Origin of Katharevousa
Joachim Pense
largely replaced by Demotic) was created in the 19th century by a person
called Adamantios Korais as some sort of midpoint between classical Greek
and the then contemporary Greek. And indeed, written Katharevousa is
understandable for someone with sufficient knowledge of classical Greek -
not so Demotic.
I wonder what the reason was to use an artificial "middle" construction
instead of just using classical Greek (with some added vocabulary).
Joachim
mb
The distance from "official" golden-age Attic to the spoken Greek of
the 19th C was rather large. Also,
1. The relentless tradition of diglossia was felt to be obligatory
2. In said tradition is also a tradition of educated Greek elites
mishandling doornail-dead Attic grammar as badly, or even worse, than
Oxford dons, since middle Byzantine times (not that inventing Kath.
made them more secure in the use of it)
3. The gap between educated elites and the people was huge in Ottoman
times. As a result, the spoken language was Demotic. It is no longer
the spoken language (Kathomiloúmenê) today (after 150 years or so of
general schooling under Katharevoussian indoctrination, followed up by
sports reporters even after the death of K). Demotic is very flexible
and rich thanks to easy adoption and incorporation of loans, the which
loans were, as usual, an abomination to nationalist intellectuals.
Especially Turkish loans!
4. The abandonment of diglossia has been a highly politically charged
question since day 1 of the independence movement. The partisans of
demotic have been seen as anti-monarchists, atheists, communists, etc.
depending on the period.
Koraís was not the only father of it, it's rather a collective
upper-class group creation. In fact, Koraís never came with as extreme
an invention as the later official language of the Republic.
The character of the resulting quasi-conlang was not, of course, a
logical consequence of any of the above impulses. We ended up with a
monster that was ludicrous compared to the Attic standard of diglossia,
opaque to the speakers, and so unwieldy that the majority of even
highly educated people were totally unable to improvise a speech in
Katharevoussa (general rule= Kath. was used in speeches only if they
were prepared on paper and/or memorized, except for the high clergy and
some teachers).
Joachim Pense
>
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>> I read that Katharevousa (the literary language of modern Greek that is
>> now largely replaced by Demotic) was created in the 19th century by a
>> person called Adamantios Korais as some sort of midpoint between
>> classical Greek and the then contemporary Greek. And indeed, written
>> Katharevousa is understandable for someone with sufficient knowledge of
>> classical Greek - not so Demotic.
>>
>> I wonder what the reason was to use an artificial "middle" construction
>> instead of just using classical Greek (with some added vocabulary).
>
> The distance from "official" golden-age Attic to the spoken Greek of
> the 19th C was rather large. Also,
>
> 1. The relentless tradition of diglossia was felt to be obligatory
> 2. In said tradition is also a tradition of educated Greek elites
> mishandling doornail-dead Attic grammar as badly, or even worse, than
> Oxford dons, since middle Byzantine times (not that inventing Kath.
> made them more secure in the use of it)
So that means re-introduction of (e.g.,) Dative or Optative just wouldn't
have worked. Would that answer my quetsstion?
> 3. The gap between educated elites and the people was huge in Ottoman
> times. As a result, the spoken language was Demotic. It is no longer
> the spoken language (Kathomiloúmenê) today (after 150 years or so of
> general schooling under Katharevoussian indoctrination, followed up by
> sports reporters even after the death of K). Demotic is very flexible
> and rich thanks to easy adoption and incorporation of loans, the which
> loans were, as usual, an abomination to nationalist intellectuals.
> Especially Turkish loans!
> 4. The abandonment of diglossia has been a highly politically charged
> question since day 1 of the independence movement. The partisans of
> demotic have been seen as anti-monarchists, atheists, communists, etc.
> depending on the period.
OK, but In my question I did not care about the issue of the value of
Katherevousa vs. Demotic. My question was rather - if they wanted to
introduce diglossia, why go for an artificial construct rather than the
real thing?
>
> Koraís was not the only father of it, it's rather a collective
> upper-class group creation. In fact, Koraís never came with as extreme
> an invention as the later official language of the Republic.
>
> The character of the resulting quasi-conlang was not, of course, a
> logical consequence of any of the above impulses. We ended up with a
> monster that was ludicrous compared to the Attic standard of diglossia,
> opaque to the speakers, and so unwieldy that the majority of even
> highly educated people were totally unable to improvise a speech in
> Katharevoussa (general rule= Kath. was used in speeches only if they
> were prepared on paper and/or memorized, except for the high clergy and
> some teachers).
Joachim
mb
Joachim Pense wrote:
> mb wrote:
>
> >
> > Joachim Pense wrote:
> >> I read that Katharevousa (the literary language of modern Greek that is
> >> now largely replaced by Demotic) was created in the 19th century by a
> >> person called Adamantios Korais as some sort of midpoint between
> >> classical Greek and the then contemporary Greek. And indeed, written
> >> Katharevousa is understandable for someone with sufficient knowledge of
> >> classical Greek - not so Demotic.
> >>
> >> I wonder what the reason was to use an artificial "middle" construction
> >> instead of just using classical Greek (with some added vocabulary).
> >
> > The distance from "official" golden-age Attic to the spoken Greek of
> > the 19th C was rather large. Also,
> >
> > 1. The relentless tradition of diglossia was felt to be obligatory
> > 2. In said tradition is also a tradition of educated Greek elites
> > mishandling doornail-dead Attic grammar as badly, or even worse, than
> > Oxford dons, since middle Byzantine times (not that inventing Kath.
> > made them more secure in the use of it)
>
> So that means re-introduction of (e.g.,) Dative or Optative just wouldn't
> have worked. Would that answer my quetsstion?
That's one part of it.
> > 3. The gap between educated elites and the people was huge in Ottoman
> > times. As a result, the spoken language was Demotic. It is no longer
> > the spoken language (Kathomiloúmenê) today (after 150 years or so of
> > general schooling under Katharevoussian indoctrination, followed up by
> > sports reporters even after the death of K). Demotic is very flexible
> > and rich thanks to easy adoption and incorporation of loans, the which
> > loans were, as usual, an abomination to nationalist intellectuals.
> > Especially Turkish loans!
> > 4. The abandonment of diglossia has been a highly politically charged
> > question since day 1 of the independence movement. The partisans of
> > demotic have been seen as anti-monarchists, atheists, communists, etc.
> > depending on the period.
>
> OK, but In my question I did not care about the issue of the value of
> Katherevousa vs. Demotic.
I get the question. The value statements are only incidental
steam-letting; I apologize for continuing on other factors unrelated to
the question.
> My question was rather - if they wanted to
> introduce diglossia, why go for an artificial construct rather than the
> real thing?
There is no short, slogan-like answer because Kathar. is not an
invention by Koraís or a committee. It grew over 2-3 centuries,
perhaps longer, from roots that are different from pre-Koinê Attic. K
is not a direct imitation of Attic, not a direct descendant of earlier
Atticizing Byzantine lay literature, but of the Atticizing
ecclestiatical Koinê. Meaning that the structure is more that of
"Demotic" in the sense of the New Testament Demotic as re-Atticized by
the Church for a long time, but still keeping the feel (and some of the
"Semitisms") of the NT language.
It is not a "middle" language, but a continuation of the 17th-18th C
educated written language which ties in to an earlier attempt of the
Church to make its language at least vaguely accessible to people
without years and years of education in Ancient Gr. Part of the
substratum, especially syntax, under the surface is the spoken language
of the time, but with a mechanical replacement of prepositions
(complete with the required case), nouns and some verb tenses by the
ancient ones. Then (that's where 3 is relevant), a huge amount of
calques from Italian and French and re-imports of late Western European
Grk coinages, in parallel with total avoidance of all Turkish loans
(and Grk-origin Turkish loans).
Joachim Pense
>
>> > 3. The gap between educated elites and the people was huge in Ottoman
>> > times. As a result, the spoken language was Demotic. It is no longer
>> > the spoken language (Kathomiloúmenę) today (after 150 years or so of
>> > general schooling under Katharevoussian indoctrination, followed up by
>> > sports reporters even after the death of K). Demotic is very flexible
>> > and rich thanks to easy adoption and incorporation of loans, the which
>> > loans were, as usual, an abomination to nationalist intellectuals.
>> > Especially Turkish loans!
>> > 4. The abandonment of diglossia has been a highly politically charged
>> > question since day 1 of the independence movement. The partisans of
>> > demotic have been seen as anti-monarchists, atheists, communists, etc.
>> > depending on the period.
>>
>> OK, but In my question I did not care about the issue of the value of
>> Katherevousa vs. Demotic.
>
> I get the question. The value statements are only incidental
> steam-letting; I apologize for continuing on other factors unrelated to
> the question.
No need to apologize. I just wanted to prevent the discussion drifting into
this area.
>
>> My question was rather - if they wanted to
>> introduce diglossia, why go for an artificial construct rather than the
>> real thing?
>
> There is no short, slogan-like answer because Kathar. is not an
> invention by Koraís or a committee. It grew over 2-3 centuries,
> perhaps longer, from roots that are different from pre-Koinę Attic. K
> is not a direct imitation of Attic, not a direct descendant of earlier
> Atticizing Byzantine lay literature, but of the Atticizing
> ecclestiatical Koinę. Meaning that the structure is more that of
> "Demotic" in the sense of the New Testament Demotic as re-Atticized by
> the Church for a long time, but still keeping the feel (and some of the
> "Semitisms") of the NT language.
>
That's very interesting. When were these 2-3 centuries when it grew?
> It is not a "middle" language, but a continuation of the 17th-18th C
> educated written language which ties in to an earlier attempt of the
> Church to make its language at least vaguely accessible to people
> without years and years of education in Ancient Gr. Part of the
> substratum, especially syntax, under the surface is the spoken language
> of the time, but with a mechanical replacement of prepositions
> (complete with the required case), nouns and some verb tenses by the
> ancient ones. Then (that's where 3 is relevant), a huge amount of
> calques from Italian and French and re-imports of late Western European
> Grk coinages, in parallel with total avoidance of all Turkish loans
> (and Grk-origin Turkish loans).
Joachim
mb
Joachim Pense wrote:
> mb wrote:
> >> My question was rather - if they wanted to
> >> introduce diglossia, why go for an artificial construct rather than the
> >> real thing?
> >
> > There is no short, slogan-like answer because Kathar. is not an
> > invention by Koraís or a committee. It grew over 2-3 centuries,
> > perhaps longer, from roots that are different from pre-Koinê Attic. K
> > is not a direct imitation of Attic, not a direct descendant of earlier
> > Atticizing Byzantine lay literature, but of the Atticizing
> > ecclestiatical Koinê. Meaning that the structure is more that of
> > "Demotic" in the sense of the New Testament Demotic as re-Atticized by
> > the Church for a long time, but still keeping the feel (and some of the
> > "Semitisms") of the NT language.
> >
>
> That's very interesting. When were these 2-3 centuries when it grew?
Mainly 18th and of course peaking in the early 19th. Its gradual
development starts much earlier, of course. Nice bird's-eye view (but
partly different interpretation) in Horrocks, 97, with text examples,
under "Written Greek in the Turkish Period".
António Marques
>>> Kathar. is not an invention by Koraís or a committee. It grew
>>> over 2-3 centuries (...)
>>
>> That's very interesting. When were these 2-3 centuries when it
>> grew?
>
> Mainly 18th and of course peaking in the early 19th. Its gradual
> development starts much earlier, of course. Nice bird's-eye view (but
> partly different interpretation) in Horrocks, 97, with text
> examples, under "Written Greek in the Turkish Period".
I'm sorry if this is not the place, but here are 5 questions:
- How removed was byzantine from classical greek? Was there a
'byzantine' greek (pick any other name) or were the languages spoken in
Epirus, Smyrna and Trebizon too diverse?
- How far removed is the 'other' modern greek language of Greece from
the standard?
- Constantinople was the centre of a rich cultural life for centuries.
What happened to that cultural life after 1453, within the greek world?
- The greek nationalist movement succeeded first in Achaea. What were
the prospects and ambitions of contemporary greeks outside Achaea?
- Does modern Constantinople occupy any special place in modern greek
public life?
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
mb
> I'm sorry if this is not the place, but here are 5 questions:
of the experts who write the books. Answers are strictly personal
interpretations:
> - How removed was byzantine from classical greek?
In the continuosly diglossic situation, for *written high-register
Byz., the measure of distance is a little like that of late Latin in
Romance lands, ie like asking the distance from the Ciceronian model. A
good measure of the distance from the *spoken language of the educated
is also like in Romance lands for Cic. Lat. : the frequency and kind of
mistakes and of stylistic bloopers. A continuously increasing distance
over 2000+ years.
A precise measure for the written-to-spoken language is not really
available. More analogies in this with the Romance West: Just as
Romance comes from Vulgar, not Ciceronian, so does Modern Greek come
from the Koinê, not direct from Attic, and a lot of what we think we
know of speech is asterisked --reconstructed. True, the papyri, NT,
etc. help for the early language but apart from some occasional
literary outbursts in folk language you have to wait a very long time
until popular poetry gets in full bloom. Even then, heavy influence of
the written high language is always present.
> Was there a
> 'byzantine' greek (pick any other name) or were the languages spoken in
> Epirus, Smyrna and Trebizon too diverse?
There sure was a common high dialect for the educated. As for speech,
the peripheral areas did develop dialects that diverged over time, some
a lot, to the point of becoming non-inter-intelligible like Pontic or
Cappadocian. But again, there is a lot that is reconstructed / inferred
with the help of the late, recorded dialects. Crete is an exception,
having produced a popular literature from the 15th C or so.
> - How far removed is the 'other' modern greek language of Greece from
> the standard?
With all that diglossic confusion we also get some confusion on what to
call what.
The modern standard is basically demotic Greek --the continuation of
the old spoken language-- heavily influenced by a century and a half of
compulsory education in Katharevoussa and The War On Loanwords. It
finally looks as the end of 25 centuries of diglossia: The
"Kathomilouménê" or spoken standard is general, Demotic proper is not
used, local dialect regresses fast and merges with standard (with some
regional standards), and Kathraevoussa is dead and buried with no
flowers on its grave (except for the Church and some traditionalists).
> - Constantinople was the centre of a rich cultural life for centuries.
> What happened to that cultural life after 1453, within the greek world?
Pardon my partly unorthodox interpretation of reading the texts: The
Church then suddenly became the guardian of the "Millet", or Greek
nation under the Ottomans. The only central point with no lay
counterpart, and practically only dispenser of education. Church
language was already strongly marked by the non-Attic NT Greek. Also,
while the upper clergy was highly proficient in Ancient Attic, most of
the clergy was uneducated. We see the written language get the
characteristics of Katharevoussa from then on (spoken language
substratum but with mostly mechanical replacement of many parts by
features of the Attic grammar of the schoolbooks, with set phrases from
antique authors and the NT thrown in, and words suspect of Turkish
origin carefully replaced by one from the old dictionary).
In lands that remained in other hands (Venetian) spoken language
literature finally comes out, free from the pressures of the Empire,
the Church and the School .
> - The greek nationalist movement succeeded first in Achaea. What were
> the prospects and ambitions of contemporary greeks outside Achaea?
Hard to separate Achaea from the rest of the Peloponnese, and hard to
ignore the huge role of Epirus and of the Albanophone Greeks. Prospects
and ambitions were not so much linguistic or cultural --see the sizable
proportion of Albanian speakers-- as they were religious. Greeks nearer
to Constantinople were more efficiently repressed and often a minority
in their settlements. Hard to judge ambitions and aspirations with such
practical obstacles.
> - Does modern Constantinople occupy any special place in modern greek
> public life?
Only if "modern Greek public life" includes myth and the occasional
madman. But of course, it's still the see and seat of the Patriarch and
important for the religious-minded. Way more important in cultural
references than any other place. But back to language: With only very
few Greek speakers left living there, the spoken dialect is
dying-to-dead.
António Marques
>> I'm sorry if this is not the place, but here are 5 questions:
>
> Where else would the place be on Usenet? I'm flattered but I'm not one
> of the experts who write the books. Answers are strictly personal
> interpretations: (...)
All of them excellent. To even begin to have some ideas on the subject,
one would have to do much more than just reading books. Thank you.