Byazntium name or a scholar error,what is the thru name of a great empire ??
Printable View
Byazntium name or a scholar error,what is the thru name of a great empire ??
As I've learned from medieval history books & lectures:
During the Middle Ages, the Byzantines called themselves rhomaioi which means Romans, and they called their empire the Eastern Roman Empire.
And it seems, if u called someone Byzantines in the middle ages people (or maybe only greeks) would understand it as the inhabitants of Constantinople.
The Europeans called the Byzantines as Greeks, while I think the Turks & Saracens called them Romans.
Taken from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia linkQuote:
The name "Byzantine Empire" is a modern term and would have appeared alien to its contemporaries. The term was invented in 1557, about a century after the fall of Constantinople by German historian Hieronymus Wolf, who introduced a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae in order to distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history. Standardization of the term did not occur until the 17th century when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Hieronymus himself was influenced by the rift caused by the 9th century dispute between Romans (Byzantines as we render them today) and Franks, who, under Charlemagne's newly formed empire, and in concert with the Pope, attempted to legitimize their conquests by claiming inheritance of Roman rights in Italy thereby renouncing their eastern neighbours as true Romans. The Donation of Constantine, one of the most famous forged documents in history, played a crucial role in this. Henceforth, it was fixed policy in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual "Imperator Romanorum" (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch, but as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as "Imperium Graecorum", "Graecia", "Terra Graecorum" or even "Imperium Constantinopolitanus".
Yes....This is true.... The Byzantines called themselves rhomaioi.....
But, I wonder, their language was modern-day greek or a dialect???
It was neither a dialect nor modern day Greek. Compare it to, say, the literary Dutch of the 17th century to modern Dutch. I can read it, but it still is quite a bit different.
~Wiz
The official name for the Byzantine Empire was Eastern Roman Empire. Its greek speaking citizens called themselves Ρομαίοι(Romans).
The laguage was a distinct branch of 'byzantine' greek, which means that it was kind of like hellenistic greek but a little more modernized. All of the Orthodox Church's hymns and texts were written in byzantine greek and it still used to this day by priests and monks.
I think that about covers it.
Byzantium was the name of the city that was rebuilt and greatly expanded by Constantine to form Constantinople, capital of the Eastern (half of the) Roman Empire. So yes, to call someone a Byzantine in the Middle Ages would be to call them a citizen of the city of Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul(modern day).
I doubt the average Byzantine would have known what you meant if you asked where 'Byzantium' was or where the 'Byzantine emperor' was.
You see, the average citizen of Constantinople simply thought of himself as a citizen of the City, and nothing else. Maybe he would have called it Stamboul, but Byzantium (or Bouzantion, transliterated from Greek) would have been a foreign term for them.
~Wiz
No its not Bouzantion but Vyzantion BΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΝ. The Constantinople ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥΠΟΛΗ Constantin's city) was often called City ΠΟΛΙΣ. Instanbul comes from turkish paraphrasation of the greek expression ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΗΝ (to the city). If you were asking about byzantium they would think you speak about the ancient greek city. They were calling themselves ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ although the majority of population was greek or greek influenced mostly because the word ΕΛΛΗΝ as combined with the worshiper of the old gods. The language was exactly hellenistic attic dialect and it was still in use till 19th century. Anyway its very close with modern ''official'' greek. Anybody with basic education can understand it something like medieval and modern englishQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
The name Byzantium comes from Byzantion which was a Megarian colony. Megara is near Athens. When they saw the opening and founded the city they called is Byzantion because the leader of the expedition was called Byzas.
Of course they knew. They understood the history and why it was called Constantinople. It was no secret that 300-400 years before the city was called byzantium.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Not exactly, but very similar. The language did change from the times of Alexander. We're talking about 1000 years here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
And aren't there priests who can speak Byzantine? I always thought there were since every text they have is written in it.
That's not accurate. In Strategikon of Kekaumenos (written in the 1070s) the writer mentions a person being "byzantinos" with the meaning of that person originating from Constantinople.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Edit: To avoid any misunderstandings. The term is mentioned in the original Byzantine text.
Ancient Greek: the beta is not pronounced as a 'v' but rather as a 'b'. Plus the fact that ancient Greek does not possess an igrek. Instead, there is the upsilon which in its capital form is 'Y', but is pronounced as a German 'u': 'ooh' (slightly differently but I am bad in putting phonetics into letters).Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas
Ah, so the masses understood the history of their city? That would be a first. That would put the Byzantine mob a whole lot of notches higher up the ladder than both the Roman and the modern mob.
~Wiz
You don't know anything. Please do not speak of things you haven't the slightest idea about. I have done Ancient and Byzantine Greek in school and what you just said is totally false.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
They knew it used to be called Byzantium that's for sure. There were no secrets about this. Combine that with the fact that someone from Constantinople was sometimes refered to as a byzantine and you got your answer, Wiz...Quote:
Ah, so the masses understood the history of their city?
Byzantine Prince, the wizard only says that because whatever he learned of Ancient Greek he learned either in the US or in Britain or some other english-speaking country. All english-speaking countries have butchered the language for the sake of making pronounciation easier for them. It kills me living in Canada and seeing how horribly they have warped Ancient Greek simply for the sake of convenience. It seems that since its an "ancient" language, that many feel that it can be altered to suit their native language much like what is done with Latin from what I know.
Fortunately, in most european nations Ancient Greek is taught properly.
Wizard, are you sure that the Byzantines used attic pronounciation? I am under the impression that after the domination of Koine, the pronounciation was altered to the "modern" one. (b as v, etc).
Amin to that,brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias71
Pardon? Albeit I haven't had Greek since 2003, but I know my ancient Greek alphabet and pronunciation, and I also know that what I said is completely correct. I get my education at the Gymnasium Erasmianum in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where the great scholar himself taught pupils back in the 16th century. I know that such an exclusive schooling community as a Dutch gymnasium, where the ancient languages are mandatory instead of a choice will not teach something that is not correct etymologically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elias71
Byzantine Prince, I am extremely offended. You have no right to say that of my knowledge of Greek. I may have forgotten my grammatics and vocabulary, but not my knowledge of its pronunciation and alphabet, and I know that I am not incorrect. I demand that you withdraw your comment immediately. It is not my problem that you feel offended by my trying to support my claims with a lot of words. Deal with it, okay? Not all of us blurt out idiotic claims without any supportive argumentation.
And now I will reply to the only person who has in any way replied to my post in a normal way (albeit I must say I am far more offended by Byzantine Prince than by Elias71).
Cataphract Of The City, I must admit I made my post a bit hastily, without thinking of when exactly the old pronunciation changed to modern. I simply assumed it was something quite new, forgetting my usual reasoning that such things take place over a long period of time. Do you have any information of when the 'b' turned to 'v'? I must admit I do not know so at all, and forgot, when I posted, that I had been taught the Attic dialect.
~Wiz
From http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...an/grkphon.htm
and additional evidence for beta beeing prounounced like [b] in classical greek:
http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...an/betapro.htm
Quote:
How close is the sound of Modern Greek to that of Classic Greek?
Phonetically, Classic Greek would sound rather alien to contemporary Greeks, but don't ever say this to them! It is an issue that most Greeks, even educated ones, ignore. I suspect it is because the alphabet has remained the same, so Greeks can read classic texts with no trouble (pronouncing in Modern Greek). After all, it all looks Greek to them! If any (non-Greek) scholar attempts to pronounce classic texts in the reconstructed(1) pronunciation, that, to Greeks is tantamount to sacrilege. As a contemporary Greek myself, I can give you my personal feeling for how the reconstructed pronunciation sounds: it is as if a barbarian is trying to speak Greek.(2) For example, take the word "barbarian" itself (which is of Greek origin): in Classic Greek it would be pronounced [barbaros]. In Modern Greek, it is [varvaros]. In general, the second letter of the alphabet, beta, was pronounced as [b] in Plato's time, but was changed to [v] by the time the Gospels were written. Now, to the modern Greek ear, [v] is a soft sound (a "fricative" in linguistics), sort of smooth and gentle, while [b] is a hard one (a "plosive"), kind of rough and crass. The same can be said about the letter delta, which was pronounced as [d] by Plato, and as [th] (as in this) since around Christ's time, and the letter gamma ([g] in Classic Greek, [gh] later the latter sound is a "voiced velar fricative"; click here to see the full repertoire of Modern Greek sounds). Greek readers of this text who do not believe that Plato, Socrates, etc., were sounding so barbaric, may take a clue from this very word: "barbaros" was coined after somebody who, as a non-native speaker of Greek would produce incomprehensible speech, which sounded like... well, what? Could it be "var-var-var"? Or wouldn't it sound more barbaric if it were "bar-bar-bar"? Besides this word, direct evidence for beta comes from a fragment of Attic comedy where it is said that the voice of the sheep is BH-BH.(3) In Modern Greek this would read as "vi-vi", rather un-sheepish-like; while in the reconstructed way it would be "beeh-beeh", exactly the sound that we, contemporary Greeks, attribute to the animal. (If the reader would like to make a comment on the above issues, email to me, and let me know what you think; but please make sure to have read first the links that say "Evidence" on the righmost column of the table, below.)
On the other hand, the truth is when non-Greek scholars attempt to pronounce Classic Greek in the reconstructed way, they think they pronounce accurately. To me, American scholars sound distinctly American (like Platos with spurs and cowboy hats), Germans sound German, etc. Probably nobody can reproduce exactly the Classic Greek pronunciation, not only because as native speakers of this or that language we necessarily carry over our native phonology, but also because the Classic Greek pronunciation used pitch to differentiate vowels in words, while all modern European languages (including Modern Greek) use stress instead.
What a bunch of BS. Basically this guy is saying ancient greek is very different from modern greek and then he goes and says this:
Does this make sense to anyone? So what he is saying is that foreign schollars KNOW something educated GREEK people don't know about their own language but that he has no real evidence for this for obvious reasons. Yeah right...:laugh:Quote:
Probably nobody can reproduce exactly the Classic Greek pronunciation,
there is some evidence behind the second link, don`t know of you call real.
Have you or the greek scholars any evidence to support that the prounounciation of beta hasn`t changed ?
There you go Wizard, you just said it yourself. You learned under the Erasmian pronounciation (ie. the butchered one).
And now since you guys think you are funny trying to mock Greeks in general (I take offense to your silly post cunctator, how about you read this, and THEN come talk with something even remotely worth it to share with us:
http://www.bsw.org/?l=72081&a=Art06.html
Erasmus did nothing but damage the ancient Greek language, and it kills me that for so long people just let it slide until it took over.
And in case you are too lazy, just read the beginning which explains how Erasmus was wrong, and how he even realized he was wrong and did not use his own pronounciation system.
Good lord, not another ancient Greek debate... Wiz, stay out of it, it's hopless...
LOL! I love how as soon as you are given evidence that shatters your hopeless stuck up fantasies of knowing "real" Greek, you run away. Just face it, others only listened to Erasmus because it was more convenient for them, they got away with it because the Greeks were under the Turks and could not speak out against it, everyone who followed Erasmus eventually realized it was wrong when Erasmus himself stopped using it, but they were too egotistical to admit the mistake they made. Also, the fact that Erasmus caused so much controversy with his ideas only dug him a deeper hole, because he had fought to hard to admit later that he was "wrong".
And now here we are hundreds of years later, with people like you having gone to your precious "Erasmian Schools" costing you tons of cash, and now can't stand the thought that you were taught wrong.
He did not run away. I was merely posting advice to strategically withdraw from a battle that cannot be won, and has no tactical advatange to be confored to him if he does indeed win.
You call it at "a battle that cannot be won", well, thats my point exactly. It's not that the battle CAN'T be won, but that his denial won't let him realize that the battle for him, and his side only, cannot be won.
Clearly, anybody who has enough self-respect and true knowledge can wake up and realize that yes, people were wrong in the past, and yes, people still are, and that you dont HAVE to keep following Erasmus' error. But as long as ego and denial get in the way, people will continue to support Erasmus because thats who they fell face first with, and just don't want to accept that they were wrong.
I am offended by you. Anyone who tries to besmerch the language of my ancestors doesn't deserve any respect from me!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
You think you are not incorrect but your knowledge of pronounciation and alphabet is completely skewed as Elias demostrated.Quote:
I may have forgotten my grammatics and vocabulary, but not my knowledge of its pronunciation and alphabet, and I know that I am not incorrect.
Tough luck. Quit insulting the holy language of my ancestors.Quote:
I demand that you withdraw your comment immediately.
Holy language? I do not care if God himself came down to me and spoke to me in your so-called holy language. Lay down your misguided patriotism and sense of 'honor' and realize that you were simply being rude, regardless of the fact if I was wrong or right. Whatever I said warranted no such reaction from you. I have more right to answer the way you did, the way you are offending me with your entirely unprovoked vitriolic response.
However, I'm quite afraid I'm going to have to continue insulting your 'holy' language. A language I find about as pleasing to the ear as German, and that is certainly no compliment. But, I fear I must take the debate to you about this less-than-pleasing language because I want clarity and not disparate claims.
Now, from the start, I have a hard time believing you. Perhaps I am indeed misguided, and if so am willing to accept that fact. But the fact that I am -- perhaps -- misguidedly taught does not mean that I am trying to mock your language or culture. There are different opinions. You disagree with those in Western Europe. Big deal. Get over it. Debate does not mean that the honor of Greece is at stake right off the bat, capiche?
Now, past the trivial points and on to the real points. I find the source you provided, Elias, is at the least a bit vague. It's large, to be sure, and elaborate, but the notes provided are vague at best and the same can be said for the points made. When I read, and I quote, "One of its foremosts proponents was Friedrich Blass [...] whose arguments have often been refuted," where a note is provided saying "For example, a Greek scholar wrote a book of 752 pages [...] setting forth the evidence available then in vindication of the historical Greek pronunciation and at the same time showing the untenability of the arguments of Blass as well as other advocates of Erasmianism," I have a despicably hard time accepting the point.
So, a scholar has apparently been refuted many times. How? And a Greek did that in a book of 752 pages. Great. What now? Nothing, that's what. So much space devoted to so much words which ultimately mean nothing.
It's the problem of the whole piece. Yeah, that's great, the Greeks are right and the Erasmians are wrong. Erasmians research pronunciation by way of researching Indo-European languages -- a language Greek is part of as well -- but not Greek itself. Putting doubts of that fact aside, I still wonder what I do with the knowledge. The piece you have provided is a debate going around in circles for a while, only to single out the way to Modern Greek pronunciation for no obvious reason at a certain point. It states nothing, besides "Erasmians are wrong, Greeks are right." A bit easy, if you ask me.
Besides, the point made that it is wrong not to use modern Greek to find out how it was actually pronounced is weak at best. So, to find out how I should pronounce Dutch of the 8th/9th century AD, when the language first appeared, I should go and compare what I'm speaking now to whatever we know of the language back then?
First off, there were a hundred different dialects, so different in fact that if you walked a kilometer or twenty you couldn't understand what the hell the people there were saying. Then there's the knowledge that trying to pronounce literary Dutch of the 17th century is already damn hard for Dutchmen of today, let alone Dutch of the 9th century.
Languages evolve. Greek is no exception. Why should modern Greeks be able to perfectly pronounce whatever an average citizen of 6th century BC Corinth is supposed to have said, while modern Dutch have a hard time pronouncing their language of four hundred years ago? Four hundred years versus twenty fife hundred. If Dutch has evolved so much in so much less time, then why should a language from the same Indo-European genetic classification not evolve one bit in so much more time?
Now, as you may have noticed by now, I have never stated that the Erasmians were right. I am just stating the weak joints in the argumentation of supporters of Greek pronunciation, and then specifically the argumentation in the article provided by Elias.
I do not have sufficient knowledge nor sufficient interest in a language I consider as unpleasing to the ear as German and Russian to decide who pronounces it correctly. I would like to see your argumentation, as I'm sure you will provide. It is intriguing to see that there is doubt on my education, and I wish to see if it is truly wrong.
But, seeing as even at the height of the debate in the 19th century it ended in a stalemate, I do not expect anyone to win here. This will probably be my one and only comment on the subject. I just wish there was less indignant and utterly unprovoked aggression from the side of the Greeks. Sheesh, cool down, will ya? Carry your honor like a Hector, not an Achilles.
~Wiz
Yo!!! Wiz cool down whith the Greek language thing, like dutch is much more tunned for ear so back off.
And whats whith this ''But, seeing as even at the height of the debate in the 19th century it ended in a stalemate, I do not expect anyone to win here. This will probably be my one and only comment on the subject. I just wish there was less indignant and utterly unprovoked aggression from the side of the Greeks. Sheesh, cool down, will ya? Carry your honor like a Hector, not an Achilles.'' You now there is much more to learn from real history books then from so called history magazines like Osprey thing or something. I am no greek but my alphabet serbian has derived from greek alphabet and it sounds very plasent. :book:
Right, now shut up. Wiz knows what he's talking about, he knows his shit, alright? No one has the right to come in insulting anyone's knowledge, claiming that they are always right, and that the other is an idiot.
Perhaps you and everyone else ought to calm down. Wiz was hardly the agressor here, and he can't be blamed for other people's rabid nationlism.
I had a friend in Junior High who was always really cocky about everything, especially his athletic ability. What he would do is that every time he got an assignement he would fill like 3 pages when every one else had only a page or less. He always recieved low marks for them though. Writing a lot doesn't make you any smarter then anyone. It's what you write that counts, and that doesn't have to be long nor does it have to be really superflous to be insightful. I am usually inpatient when it comes to trivial things like posting in this website, it doesn't mean I don't have vast knowledge on a subject. I am way to lazy to do it all to convince someone like The Wizard of something that he obviously has a very skewd opinion of.
Erasmians research pronunciation by way of researching Indo-European languages -- a language Greek is part of as well
Indo-European languages is a myth, a very very popular myth, but a myth none the less. Compare Dutch with Indian(another indoeuropean language). They are nothing alike in pronounciation, grammar or anything else besides some similarities in basic words, and neither are any other languages that do not belong in a langauge group of a distinct nationality(ie. German peoples, like Austrians and Dutch).
"First off, there were a hundred different dialects, so different in fact that if you walked a kilometer or twenty you couldn't understand what the hell the people there were saying."
WOW, there were 100 different dialects of Greek?!?
I don't think so. There were around 4 dialects in ancient greece, but this thread is not about them, it's about byzantine greek, which only has one dialect.
"Languages evolve. Greek is no exception."
Fair enough, I can't disagree with that. Tell me though has latin evolved in pronouciation? I think most schollars wouldn't say so. So why are they onyl picking on Greek? Are they envious of our (IMO)perfect langauge?
"Why should modern Greeks be able to perfectly pronounce whatever an average citizen of 6th century BC Corinth is supposed to have said, while modern Dutch have a hard time pronouncing their language of four hundred years ago? Four hundred years versus twenty fife hundred."
This conversation was about the Byzantine Empire and it's pronouciation of the Byzantine NOT ancient greek. That being said byzantine greek was spoken till the 16th century in most places in greece. That is about 500 years ago, not to mention that the church was already enstablished and they kept the language alive by singing their hymns to this very day.
This can also be proven by the minorities of greeks living in Sicily, Southern Italy and Cyrinaica mountains of Lybia who still to this day speak a deviated form of ancient greek. Of course we cannot understand because it's so "evolved" from then, but the pronounciation is undeniable.
"Now, as you may have noticed by now, I have never stated that the Erasmians were right."
So you are not right? ~D
"I just wish there was less indignant and utterly unprovoked aggression from the side of the Greeks."
Then you probably should have known this:
This guys knows what he's talking about. He has heard classic gereks speak with his own ears. ~DQuote:
Phonetically, Classic Greek would sound rather alien to contemporary Greeks, but don't ever say this to them!
I continue to be astounded as to how easily offense is taken by peoples in this region of the world. Tell me, if this discussion was face-to-face, would violence have been the end result? It seems a reasonable guess by the tone of some folks. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your heritage, but to become belligerent about it seems a gross over-reaction. Maybe this is normal behaviour in your real life, but it can't be like that here. Leave your "guns" and your attitude at the door when you come here - please! If you are unable to control you emotions, then I suggest you stay away from those topics in which you cannot maintain rational thought.
Penalties are pending a closer review of this thread.
Topic closed.