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

[Mulceber]

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

[fomalhaut]

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)

[Tellos Athenaios]

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)

[vartan]

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.

[Saldunz]

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.

[fomalhaut]

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

[Geticus]

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.

[Mulceber]

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

[Ibrahim]

and I though Classical Arabic sounded funky compared to modern dialects


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.

[Mulceber]

Just thought this might help:

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

[vartan]

and I though Classical Arabic sounded funky compared to modern dialects


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.