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

[athanaric]

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.

[Geticus]

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.

[vartan]

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.

[Geticus]

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.

[vartan]

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.

[gamegeek2]

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.

[Ca Putt]

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.