisation for the further advancement of many policies.

The katharevousa forms that still survive are really numerous, mostly adverbial forms,specific declinations and idiomatic expressions, that currently have a "cliché" status and can help recognise the speaker's style as "scholarly"(but most of the time not heh).

[oudysseos]

I found this link http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kal/agp/ which is from the Austrian Academy of Sciences and includes three samples of ancient greek pronounciation. Very interesting. Doesn't sound much like dogs barking to me.

[Arman]

Indeed Katharevusa was very good attempt to bring Greek back as civilized language, problem is that after turkish occupation Greek language suffered badly it become slangish. Lack of education in Greek downgraded peoples knewlage of their language to the basic daily needs.
Well Katharevusa was standartized Greek which sound very good and was very proper, mostly attibute of intelectually developed person, people still their intelectuality by throwing expression from Pure (Katharevusa) Greek. Pitty last 20 years it's not being enforced anymore. Today Greek Youth inserts whole sentenses in English as they talk to each other. I'm afraid Greek can really downgrade significantly again, many words that still used by my grandparents, youth replacing with English words.
Plus in 1970-1890 they were studing Ancient Greek as subject in school!
Today student study all sort of strange worthless subjects but no Ancient Greek.

[Arman]

It's true indeed. The natural language of 18th and 19th century greeks was quite far from demotic, not to mention katharevousa.
Don't expect any huge diferences tho, my grand ma went in school in 1920s just for two years. And left Greece in 1949 so she were not there when Katharevusa was introduced, still she speaks same Greek as most of people speak here now, with very small minor diferences , and those could be related to the fact that she is from North and I mostly hears South Greek.
Katharevusa was significantly diferent from what we use now tho, I got to say I don't undestand many phrases when they speak in Katharevusa in old movies, but again they mostly speak the dimotico Greek as we speak now. Katharevusa was used in schools, TV, and official news papers. So they were forcing people to learn it. But still only educated people could speak it.

[Arman]

Cretians still speak in diferent way, and pronouce sounds diferently.
For example instead of "ke" they say "che".
"che to ipa na pao na chemitho"
So obviusly if today greeks the basic sound k pronouce in deferent way within 500 square km arrea. Its most probable that in those days diferent city states could speak quite diferently but still they were able to undestand each other.

[QwertyMIDX]

Well Doric and Attic/Ionic (which aren't even the same, double tau in Attic is double sigma is Ionic for example, and contraction that exists in Attic doesn't in Ionic) are pretty seriously different. We don't really know if the Hellens were speaking to each other directly before the Koine developed, ancient sources aren't very good about mentioning the presence of translators. Alternatively one of the dialects might have been a sort of lingua franca.

[oudysseos]

We've gone pretty far from how to transliterate Δημητριος. Maybe we should rename the thread 'Discussion about Classical Greek' ?

[L'Impresario]

I don't have enough time to comment on Arman's posts but I'll only refer to the fact that ancient greek is still taught today (3 years in Gymnasium and 1-3 in Lycaeum) at least 3-4 hours per week IIRC) and that
katharevousa was a written language. The Cretan dialect is mainly bearing strong venetian (and ofcourse turkish influence) and the relative isolation from the mainland helped the evolution of such distinctiveness.
BTW there was a thread in the monastery dedicated to Ancient Geek ;)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54323

[Idomeneas]

I don't have enough time to comment on Arman's posts but I'll only refer to the fact that ancient greek is still taught today (3 years in Gymnasium and 1-3 in Lycaeum) at least 3-4 hours per week IIRC) and that
katharevousa was a written language. The Cretan dialect is mainly bearing strong venetian (and ofcourse turkish influence) and the relative isolation from the mainland helped the evolution of such distinctiveness.
BTW there was a thread in the monastery dedicated to Ancient Geek ;)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54323

I dont know today but when i was in school in gymnasium we had only ''translated'' greek texts and we only had ancient for 2 years in Lyceum. Now i think its even worse.

Cretans might have some Venetian influences but what of the highlanders? You know that no conqueror got there, no venetians, no turks, no germans. They have a HUGE amount of classical words in their dialect. Also most of them dont have the -akis ending in their last name. Simply cause they never had Turks up there.