what does Δημητριος mean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

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?

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.

[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, 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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L'Impresario

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaucer

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.

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?

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:

Quote:

---

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,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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