What's the level of mutual intelligibility/transferrenc between ancient/modern Greek?

any at all? I'm reading Xenophon's Anabasis and have been reading some other Greek works (the normal Sophistries) and i'm finding myself inspired to start learning Ancient Greek.

I know it's completely independant in the Indo-European family with only some Latin loanwords and the typical Indo commonalities (Mater/Pater and probably Mord) but is there ANY transferrence to Modern Greek? I am fine with learning Latin as 1) it's a rich tradition in akademia 2) great transferrence to other languages 3) I feel it can come back as a standard second language despite its short lull as such

BUT

ancient Greek has none of those qualities, it's just for reading ancient Greek and that's it!

any Hellenes or learners have advice?
what books? resources?
:book:

I hope I don't start a pronunciation battle to end all :dizzy2:

IIRC modern greek uses a lot more the letter "iota", and also is quite different...
Is like italian and latin I think, few words remained, but isn't the same...

I am not qualified to comment on similarities of ancient and modern Greek, but ancient Greek has many similarities to Latin. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, a Greek historian in the Julio-Claudian era, spent many years living in Italy researching the Roman world and he basically viewed Latin as a version of Greek with some incorrect pronunciation habits. I find this plausible since many words in the two languages are etymologically related, i.e. Latin vis (force) Greek bia (force), Latin animus (spirit) Greek anemos (wind), latin videre/video (see) Greek idein/oida (see). You just got to study the two in some detail to start noticing all the interrelations. Historically I am primarily a Latinist, but there is great irony in Roman history since 1) some of the best historians of Roman matters were Greeks writing in Greek, e.g. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Plutarch, Polybios, and Procopios and 2) the Roman imperium ultimately collapsed in the west and was sustained by Greek speaking east Romans for another thousand years. So if you really want to study the Roman thing in depth you will end up reading a lot of Greek authors. To study Roman history only based on Latin authors is inferior, just compare Livy's history of the regal era and early Republic with Dionysios' history of the same-- Dionysios goes into greater depth and length and to my mind is the better historian overall.

Not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

I am not qualified to comment on similarities of ancient and modern Greek, but ancient Greek has many similarities to Latin. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, a Greek historian in the Julio-Claudian era, spent many years living in Italy researching the Roman world and he basically viewed Latin as a version of Greek with some incorrect pronunciation habits. I find this plausible since many words in the two languages are etymologically related, i.e. Latin vis (force) Greek bia (force), Latin animus (spirit) Greek anemos (wind), latin videre/video (see) Greek idein/oida (see). You just got to study the two in some detail to start noticing all the interrelations. Historically I am primarily a Latinist, but there is great irony in Roman history since 1) some of the best historians of Roman matters were Greeks writing in Greek, e.g. Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Plutarch, Polybios, and Procopios and 2) the Roman imperium ultimately collapsed in the west and was sustained by Greek speaking east Romans for another thousand years. So if you really want to study the Roman thing in depth you will end up reading a lot of Greek authors. To study Roman history only based on Latin authors is inferior, just compare Livy's history of the regal era and early Republic with Dionysios' history of the same-- Dionysios goes into greater depth and length and to my mind is the better historian overall.

---

The above post: Ancient Latin was a dialect of ancient Greek.

Linguists: Ancient Latin was one language, Greek another.

Geticus i personally believe those similarities to be from Indo European nature, rather than them being from the same sub family.

My understanding is that Ancient Greek is to Modern Greek as Latin is to Italian. Lots of related words, but not really mutually intelligible. -M

Well considering that I'm currently learning the two at the same time, I can honestly say that I don't see that many similarities between the two. If ancient Greek has relevance today outside of academic pursuits, for me as an English speaker, many words are derived from ancient Greek and studying the Greek in turn helps me master the English language better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

I am not qualified to comment on similarities of ancient and modern Greek, but ancient Greek has many similarities to Latin. [...]

---

And both have many similarities to Modern, Middle and Ancient Persian. And Sanskrit. That only proves that they are all Indo-European languages though, belonging to different branches. Greek is a branch of its own (together with some other, now extinct, dialects) and not an Italic language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin

Well considering that I'm currently learning the two at the same time, I can honestly say that I don't see that many similarities between the two. If ancient Greek has relevance today outside of academic pursuits, for me as an English speaker, many words are derived from ancient Greek and studying the Greek in turn helps me master the English language better.

---

this is disappointing. thank you Brave Brave Sir Robin!

i am already going well into Latin at this point so learning 2 non living languages is just too much time 'wasted' so to speak. Latin has already shown itself to be immensely helpful and it still does have a second language speaking community (in fact im sure most of us here know 101 level at the least due to our interest in history)

but ancient Greek is too too specific at that point if it's only marginally useful in learning modern Greek. I'll just stick to Lattimore to give me the power of the tongue :creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

this is disappointing. thank you Brave Brave Sir Robin!

i am already going well into Latin at this point so learning 2 non living languages is just too much time 'wasted' so to speak. Latin has already shown itself to be immensely helpful and it still does have a second language speaking community (in fact im sure most of us here know 101 level at the least due to our interest in history)

but ancient Greek is too too specific at that point if it's only marginally useful in learning modern Greek. I'll just stick to Lattimore to give me the power of the tongue :creep:

---

I should have specified but I'm not referring to ancient and modern Greek. I'm taking ancient Greek and Latin and I was replying to the previous post comparing those two. I'm not qualified to compare ancient and modern Greek as I have no experience with the latter.

eheu! my mistake!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The above post: Ancient Latin was a dialect of ancient Greek.

Linguists: Ancient Latin was one language, Greek another.

---

Do you really think you speak for all linguists?
Cicero remarked in one of his books about how many Greek words were used in Rome during the early Republic.
Pronunciation habits change through a process called sound change. If you studied Greek and Latin in some depth (I have) then you would notice how many shared radicals exist in both languages. I really don't need your facile cutdowns, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

And both have many similarities to Modern, Middle and Ancient Persian. And Sanskrit. That only proves that they are all Indo-European languages though, belonging to different branches. Greek is a branch of its own (together with some other, now extinct, dialects) and not an Italic language.

---

The question I am addressing is whether the aboriginal Latins were fundamentally Greek, which was Dionysios of Halicarnassos' main thesis in his history. I find it plausible. And since Dionysios clearly cited Cato the Elder's Origines as one of his key sources, and since I consider Cato the Elder to be one of the greatest Roman intellectuals and historians of Roman/Latin origins, I am reluctant to dismiss Dionysios' thesis.

If we are to retain some open mindedness towards Dionysios' thesis, as representative of Cato, then we might consider that the prisci Latini of old were fundamentally of old Hellenic stock, the core of the Latin tongue based on pre-classical Hellenic speech, later on modified through in melting pot culture of Rome, achieving its canonical form under the early Empire, only to basically give way back to late Classical Greek after the fall of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

The question I am addressing is whether the aboriginal Latins were fundamentally Greek, which was Dionysios of Halicarnassos' main thesis in his history.

---

Aboriginal refers to indigenous. How can a Latin inhabitant be aboriginal if he or she is Greek? Do you mean to say that the Latins were originally Greek colonists? Just to be clear, you are referring to people of Latium, not Etruscans or any other peoples of the Italian peninsula, correct?

Regarding previous comment, I don't need to speak for every single linguist that ever lived. It's just the common consensus. Like some mentioned before me, Latin and Greek are shown to be part of the same language family but different enough to justify their being classified as separate languages and not a case in which Latin developed from Greek or where Latin was a dialect of Greek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Aboriginal refers to indigenous. How can a Latin inhabitant be aboriginal if he or she is Greek? Do you mean to say that the Latins were originally Greek colonists? Just to be clear, you are referring to people of Latium, not Etruscans or any other peoples of the Italian peninsula, correct?

Regarding previous comment, I don't need to speak for every single linguist that ever lived. It's just the common consensus. Like some mentioned before me, Latin and Greek are shown to be part of the same language family but different enough to justify their being classified as separate languages and not a case in which Latin developed from Greek or where Latin was a dialect of Greek.

---

Again wrong, the word aborigines is a Latin word specifically referring to the ancient Latin stock. Generalization of the use of that word to signify any nation or ethnos that was thought to have inhabited the land in early times was a later transvaluation of the word. Its etymology in ancient times was disputed but I accept the viewpoint put forth by Dionysios deriving it from Hellenic ab (from) + oros/genetive origos (hill) signifying the well know ancient historical fact that after the deluge the prisci Latini had lived in the hilly and mountainous regions of the Apennines, including the earlier seat of Latin royal power at Alba Longa prior to the rise of Roma and the shift towards the Tiber river and the coastlands and plains of Latium. In later times the word ABORIGINES was used to describe any person or nation of ancient origin. Do you not know that the Roman historians generally refer to the proto-Latin stock as the aborigines? The word was used specifically for the proto-Latins. Many Latin words have been transvalued in more recent times, especially after the rise of Christianity. For example, I don't believe any ancient Roman historian ever referred to any of the other early Italian nations as aborigines. This includes the Sicelii, the Italii, Samnites, Etrusci/Rasenna/Tyrsenoi etc. Only the Latin people were designated as aborigines because it was their general ethnonym before the word Latini became dominant during the late bronze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Again wrong, the word aborigines is a Latin word specifically referring to the ancient Latin stock. Generalization of the use of that word to signify any nation or ethnos that was thought to have inhabited the land in early times was a later transvaluation of the word. Its etymology in ancient times was disputed but I accept the viewpoint put forth by Dionysios deriving it from Hellenic ab (from) + oros/genetive origos (hill) signifying the well know ancient historical fact that after the deluge the prisci Latini had lived in the hilly and mountainous regions of the Apennines, including the earlier seat of Latin royal power at Alba Longa prior to the rise of Roma and the shift towards the Tiber river and the coastlands and plains of Latium. In later times the word ABORIGINES was used to describe any person or nation of ancient origin. Do you not know that the Roman historians generally refer to the proto-Latin stock as the aborigines? The word was used specifically for the proto-Latins. Many Latin words have been transvalued in more recent times, especially after the rise of Christianity. For example, I don't believe any ancient Roman historian ever referred to any of the other early Italian nations as aborigines. This includes the Sicelii, the Italii, Samnites, Etrusci/Rasenna/Tyrsenoi etc. Only the Latin people were designated as aborigines because it was their general ethnonym before the word Latini became dominant during the late bronze.

---

You're unnecessarily shifting to a completely different topic. I am not using the term aboriginal in its ancient usage. I'm using the term in its modern usage. You can tell because I pointed out the definition I was using. So it was a question regarding your post, not a claim on the ancient usage of some word. I could care less as its irrelevant to the thread.

They are two separate language subfamilies as well: Italic and Hellenic, and even those are in different "infra-orders" if you will: the Italo-Celtic vs the Aryo-Armeno-Hellenic.

Well I think you could call Latin heavily influenced by greek but I think it would be wrong to say it was basically a greek dialect. And honestly I don't think Latin and greek were more related to each other than ... German and the two, considering there are a lot of words taken from both, yet it's not a Romance language. Well and the Alphabet is derived from the greek one but that does not make two languages closer relatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geticus

Do you really think you speak for all linguists?
Cicero remarked in one of his books about how many Greek words were used in Rome during the early Republic.
Pronunciation habits change through a process called sound change. If you studied Greek and Latin in some depth (I have) then you would notice how many shared radicals exist in both languages. I really don't need your facile cutdowns, either.

---

Cicero was not a linguist. He knew multiple languages, but you don't have the study of linguistics until 19th/20th century, afaik. Latin and Ancient Greek are related, yes, but the one is not a dialect of the other - this is especially true when you remember that one of the qualifications to be a dialect is mutual intelligibility - ie. if Greek speakers can't understand Latin just by listening to it, it isn't a dialect of Greek. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

Cicero was not a linguist. He knew multiple languages, but you don't have the study of linguistics until 19th/20th century, afaik. Latin and Ancient Greek are related, yes, but the one is not a dialect of the other - this is especially true when you remember that one of the qualifications to be a dialect is mutual intelligibility - ie. if Greek speakers can't understand Latin just by listening to it, it isn't a dialect of Greek. -M

---

Yes, exactly. hence my original question in the first place! ; Is there even a slight degree of mutual intelligibility between ancient and modern Greek? Seeing as classical Hebrew was revived on emergence of Israel, was a sort of classical form of Greek reinstituted as the 'standard' Greek to give newly independent Greeks a political-linguo identity?

Man, i just want to know if i'm wasting my time learning ancient Greek :P

ps: I just don't see strong evidence that the Italic languages are subordinate, or are drawn from, Greek. the idea that Latin was a dialect implies Italics as a subordinate culture. sounds good for Hellenists but I think studying each language scientifically sees only the commonality found in Indo European languages, not commonality found within a sub family (like German and her Germanic sisters)

Are there remnants of ancient Greek in modern Greek? Yes. Is this significant? No.

Greek went to at least 3 or so major pronunciation/spelling shifts which renders knowledge of ancient Greek largely useless in learning modern Greek:

• The shift to pronouncing a large number of vowels as -i-, where previously there had been a much greater wealthy of vowels. So spelling doesn't make the slightest bit of sense if you come in with a Classical Greek background. Bit like English, but worse.
• The shift back from -b- to -v-. This is actually linguistically a reversal of an earlier shift from -w- to -b- (as seen in e.g. boulomai (I want).) and the subsequent reintroduction of -b- which is now denoted by mu + pi.
• 19th century efforts to “reconstruct” Greek from what they thought they knew about ancient/classical Greek after the secession from the Ottoman Empire which (a) never made much headway beyond written Greek so corruptions of the written language probably made it in droves, and (b) was “essentially” given up on in the mid 20th century as being too bloody complicated to live with every day anyway.
  
  It involved re-introducing features from classical/ancient Greek in a 19th century language, which was then blessed as the official (written) Greek but really a Frankensteined version of classic/ancient Greek based on whatever happened to be in vogue in academia regarding the subject whilst rejecting even older back-to-the-roots efforts. And often enough, the result is actually “wrong” simply because their understanding of linguistics and the history of Greek was too incomplete. Then in the 20th century they simply dropped the pretense and decided to live without accents (except for the tonos) and some other complexity. But in the meantime, the 19th century efforts have impacted what came to be regarded as the status quo, too. So you can't discount that 19th century experiment entirely, moreover you will encounter remnants of that in written modern Greek.

That is apart from idiom and vocabulary which saw 2000 odd years of continuous updating (not to mention alien influences)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

Man, i just want to know if i'm wasting my time learning ancient Greek :P

---

The fact that if you speak Latin (not Greek) you will not really understand much if any Greek (and vice versa) does not make learning the other useless. Have you already studied Latin? Greek? I don't study either, I'm not a classicist. But study them if you intend on reading these ancient works in their original form. I'm sure you will be well rewarded and that you will not find these languages useless at all.

There's almost no mutual intelligibility, in my experience. Probably a little bit less than between English and Old English. Some words will sort of look the same on paper, but the pronunciation is completely different and there's plenty of new loanwords that didn't exist in the ancient language.

After learning Ancient Greek for 5 years, Modern Greek sounds like gibberish to me. And I know from my experiences travelling in Greece that Ancient Greek sounds equally like gibberish to modern speakers.

That being said, I have been told that knowing Ancient Greek (especially from the Hellenistic texts) makes learning how to READ Modern Greek a lot easier, since the Greek spelling system is rather conservative. The problem is that the modern spelling system, as was mentioned above, does not reflect the actual modern pronunciation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The fact that if you speak Latin (not Greek) you will not really understand much if any Greek (and vice versa) does not make learning the other useless. Have you already studied Latin? Greek? I don't study either, I'm not a classicist. But study them if you intend on reading these ancient works in their original form. I'm sure you will be well rewarded and that you will not find these languages useless at all.

---

ita latinum studeo :)

But i'm not necessarily a classicist either, i'm actually more interested in Latin as a living language and then as the lingua franca than I am in the works of Caesar or Cicero. That doesn't mean I don't very very much intend to be able to read Cicero :)

but Greek just seems to esoteric beyond its use of reading the (high high quality and number) ancient texts if it barely applies to modern Greek. Like I said, the benefits to learning Latin are innumerable and there is still a pretty strong Latin speaking community internationally and its basically a prerequisite to get into many of the great works of science and literature.

I'll probably learn it eventually, i don't doubt it's beauty or importance, but i can only justify learning one non living language per like 3 living ones :P

Ok well I'll yield especially since I started dragging from the original post. But FWIW Dionysios of Halicarnassos is sorely missing from many courses on ancient Rome, and his history is actually of very high quality, and he does make in my opinion a cogent case that the Aborigines, i.e. the proto-Latins, were of Arkadian Hellenic provenance, and not indigenous, and had passed over the Adriatic in the mid-late Bronze prior to the Trojan War Era, and the Sea-People invasions. So if Dionysios, and presumably Cato the Elder as well, were right, then the early language of the Aborigines was some kind of late Bronze Hellenic, progressively modified by Pelasgian, Etruscan, Oscan influences etc.

1. I do very much appreciate Dionysios. He does some very good scholarship. For example, I personally think his reasoning for why the Etruscans were indigenous is very sound.

2. As for whether the Latins were indigenous, I think modern scholars have provided a more realistic explanation - namely that the Latins were a hodge-podge melting pot of the Etruscans, the other Italian peoples and also Hellenes. I think that makes far more sense than the idea of one people coming over, colonizing and then somehow switching to a completely different language that is admittedly a distant relative of their first language. -M

and I though Classical Arabic sounded funky compared to modern dialects :clown:


speaking of the recognizable: what other indoeuropean language is closest to Greek? I know Latin is actually not that close; doubtless there is a known language that is closer, alive or extinct? and what's the closest modern, living language?

I really don't know, just wanted to find out.

Just thought this might help:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ropeanTree.svg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

and I though Classical Arabic sounded funky compared to modern dialects :clown:


speaking of the recognizable: what other indoeuropean language is closest to Greek? I know Latin is actually not that close; doubtless there is a known language that is closer, alive or extinct? and what's the closest modern, living language?

I really don't know, just wanted to find out.

---

Armenian. But we're talking a long time ago, like when our words for God would sound more similar. When you had these IE people living in the older Phrygia, before the further stages of migration south and back east across the Hellespont. Armenian itself has subsumed parts of the Anatolian (mainly Luwian, some Hittite; these are IE) and Caucasian (its own family) tongues.