m...@wxs.nl wrote: > > a) How does Historical Linguistics specify the time the 'Indoeuropean' > > group was broken up or whatever else happened, based on linguistical > > evidence? Is there a C-14 age-estimating method for words?
> Sort of. Unfortunately, it is much more unreliable and more subject > to local fluctuations than C-14, and it can only be "calibrated" by > written sources, the earliest of which don't reach further back than > the 3rd millennium.
Absolutely interesting, concerning the chronological details of the IE theory.
> Indo-European must be older than 1500 BC, the date of our earliest > written records (Hittite, Mycenaean).
Hold your horses! The Discus of Phaistos and Linear A are also Greek, according to one of the two schools for its decipherment. BTW, there used to be also a 'non-Greek school' before the definite decipherment of Linear B.
> It must be considerably older than that, because Hittite and Mycenaean are > already very different. A reasonable linguistic estimate for the break-up of > Indo-European would be 4500 BC +/- 1500.
4500 - 1500 = 3000 BC is already too late for the Cycladic civilization, obviously related to the Minoan of Crete, therefore very possibly Greek as well.
> >b) How can it be possible that the native inhabitants of Greece adopted the > >language of the 'Indoeuropean invaders', along with *their* costums, > >*their* traditions, *their* myths, etc.? What happened to the pre-hellenic > >culture?
> It's still there. It was a two-way process. As Herodotus says, the > Hellenes adopted `Pelasgian' customs and gods, while the `Pelasgoi' in > the end adopted the Greek language.
I think the 'Pelasgoi' were the inhabitants of the islands, while the 'Hellenes' were the inhabitants of the mainland, which had not been in close contact with each other after one of the physical destructions the Egyptian priest of Sais talks about in Timaios. They were however already related to each other as several texts confirm.
> >Were the invaders culturally more advanced than the 'Pre-hellenes'?
> Certainly not in the case of Crete.
Look above about the Discus of Phaistos.
> >Anyway, > >the Romans also conquered Greece, while some Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, > >Slavs, Arabs, Normans, Crusaders and Franks passed through it, and the > >Turks also held it for some centuries, but the Greeks did not adopt *their* > >less advanced cultures and we still speak Greek today. Why should the > >supposed Pre-hellenes do adopt the culture of the supposed savage Greek > >invaders?
> But who said they were "savage"?
Are you joking? Somebody in this discussion has written about three messages on this savagery.
> Anyway, I need hardly remind you that it is perfectly possible for > Greek-speaking areas to become non-Greek
Yes, but not for Greece itself.
> (in the case of Egypt and Syria Arabic, in Anatolia Turkish). Were the Arab > and Turkish invadors more "civilized" than the inhabitants of the Persian > and East Roman areas they conquered?
No, they were not. However, notice that:
a) The Arabs did not conquer homogenous Greek populations, only populations with some Greek-speaking element as a second language. However, there are Greek-speaking communities in Syria today, and there was a robust such community in Alexandria, Egypt until very recently.
b) As far as Asia Minor and the Pontus are concerned, there was a lively Greek population there until the first quarter of this century, when they were formerly slaughtered and latterly exchanged with turkish population of Greece. Moreover, there are still Greek-speaking people there, who do not speak turkish at all!
> For that matter, were Alexander's Macedonians more "civilized" than the > Babylonians, Persians and Egyptians?
This time you must really be joking. Just check out Herodotus to get a detailed account of the differences between the eastern despotic culture of the Babylonians, Persians and Egyptians compared to the Greek culture of freedom, which the Macedonians and all the Greeks were representing.
As a matter of fact, yes, Alexander himself was far more civilized in his behaviour than the Persians who attempted to conquer Greece before him.
Anyway, this is not the subject here.
> The secret of a successful conquest is the right mixture of savegery (beat > them in the battlefield),
I do not think Miltiades or Themistokles were being savage against the savagery of the - less civilized indeed - Persian invaders in order to avoid their conquest. They were rather being intelligent. So this rule is too naive.
> flexibility (adopt the best elements of the "old" civilization)
This is true for Alexander the Great, (thereofre the name 'Great'), yet it is not true for the turkish conquest of Asia Minor. Therefore, it can not be considered a general rule.
> and ingenuity (put those elements to previously unimagined use). > And luck, of course.
You have seen how many differences there are from conquest to conquest, or from conquest attempt to conquest attempt. Thus your approach was too simplistic.
Consequently, I do not think such a thing as 'the secret of a successful conquest' can be defined.
Finally, coming back to the subject, I do not see how a 'IE' conquest of Greece could be reasonably hypothesized. Check out the posting under the title 'Symmetry between languages' in order to see how unlikely it seems to me that the Greek language and culture was a product of a mixture of undeveloped elements.
Panagiotis Karras
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: > gdw...@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote: > > Would you mind explaining just what you mean by "richness in word > > building" > I had the impression that this quality of the Greek language was common > knowledge among people occupied with linguistics and/or classical studies. I > have already given some examples illustrating my point and I have got only > some naive replies putting forward elementary derivations within English or > Sanskrit which are supposed to discredit my point.
Miguel's Sanskrit examples were fully on a par with your Greek ones.
> Anyway, since you are not > convinced by my examples, which can never be perfect, I will bring forward a > quotation: > 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages of > the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth of > words, and priceless richness of expression.' > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
So? I've seen similar statements made about French, Russian, and English, and probably others as well.
> > and how you've figured out that Greek has this quality to a > > greater degree than other languages, for example English, > I have figured this out through my own experience and knowledge of English > and other languages, as well as through the testimonies of English-speaking > professors of Greek, like the one that follows: > 'Our earliest monuments of Greek are the Iliad and the Odyssey, and already > in these poems the vocabulary is so large and the expression so varied that it > is impossible to translate them with anything like the richness of the > original. I sometimes discourage my students by telling them that for each new > Greek author, they must practically learn a new language. But then in my own > turn I am discouraged that in them too, the wealth of words and idiom is so > great that the problems for a foreigner seem almost endless.' > Cedric Whitman in 'Greek Language and Culture. > Their vitality and imporatnace today. > Published by the Institute for Byzantine and > Modern Greek Studies, Inc. 2nd Edition, 1995.
This has nothing to do with Greek and everything to do with the difficulty of translating literature.
> > Would you mind explaining just what you mean by "richness in word > > building"
> I had the impression that this quality of the Greek language was common > knowledge among people occupied with linguistics and/or classical studies. I > have already given some examples illustrating my point and I have got only > some naive replies putting forward elementary derivations within English or > Sanskrit which are supposed to discredit my point.
As a matter of fact, what is common knowledge among classical scholars is that Greek comes close to, but does not match, the derivational capacities of Sanskrit. Sanskrit comes closest to the Proto-Indo-European verbal system, which is why it is used, for example, in paradigmatic comparisons with PIE in Beekes' Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. In fact, the first Indo- Europeanists believed that Sanskrit was almost identical to Proto-Indo- European. (The mergers of PIE *e, *o, and *a in Sanskrit put an end to that view.) You are obviously remarkably ignorant of Sanskrit if you do not know this. I was not one of those who argued this point before. What the English examples show is that there are many different ways of expressing names, either by systematic derivations from simpler terms or by compounding. PIE relied heavily on the former, Sanskrit most continued it, and the other IE languages to greater and lesser extents--probably due in greatest part to the loss of inflectional endings due to stress accent. PIE was pitch accented, as were Sanskrit and Greek (the latter is attested by such writers as Aristotle). Latin got first-stress accent for a while, ending about the time of Plautus, while Germanic switched to a heavy first-syllable stress accent after Verner's Law (in other words, there is direct evidence in the Germanic languages themselves of the change of accent).
Anyway, since you are not
> convinced by my examples, which can never be perfect, I will bring forward a > quotation:
> 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages of > the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth of > words, and priceless richness of expression.' > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
> This may offer you some indication on what I mean. Keep reading to see more > of what I mean.
Yawn. You can find quotes of that sort for every literate langauge on earth. There are similar quotes for German, French, even (most interesting) one for Tamil (a Dravidian language) that was mentioned by William Dwight Whitney in his Life and Growth of Languages, in which a Protestant missionary fluent in classical Greek declared Tamil fully the equal of the classical Indo-European languages in expressiveness.
> > and how you've figured out that Greek has this quality to a > > greater degree than other languages, for example English,
> I have figured this out through my own experience and knowledge of English > and other languages, as well as through the testimonies of English-speaking > professors of Greek, like the one that follows:
No, this quote has to do with translating literature, not the langauge per se. ANY masterpiece in ANY langauge is going to use the particular resources of the language to the fullest--its technique will be skewed to the language. No language duplicates any other language, so you can't duplicate the literary techniques of a language in any other. You can only approximate.
> > and why this is necessarily a more desirable, useful or whatever quality > > for a language to have
> I think that this quality is quite desirable indeed, since several literary > masterpieces as well as scientific advancements, as a matter of fact the whole > intellectual, political, moral, legal and social framework of our civilisation > has been based on and established thanks to this very quality whose > usefullness you have questioned.
No, you are confusing the particular medium with the content.
> > and finally how this demonstrates that Greek is the > > parent language, rather than Proto-Indo-European.
> It demonstrates that Greek is not symmetrical to other 'IE' languages, as > well as that it can not have been the language of a group of savage 2.000 B.C. > invaders of the Greek peninsula. The rest follows according to reason.
You are making several fallacies here: (1) That it is claimed the early IE were "savages," whatever that means. (2) That the IE savages were nomads before entering Greece. (3) That nomadic culture is poor in words. (4) That flexibility of thought and rationality is crucially dependent on word-building capabilities of a certain sort.
> > If English wasn't rich before, it sure is now! It's absorbed *lots* of > > words from lots of languages and has a pretty good-sized vocabulary, > > don't you think?
> Yes. English has absorbed a plethora of Greek vocabulary.
> > But that aside, what's your point?
> You have seen it above.
> > And I'll bet you think other languages just can't do that, right?
> I am not so naive as you seem to be. They can do it, but not to the extent > Greek does it. See above.
Except for Sanskrit, Eskimo, Turkish, Arabic, and many others. You're woefully ignorant of other languages.
> > I'm not going to spend a lot time thinking about this since it doesn't > > lead to the conclusions that you seem to think it does,
> No, it does.
As a matter of fact, no it doesn't, since you're smuggling in a number of preconceptions about language and thought which don't wash with linguists, some of which I've pointed out above.
Mikael Thompson
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>Yes, I didn't intend to give a universal historical truth. >Furthermore, the only measure for "success" I had in mind was >linguistic: why do some conquests lead to language replacement and >others not?
>>I would say that _luck_ is the only true time-invariant.
>Indeed I think it is. Still it's interesting to wonder if there are >additional factors. If we take just the Medieval period and again are >concerned only with the fate of the language of the conquerors, we >have: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Huns no >Goths no >Vandals no >Burgundians no >Franks yes (but only in the Low Countries) >Anglo-Saxons yes >Bretons yes (but now threatened by French) >Avars no >Scots yes (but now threatened by English) >Lombards no >Slavs yes (but reversed in Greece) >Arabs yes (but reversed in Spain) >Bulgars no >Magyars yes >Normans/Vikings no (but strong influence on English) >Turks yes (but reversed in the Balkans) >Mongols no
There is a need to split conceptually the set "conquerors" to the subsets:
1. Conquered-conquerors 2. On-going-conquerors
And the subset "conquered-conquerors" to further subsets:
i. Extinct ii. Reduced
And both the subsets "extinct" and "reduced" to further subsets (seperately):
a. Revived b. Stagnant
In the end, someone can't avoid the importance of the parameter "time scale" when making general statements. Leave long enough time, and all linguistic _lineages_ will become extinct in the end, but one. It's the simple "law of random drifting", in po- pulation dynamics. Of course, new diversities will have popped- up as a result of divergent evolution out of that unique "alive fossil" linguistic ancestry. And even that will go down the drain when the human race dies out.
> In <3523cd05.16934...@news.innet.lu> by Nikos Sarantakos > (sar...@innet.lu) on Thu, 02 Apr 1998 17:51:55 GMT we perused:
> *+-More generally, it is amazing how many archaisms survive in > *+-various dialects in Greece. The leading Greek etymologist, > *+-Andriotis, has compiled a dictionary of them, appropriately > *+-written in German and published in Wien, hence virtually > *+-unknown in Greece except to scholars.
> You could reconstruct Classical Greek by merging the various archaisms > of various dialects.. then again, this is true of any > language.. haven't you heard of those that supposedly still speak > Elizabethan English off the coast of Maryland?
> I'd bet these would confound many so-called "scholars" of W Sydney Allen's ilk.
> > Would you mind explaining just what you mean by "richness in word > > building"
> I had the impression that this quality of the Greek language was common > knowledge among people occupied with linguistics and/or classical studies. I > have already given some examples illustrating my point and I have got only > some naive replies putting forward elementary derivations within English or > Sanskrit which are supposed to discredit my point.
It seems odd for you to be using the word "naive" here, since your reaction to the list of Sanskrit forms was essentially "My goodness, I have never seen such a thing before". In this and other ways you have indicated your own innocence of the evidence on which Indo-European linguistics is based.
Anyway, since you are not
> convinced by my examples, which can never be perfect, I will bring forward a > quotation:
> 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages of > the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth of > words, and priceless richness of expression.' > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
> This may offer you some indication on what I mean.
Perhaps someone will one day publish an anthology of similar ecstatic quotations about languages of many different families around the world. We have a useful word in English which is only half-Greek: "ethnocentric". It refers to people who see everything from the point of view of their own culture, and have not taken the fundamental step of learning that things look different to those brought up elsewhere, and that those people are not necessarily wrong.
> > and how you've figured out that Greek has this quality to a > > greater degree than other languages, for example English,
> I have figured this out through my own experience and knowledge of English > and other languages, as well as through the testimonies of English-speaking > professors of Greek, like the one that follows:
> 'Our earliest monuments of Greek are the Iliad and the Odyssey, and already > in these poems the vocabulary is so large and the expression so varied that it > is impossible to translate them with anything like the richness of the > original. I sometimes discourage my students by telling them that for each new > Greek author, they must practically learn a new language. But then in my own > turn I am discouraged that in them too, the wealth of words and idiom is so > great that the problems for a foreigner seem almost endless.' > Cedric Whitman in 'Greek Language and Culture. > Their vitality and imporatnace today. > Published by the Institute for Byzantine and > Modern Greek Studies, Inc. 2nd Edition, 1995.
We have some other terms in English, like "hellenophilia" and "hellenolatry". This adulation of everything Greek, and disparagement of other cultures and languages by comparison, has exercised a powerful and not always beneficial influence on English-speaking cultural life. Nowadays it can be used to feed the vanity of Greek linguistic supremacists.
Here's another quote for you:
The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either;...
Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse on the Hindus, 1786
> In order to verify the message of the quotation above, you just need to > compare some of the English translations provided in the Perseus Project: > http://hydra.perseus.tufts.edu with the Greek original. I have done this > myself numerous times, just to find out how many techniques the English > translators have conceived in order to express slightly the variety of > meanings within the Greek language.
> > and why this is necessarily a more desirable, useful or whatever quality > > for a language to have
> I think that this quality is quite desirable indeed, since several literary > masterpieces as well as scientific advancements, as a matter of fact the whole > intellectual, political, moral, legal and social framework of our civilisation > has been based on and established thanks to this very quality whose > usefullness you have questioned. > > and finally how this demonstrates that Greek is the > > parent language, rather than Proto-Indo-European.
> It demonstrates that Greek is not symmetrical to other 'IE' languages,
You have used this term "symmetrical" again and again without explaining what you mean by it. Do you mean anything more than "similar"?
as
> well as that it can not have been the language of a group of savage 2.000 B.C. > invaders of the Greek peninsula.
Of course it does not demonstrate any such thing, any more than that the manifest literary and linguistic richness of English "demonstrate" that it could not have been the language of a bunch of savage invaders of the British Isles about 500 AD.
>The rest follows according to reason.
If whatever you're translating as "reason" is the dominant intellectual process in Greece these days, it may account for the sudden efflorescence of crackpot linguistic chauvinism from that country....
> > If English wasn't rich before, it sure is now! It's absorbed *lots* of > > words from lots of languages and has a pretty good-sized vocabulary, > > don't you think?
> Yes. English has absorbed a plethora of Greek vocabulary.
No, he said "from lots of languages", a fact which you could confirm by consulting an English dictionary. Such a dictionary would also explain what "symmetrical" means in English.
> > And I'll bet you think other languages just can't do that, right?
> I am not so naive as you seem to be. They can do it, but not to the extent > Greek does it. See above.
> > I'm not going to spend a lot time thinking about this since it doesn't > > lead to the conclusions that you seem to think it does,
> No, it does.
> > but looking at your example and without hunting down a Greek dictionary, > > I'm thinking that your "titheemi" means more or less "to place, put, set" > > in English, right? Ok, so, we have the English verb "to set", we have the > > noun "setting" (like a place setting for a table, for instance), then > > there's "setter" a type of dog that sets when game is spotted, and of > > course when we set ourselves down, we do so on a "seat", and having > > put ourselves there we have "settled" down, sort of like the > > "settlings" at the bottom of a teacup. Should I bother to drag in > > "sit" and its variations too, or have I made my point?
> ...which verifies how naive you think. Just check out the quotation of > Cedric Whuitman above.
Sorry, Whitman doesn't seem to be saying anything about English words like "setting" and "seat".
> > The funnest part of this is that you don't realize that I was able to > > pull an example like this up exactly because English and Greek are > > both Indo-European languages and thus have much in common not only in > > the way of vocabulary, but also in ways new words are formed.
> ...with the minor detail that it is impossible to translate a Greek text to > English without losing the original accuracy, wealth and beauty, although > English has borrowed massively from Greek.
And of course your studies of translations of English texts into Greek have established beyond reasonable doubt that the original accuracy, wealth and beauty of the English are fully preserved (perhaps even enhanced?) in translation.....
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 12:03:49 -0600, pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: > So, /bh/ is not quite fully voiced, but whispered, while /ph/ is voiceless. > Well, I would be more certain if I heard them both.
It is a difficult sound to imagine if you have never heard it, but it does occur in Indian languages, so if you fancy a curry, you could ask for a demonstration as a side dish. :-)
In /bha/ the lips are closed and pressure is built up behind them with air coming through vibrating vocal chords (i.e. voiced air) and then the lips open causing a little explosion of air. After this the vocal chords continue vibrating, emiting more air than is usual to make a vowel sound, causing the first part of the vowel (/a/ in this case) to sound different (more breathy) then the rest of it.
Compare this /ba/: it starts the same, with voiced air building up behind the closed lips, but the extra breathines is not present, so when the lips part the start of the vowel is the same as the rest of it.
In the case of /pa/ the air causing the build up is not voiced (vocal chords open but not vibrating). The vocal chords start vibrating at the point when the lips open, so the the vowel has the same quality throughout as in /ba/.
In the case of /pha/ the vocal chords start vibrating later than in /pa/ so that the first part of the vowel is heard without voice. When you whisper you use no voice, so to say that the sound of the first part of the vowel is as in whispering is reasonable. In some languages the /h/ part is more forceful - more air is put out, giving more some white noise in the sound: this is more like what happens in whispering, as the noise is used to carry the sound to the listener.
~ = voice; ^ extra air; _ = normal air - = no voice
/ba/ lips closed: open lips.....vowel..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________________________
/bha/ lips closed: open lips.....vowel..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_______________
/pa/ lips closed: open lips.....vowel..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------------ _____________________________________
/pha/(breathy version) lips closed: open lips.....vowel..... ------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_______________
You will need to switch to a fixed pitch font to make sense of the above diagrams.
It is very difficult to get an impression of a sound you have not heard for yourself, but perhaps the above account will make it clearer what people are talking about.
Ross Clark wrote: patronizing things Panayiotis Karras wrote: something interesting:
'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages of
> the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth of > words, and priceless richness of expression.' > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
Biography and writings. If the BLessed (was he canonized yet by the Orthodox church, and if so, in which jurisdiction?) Paissy was writing to Staretz Teodosi in Moscow from Names the monastery he founded in Moldavia, one presumes he would have used a Slavic language to convey these great feelings about the Greek tongue. He was a consummate diplomat in many respects, able to begin monasteries with the help of the Phanar and panslavic contributions, at a time when money was tight, establishing these in virgin territory (i.e. new monasteries).. His translations of church texts still stand. He is an incredible saint. Eh, let me hunt up a fun quote of his.....hmmmmmm.......:
"The Divine Prophet David says: 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them by the Spirit of His mouth' (Psalm 32.6) Do you see ? He calls the Father Lord, but he calls the Son the Word, as pre eternally begotten of Him, and He calls the Holy Spirit the SPirit of His lips, as proceeding form the Father alone. One could search out many other testimonies also form the Old and New Testaments, which show more clearly than the sun that the Holy SPirit proceeds form the Father alone and reposes in the Son, as was disclosed also in the Baptism of our Lord"
excerpt from a letter "to a Uniate Priest, on the Procession of the Holy Spirit", collection Chetverkoff, II, pp. 55-57, in The Orthodox Word, vol. 11, no. 5, 1975, Platina CA
Now, isn't that passage absolutely beautiful as a defense of the True Faith. So clear a mind alwyas is capable of translation form one language to the next. Torturous phraseology however, does not.There is always a clear way to express ideas, but few are capable.
sp...@erols.com wrote: > Ross Clark wrote: patronizing things
> Panayiotis Karras wrote: something interesting:
> 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages of > > the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth of > > words, and priceless richness of expression.' > > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
> Biography and writings. If the BLessed (was he canonized yet by the Orthodox > church, and if so, in which jurisdiction?) Paissy was writing to Staretz Teodosi in > Moscow from NIAMETS the monastery he founded in Moldavia, one presumes he would have > used a Slavic language to convey these great feelings about the Greek tongue. He > was a consummate diplomat in many respects, able to begin monasteries with the help > of the Phanar and panslavic contributions, at a time when money was tight, > establishing these in virgin territory (i.e. new monasteries).. His translations of > church texts still stand. He is an incredible saint. Eh, let me hunt up a fun > quote of his.....hmmmmmm.......:
> "The Divine Prophet David says: 'By the Word of the Lord were the heavens > established, and all the might of them by the Spirit of His mouth' (Psalm 32.6) Do > you see ? He calls the Father Lord, but he calls the Son the Word, as pre eternally > begotten of Him, and He calls the Holy Spirit the SPirit of His lips, as proceeding > form the Father alone. One could search out many other testimonies also form the > Old and New Testaments, which show more clearly than the sun that the Holy SPirit > proceeds form the Father alone and reposes in the Son, as was disclosed also in the > Baptism of our Lord"
> excerpt from a letter "to a Uniate Priest, on the Procession of the Holy Spirit", > collection Chetverkoff, II, pp. 55-57, in The Orthodox Word, vol. 11, no. 5, 1975, > Platina CA
> Now, isn't that passage absolutely beautiful as a defense of the True Faith. So > clear a mind alwyas is capable of translation form one language to the next. > Torturous phraseology however, does not.There is always a clear way to express > ideas, but few are capable.
> Galina Schneider
I am sorry when i used the spell checker it changed Paissy's monastery from Niamets to Names.
In article <6g370c$8b...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> mitho...@indiana.edu writes: >You are making several fallacies here: (1) That it is claimed the early IE >were "savages," whatever that means. (2) That the IE savages were nomads >before entering Greece. (3) That nomadic culture is poor in words. (4) That >flexibility of thought and rationality is crucially dependent on word-building >capabilities of a certain sort.
While the Iliad and the Odyssey are under 20,000 lines each, I understand that the Siberian (Circassian) epic "Manas" runs into 250,000 lines; of course, as the Greeks said, "ouk en to pollo to eu" ("quality is not contained in quantity"), but, still, this says something about the ways of nomadic cultures with words! [I got my information from a book (p. 198) titled "Toward some Greek Folk Song Poetics" and written (in Greek) by Aristotle University professor G. M. Sifakis. The same book makes an interesting comparison (p.89) between Greek folk songs (normally consisting of under 100 lines) and "Yugoslav" folk songs (running into hundreds, and some into the thousands, of lines), as well as the longevity of oral tradition in the two nations (again the "Yugoslavs" did better -- why?).]
I understand that the above paragraph can be viewed as a diversion from the main topic, but, if anyone can comment on it tying it to this thread, please do :-) As for other aspects of this thread, I must say that, as a Greek, I find it pointless to try to establish any kind of "uniqueness" for the Greek language. Such efforts have in fact produced little effect in Greece itself, where many high school philologists would rather not teach Ancient Greek if allowed to do so :-( [On the other hand, the number of ancient Greek works read by the public -- in translation of course, which is shamefully needed even for Papadiamantis or Paparigopoulos -- is on a fast rise; and having the original face the modern Greek rendering is a great idea (establishing the unity of Greek in a split second for those still having eyes to see) ... even though I was disappointed to hear that a very intelligent and knowledgeable friend of mine read the Odyssey from such a translation (while pregnant) "looking at the original text (only) from time to time".]
So, dear Panayiotis (and other fellow Greeks), let's consider ourselves lucky for for being able to speak -- and in some cases read -- the language in which three of the most influential works in the history of mankind (Homeric Epics, Euclid's Elements, New Testament) have been written ... and let's concentrate on how we can save that language's face in Greece proper: for as long as Philology teachers must drive a cab or wait on tables at night to make ends meet (which is often the case when no other income is available) and the average Greek cannot appreciate the beauty of the original text even with the help of a face-to-face translation ... "dev dikaioume8a dia va omiloumev" :-)
In article George Baloglou <balog...@oswego.edu> wrote: ...
>So, dear Panayiotis (and other fellow Greeks), let's consider ourselves >lucky for being able to speak -- and in some cases read -- the >language in which three of the most influential works in the history >of mankind (Homeric Epics, Euclid's Elements, New Testament) have been >written
From the three texts that you refer to, I single out only one as a truly (1) Once discovered (no independent equivalent discovery), and (2) Raising to full _Consciousness_ what distinguishes humans from any other physical system. That is: Euclid's Elements. Even though Aristotle's _Logic_ was the real breakthrough, and a number of previous thinkers critically helped to crystallize the concept _Logic_ (Thales, Heraklitus, Pythagoras, Plato were few of them), Euclid did a unique job into concisely and lucidly exposing the power of Deductive Logic, therefore making it widely known and respected. No surprise that _The Elements_ were the most printed book until this century, only second to Bible (which was in essence though a virtually mass consuption product; that is, a fully political propaganda manual; as Homeric Epics were/are too).
In article Gregory Dandulakis <g...@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article George Baloglou <balog...@oswego.edu> wrote: >... >From the three texts that you refer to, I single out only one as >a truly (1) Once discovered (no independent equivalent discovery), >and (2) Raising to full _Consciousness_ what distinguishes humans >from any other physical system. That is: Euclid's Elements.
As an aside, from what I have heard, there is also good reasons to believe that Euclid was, if not fully Black, at least Mulato. (He flourished in Egypt).
In article <35723fa9.503501...@news.wxs.nl> m...@wxs.nl writes:
>The IE word for wine, *woin-os, looks suspiciously similar to the >Proto-Semitic root *wajn- and the Proto-Kartvelian root *Gwin-. The >Kartvelian word was probably borrowed from Proto-Armenian (*gwini). >Whether the word was borrowed into IE from Semitic or the other way >around is unknown, although the Hittite and Luwian words (wiyana, >wayana) suggest a native IE origin (from the root *wei- "to wind", cf. >Latin vitis (*wei-t-is) "vine"). In that case, the word would have >been borrowed from IE into Semitic. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov take this >as an indication that the Indo-European homeland was in the Caucasus >or Eastern Anatolia.
This article arrived here late (today), I have not followed this thread from ther beginning and my question might be a bit off, but, anyhow, let me state it: do we have any examples in these languages of uses such as "oinops pontos" = "drunken/wild/dark sea" and "oinops vous" = "drunken/wild/dark ox"? Or of "Oinops" as a name, and in particular *an ox's name* (as a find in Knossos indicates)? Furthermore, can anyone direct me/us to works, including dictionaries, that explore the Homeric Epics with the help of IE research? [Please use the address balog...@oswego.edu in case you e-mail me -- thanks!]
> From: pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:18:20 -0600 > Well, I am sorry, but, as far as I know, neither Hungary, neither > the Unkraine, neither the Caucasus, neither India, neither the Ural > Mountains, neither the Caspian Sea are famous for their wine produce > and tradition.
Neither are the levantine lands, but it figures prominently in that areas mythology regarding an extension of the Magic Invisible Sky-pixie. Most of the area you refer to is now Islamic. That puts rather a large dry area between the home of Metaxa purple after-shave and saki.
Terry -- |WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker.
>> So, /bh/ is not quite fully voiced, but whispered, while /ph/ is voiceless. >> Well, I would be more certain if I heard them both.
>It is a difficult sound to imagine if you have never heard it, but it >does occur in Indian languages, so if you fancy a curry, you could ask >for a demonstration as a side dish. :-)
>In /bha/ the lips are closed and pressure is built up behind them with >air coming through vibrating vocal chords (i.e. voiced air) and then >the lips open causing a little explosion of air. After this the vocal >chords continue vibrating, emiting more air than is usual to make a >vowel sound, causing the first part of the vowel (/a/ in this case) to >sound different (more breathy) then the rest of it.
As a first approximation, consider the consonant (cluster, in English) in the middle of 'clubhouse'. Don't try and take it as gospel though. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk | | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Fine wrote: > In article <352ab95c.6537...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Robin R. Langton" > <Rob...@roblang.demon.co.uk> writes > >On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 12:03:49 -0600, pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote:
> >> So, /bh/ is not quite fully voiced, but whispered, while /ph/ is voiceless. > >> Well, I would be more certain if I heard them both.
> >It is a difficult sound to imagine if you have never heard it, but it > >does occur in Indian languages, so if you fancy a curry, you could ask > >for a demonstration as a side dish. :-)
> >In /bha/ the lips are closed and pressure is built up behind them with > >air coming through vibrating vocal chords (i.e. voiced air) and then > >the lips open causing a little explosion of air. After this the vocal > >chords continue vibrating, emiting more air than is usual to make a > >vowel sound, causing the first part of the vowel (/a/ in this case) to > >sound different (more breathy) then the rest of it.
becomes a plosive
> As a first approximation, consider the consonant (cluster, in English) > in the middle of 'clubhouse'. Don't try and take it as gospel though.
> -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | > | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk | > | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | > | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: > > gdw...@earthlink.net (Garry Williams) wrote: > > > Would you mind explaining just what you mean by "richness in word > > > building"
> > I had the impression that this quality of the Greek language was common > > knowledge among people occupied with linguistics and/or classical studies. > > I have already given some examples illustrating my point and I have got > > only some naive replies putting forward elementary derivations within > > English or Sanskrit which are supposed to discredit my point.
> It seems odd for you to be using the word "naive" here, since your > reaction to the list of Sanskrit forms was essentially "My goodness, I > have never seen such a thing before". In this and other ways you have > indicated your own innocence of the evidence on which Indo-European > linguistics is based.
My reaction to the list of Sanskrit forms was "I am amazed!".
I have not studied Sanskrit and it was indeed amazing for me to diagnose some analogies between the Greek and Sanskrit derivations from two related respective word roots.
However, I still maintained my viewpoint that the derivative and expressive capabilities of Greek are incredible and I immediately expressed my impression that Sanskrit does not match it.
Finally, I have never doupted the existence of evidence on which the claim for a relation between Greek and Sanskrit is based. I am doupting other, arbitrary assumptions of a palaeontological extension of the IE linguistical theory, concernig where and when people talking 'IE' languages lived and how a supposed 'proto-IE' language was and sounded.
> > Anyway, since you are not convinced by my examples, which can never be > > perfect, I will bring forward a quotation:
> > 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages > > of the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth > > of words, and priceless richness of expression.' > > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
> > This may offer you some indication on what I mean.
> Perhaps someone will one day publish an anthology of similar ecstatic > quotations about languages of many different families around the world. > We have a useful word in English which is only half-Greek: > "ethnocentric".
No, I am sorry, it is full-Greek. Which part did you think is not Greek?
> It refers to people who see everything from the point of > view of their own culture, and have not taken the fundamental step of > learning that things look different to those brought up elsewhere, and > that those people are not necessarily wrong.
So, are Mr Paissy Velichkovsky and Mr Cedric Whitman ethnocentrists?
Were all the Latin, French, English and other scholars who have been copying the Greek language ethnocentrists or what?
You know, it is not due to my 'ethnocentrism' that the Greek language is universally accepted as the primary language of thought.
It was not due to some 'ethnocentrism' that some Basque delegates in the European Parliament have proposed the Greek language to be the primary language taught everywhere in the EU.
> > > and how you've figured out that Greek has this quality to a > > > greater degree than other languages, for example English,
> > I have figured this out through my own experience and knowledge of > > English and other languages, as well as through the testimonies of > > English-speaking professors of Greek, like the one that follows:
> > 'Our earliest monuments of Greek are the Iliad and the Odyssey, and > > already in these poems the vocabulary is so large and the expression so > > varied that it is impossible to translate them with anything like the > > richness of the original. I sometimes discourage my students by telling > > them that for each new Greek author, they must practically learn a new > > language. But then in my own turn I am discouraged that in them too, the > > wealth of words and idiom is so great that the problems for a foreigner > > seem almost endless.' > > Cedric Whitman in 'Greek Language and Culture > > Their vitality and imporatnace today.' > > Published by the Institute for Byzantine and > > Modern Greek Studies, Inc. 2nd Edition, 1995.
> We have some other terms in English, like "hellenophilia" and
I think you mean 'philhellenism'. I am sorry, this is an original Modern Greek term.
> "hellenolatry".
Also full-Greek, by the way.
> This adulation of everything Greek, and disparagement of > other cultures and languages by comparison,
I am sorry, I have not 'disparaged other cultures and languages by comparison'. I just put some emphasis on understanding the qualities of Greek and its implications on the arbitrary details of the IE theory.
> has exercised a powerful and > not always beneficial influence on English-speaking cultural life.
What do you mean? Was it e.g. not beneficial that parliamentary democracy was established in England on the model of Greek democracy? Anyway, the effects of the qualities of Greek culture on English-speaking cultural life is out of the subject here.
> Nowadays it can be used to feed the vanity of Greek linguistic > supremacists.
Thank you for this characterization. I add it in my collection. Up to now it contains:
- 'hyperpositivist' - 'arrogant and ignorant' - 'innocent' - 'ethnocentrist' - 'Greek linguistic supremacist'
> Here's another quote for you:
> The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful > structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and > more exquisitely refined than either;...
> Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse > on the Hindus, 1786
This could be true. But certainly both Greek and Sanskrit are far more 'wise, beautiful, deep, wealthy, expressive, varied' or 'wonderfully structured, perfect, copious, exquisitely refined' than any other 'IE' language, aren't they? Besides, the quotation above uses Greek and Latin as models of comparison, while Romans themselves were fascinated by the qualities of Greek compared to their language, weren't they?
[...]
> > It demonstrates that Greek is not symmetrical to other 'IE' languages,
> You have used this term "symmetrical" again and again without explaining > what you mean by it. Do you mean anything more than "similar"?
Thank you for providing me an example of a Greek word that can not be accurately enough translated to English.
"SYMMETRIA" between two things does not mean 'similarity' of them.
It denotes rather a deep analogy of structure between the two parts, so that for any element of the former an element of the latter with analogous properties and function can be found.
What would you say in English? 'Co-measurity' maybe? :-)
Therefore, my claimed "Symmetry between 'IE' languages" demands that since 'IE' languages have a 'sibling' relationship, they should be 'symmetrical' between each other, and thus Mr. Whitman should not be in the position to claim: 'I am discouraged that in them too, the wealth of words and idiom is so great that the problems for a foreigner seem almost endless.'
> > as well as that it can not have been the language of a group of savage > > 2.000 B.C. invaders of the Greek peninsula.
> Of course it does not demonstrate any such thing, any more than that the > manifest literary and linguistic richness of English "demonstrate" that > it could not have been the language of a bunch of savage invaders of > the British Isles about 500 AD.
I think that the English language was formed much later than the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles. There were the Viking raids and the Norman invasion to follow first.
Anyway, I do not find any 'manifest linguistic richness of English' to demonstrate such a thing, just like Mr. Whitman doesn't.
> >The rest follows according to reason.
> If whatever you're translating as "reason" is the dominant intellectual > process in Greece these days, it may account for the sudden efflorescence > of crackpot linguistic chauvinism from that country....
Here I have a new entry in my collection:
- 'crackpot linguistic chauvinist'
> > > If English wasn't rich before, it sure is now! It's absorbed *lots* of > > > words from lots of languages and has a pretty good-sized vocabulary, > > > don't you think?
> > Yes. English has absorbed a plethora of Greek vocabulary.
> No, he said "from lots of languages", a fact which you could confirm by > consulting an English dictionary.
I did not doupt about that. I just made a special statement concerning Greek vocabulary loans. Of course I agree that '[English] has absorbed *lots* of words from lots of languages' and I am delighted that you also agree on that, since it proves my claim that there was not such a thing as a 'manifest linguistic richness of English' at the first place, before the massive borrowing took place.
> Such a dictionary would also explain what "symmetrical" means in English.
What do you mean? Does it mean something different that the original Greek sense of the word?
Then it is you who have to check a Greek dictionary to find out an explanation of the adjective 'symmetrikos'.
I usually use Greek words with their Greek sense even if I am talking in English. I apologize about that.
> > > but looking at your example and without hunting down a Greek dictionary, > > > I'm thinking that your "titheemi" means more or less "to place, put, > > > set" in English, right? Ok, so, we have the English verb "to set", we > > > have the noun
>>> So, /bh/ is not quite fully voiced, but whispered, while /ph/ is voiceless. >>> Well, I would be more certain if I heard them both.
>>It is a difficult sound to imagine if you have never heard it, but it >>does occur in Indian languages, so if you fancy a curry, you could ask >>for a demonstration as a side dish. :-)
>>In /bha/ the lips are closed and pressure is built up behind them with >>air coming through vibrating vocal chords (i.e. voiced air) and then >>the lips open causing a little explosion of air. After this the vocal >>chords continue vibrating, emiting more air than is usual to make a >>vowel sound, causing the first part of the vowel (/a/ in this case) to >>sound different (more breathy) then the rest of it.
>As a first approximation, consider the consonant (cluster, in English) >in the middle of 'clubhouse'. Don't try and take it as gospel though.
Yes, that will certainly be the case for some English speakers. Some also use a voiced /h/ in "behaviour". Not very likely to be the case in the English of a foreigner who has learned the language though, so it probably won't help Mr Karras. I still think his best bet's a biriani with a bhaji on the side... :-)
> Ross Clark <d...@antnov1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > It seems odd for you to be using the word "naive" here, since your > > reaction to the list of Sanskrit forms was essentially "My goodness, I > > have never seen such a thing before". In this and other ways you have > > indicated your own innocence of the evidence on which Indo-European > > linguistics is based.
> My reaction to the list of Sanskrit forms was "I am amazed!".
> I have not studied Sanskrit and it was indeed amazing for me to diagnose > some analogies between the Greek and Sanskrit derivations from two related > respective word roots.
> However, I still maintained my viewpoint that the derivative and expressive > capabilities of Greek are incredible and I immediately expressed my impression > that Sanskrit does not match it.
Foul! If you do not know a language it is impossible to judge its "derivative and [especially] expressive capabilities. Indeed you have no way of knowing how extraordinary or not these capabilities are unless you *know* quite a few.
> Finally, I have never doupted the existence of evidence on which the claim > for a relation between Greek and Sanskrit is based. I am doupting other, > arbitrary assumptions of a palaeontological extension of the IE linguistical > theory, concernig where and when people talking 'IE' languages lived and how a > supposed 'proto-IE' language was and sounded.
Quite a number of people in this (and related) threads have demonstrated the rules of inference in linguistics. Someone gave examples of actual *predictions* from these. The evidence presented is good enough and certainly better than any other alternative theory. The problems with the "out of Greece" theory that you seem to be proposing is that it doesn't natch the known linguistic and archeological facts. How for example are we to imagine that a Greek derived language was introduced and dominated India from the 2d millenium BC?
> > > Anyway, since you are not convinced by my examples, which can never be > > > perfect, I will bring forward a quotation:
> > > 'The Greek language is incomparably superior to all the other languages > > > of the world considered with respect to its wisdom, beauty, depth, wealth > > > of words, and priceless richness of expression.' > > > Paissy Velichkovsky, in a letter to > > > Elder Theodosius in Zitie i pisanija > > > Moldavskago, Moscow, 1847.
> > > This may offer you some indication on what I mean.
> > Perhaps someone will one day publish an anthology of similar ecstatic > > quotations about languages of many different families around the world. > > We have a useful word in English which is only half-Greek: > > "ethnocentric".
> No, I am sorry, it is full-Greek. Which part did you think is not Greek?
Indeed it is fully Greek
> > It refers to people who see everything from the point of > > view of their own culture, and have not taken the fundamental step of > > learning that things look different to those brought up elsewhere, and > > that those people are not necessarily wrong.
> So, are Mr Paissy Velichkovsky and Mr Cedric Whitman ethnocentrists?
> Were all the Latin, French, English and other scholars who have been copying > the Greek language ethnocentrists or what?
The point is that all sorts of scholars have been making similar comments about a host of languages, not only Greek. The "copying" of the Greek language was due to the fact that Greece was the place that the roots of Latin and European thought developed, and therefore it had the vocabulary to express the ideas ready-made. It's the same nowadays with computers and English or fashion and French. Also don't forget the reverence of all things Greek during the rennaissance and the enlightment.
> You know, it is not due to my 'ethnocentrism' that the Greek language is > universally accepted as the primary language of thought.
> It was not due to some 'ethnocentrism' that some Basque delegates in the > European Parliament have proposed the Greek language to be the primary > language taught everywhere in the EU.
No it was mostly due to the respect that the ancient texts command in all of Europe and ofcourse to "small language solidarity" in the EU, where smaller language speakers support each other and fight against linguistic dominance of the "big" languages (english especially, but French, German and Spanish too).
> > > > and how you've figured out that Greek has this quality to a > > > > greater degree than other languages, for example English,
> > > I have figured this out through my own experience and knowledge of > > > English and other languages, as well as through the testimonies of > > > English-speaking professors of Greek, like the one that follows:
> > > 'Our earliest monuments of Greek are the Iliad and the Odyssey, and > > > already in these poems the vocabulary is so large and the expression so > > > varied that it is impossible to translate them with anything like the > > > richness of the original. I sometimes discourage my students by telling > > > them that for each new Greek author, they must practically learn a new > > > language. But then in my own turn I am discouraged that in them too, the > > > wealth of words and idiom is so great that the problems for a foreigner > > > seem almost endless.' > > > Cedric Whitman in 'Greek Language and Culture > > > Their vitality and imporatnace today.' > > > Published by the Institute for Byzantine and > > > Modern Greek Studies, Inc. 2nd Edition, 1995.
> > We have some other terms in English, like "hellenophilia" and
> I think you mean 'philhellenism'. > I am sorry, this is an original Modern Greek term.
Hellenophilia is an English word of Hellenic etymology. Modern or ancient is moot.
> > This adulation of everything Greek, and disparagement of > > other cultures and languages by comparison,
> I am sorry, I have not 'disparaged other cultures and languages by > comparison'. I just put some emphasis on understanding the qualities of Greek > and its implications on the arbitrary details of the IE theory.
> > has exercised a powerful and > > not always beneficial influence on English-speaking cultural life.
> What do you mean? Was it e.g. not beneficial that parliamentary democracy > was established in England on the model of Greek democracy? Anyway, the > effects of the qualities of Greek culture on English-speaking cultural life is > out of the subject here.
Errr, actually _parliamentary_ democracy was NOT an ancient Greek invention. In ancient Athens one had _direct Democracy_.
> > Nowadays it can be used to feed the vanity of Greek linguistic > > supremacists.
> Thank you for this characterization. I add it in my collection. Up to now it > contains:
> - 'hyperpositivist' > - 'arrogant and ignorant' > - 'innocent' > - 'ethnocentrist' > - 'Greek linguistic supremacist'
> > Here's another quote for you:
> > The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful > > structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and > > more exquisitely refined than either;...
> > Sir William Jones, Third Anniversary Discourse > > on the Hindus, 1786
> This could be true. But certainly both Greek and Sanskrit are far more > 'wise, beautiful, deep, wealthy, expressive, varied' or 'wonderfully > structured, perfect, copious, exquisitely refined' than any other 'IE' > language, aren't they? Besides, the quotation above uses Greek and Latin as > models of comparison, while Romans themselves were fascinated by the qualities > of Greek compared to their language, weren't they?
Yes but if *both* Greek and Sanscrit are far more wise etc. what makes you believe that they don't derive from a common source given their similarities?
> [...] > > > It demonstrates that Greek is not symmetrical to other 'IE' languages,
> > You have used this term "symmetrical" again and again without explaining > > what you mean by it. Do you mean anything more than "similar"?
> Thank you for providing me an example of a Greek word that can not be > accurately enough translated to English.
> "SYMMETRIA" between two things does not mean 'similarity' of them.
> It denotes rather a deep analogy of structure between the two parts, so that > for any element of the former an element of the latter with analogous > properties and function can be found.
> What would you say in English? 'Co-measurity' maybe? :-)
Actually one says *symmetry* in english. Commeasurable is something else.
> Therefore, my claimed "Symmetry between 'IE' languages" demands that since > 'IE' languages have a 'sibling' relationship, they should be 'symmetrical' > between each other, and thus Mr. Whitman should not be in the position to > claim: 'I am discouraged that in them too, the wealth of words and idiom is so > great that the problems for a foreigner seem almost endless.'
Actually I can tell you that translating Joyce into Greek the Wealth of words and idiom is so great that the problems" for a Greek translator were so "endless" that it took him something like 20 years (if I remeber correctly) to finish the job. Having translated a couple of books from English to Greek myself I can tell you that there are quite substantial problems there. To mention but one in Greek mechanic, engineer and mechanical are but one word (MHXANIKOS).
pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: > You know, it is not due to my 'ethnocentrism' that the Greek language is > universally accepted as the primary language of thought.
It isn't. No language is.
> This could be true. But certainly both Greek and Sanskrit are far more > 'wise, beautiful, deep, wealthy, expressive, varied' or 'wonderfully > structured, perfect, copious, exquisitely refined' than any other 'IE' > language, aren't they?
No.
> Therefore, my claimed "Symmetry between 'IE' languages" demands that since > 'IE' languages have a 'sibling' relationship, they should be 'symmetrical' > between each other,
That's your arbitrary requirement; it isn't entailed by a sibling relationship.
> Anyway, I do not find any 'manifest linguistic richness of English' to > demonstrate such a thing,
From which we may safely conclude that either your linguistic hellenophilia blinds you to the obvious, or your knowledge of English isn't very profound.
> > Such a dictionary would also explain what "symmetrical" means in English. > What do you mean? Does it mean something different that the original Greek > sense of the word? > Then it is you who have to check a Greek dictionary to find out an > explanation of the adjective 'symmetrikos'.
You're the one trying to express the idea; it behooves you to find a word that your readers will understand correctly.
> I usually use Greek words with their Greek sense even if I am talking in > English. I apologize about that.
If you do this because, being ignorant of the English meanings, you have no choice, then you are obviously not capable of judging either the linguistic richness of English or the accuracy of Greek translations of English literature. If you do it through sloth, you're simply discourteous.
> > And of course your studies of translations of English texts into Greek > > have established beyond reasonable doubt that the original accuracy, > > wealth and beauty of the English are fully preserved (perhaps even > > enhanced?) in translation..... > They are indeed at least preserved.
It's not clear that you have an adequate basis for forming such a judgement.
> As far as scientific publications are concerned, translation is almost > unnecessary...
A considerable overstatement, but in any case scientific publications have little to do with the subject. Few of them are very stylish to begin with.
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:26:15 -0600, pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote:
> It was not due to some 'ethnocentrism' that some Basque delegates in the >European Parliament have proposed the Greek language to be the primary >language taught everywhere in the EU.
First of all, EP members (delegates is not the correct term) tend to propose various worthy things in their motions for resolutions, but only a handful of these are deemed important enough to be discussed in the plenary session. Mr Imaz's motion was never discussed, let alone voted, and the same fate had earlier (1989?) a previous motion by another Spanish Basque MEP, Mr. Garikoetxea <sp?>.
Secondly, I am sick and tired to read some Greek media basking under the Basque motion (sorry for the pun!) and making various inaccurate references, for instance that it was proposed that Greek would be made the only official language of the EU. So, I rejoice seeing Panayote Karras approaching at least the truth about the Basque motion.
Well, here is the whole text of the said motion, so as to avoid future inaccuracies.
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mr IMAZ on the teaching of classical Greek language and culture
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the continuous and alarming decline in the teaching of classical Greek language and culture in the curriculums of the various countries,
A. whereas Greek language and culture are the fundamental basis of Western culture, especially European culture,
B. whereas classical Greek trains the human intellect and is a proven way of encouraging thought and criticism,
C. whereas in Europe, classical Greek has been the language of science par excellence,
D. whereas it is essential to reassert the identity of the European Union by restoring and reinforcing the specific culture and system of values on which it is based,
E. having regard to the need to restore the full humanist meaning of European culture,
1. Calls on the Commission to draw up a study plan for classical Greek language and culture to ensure that they are at least taught at all levels of compulsory education in all Member States through the respective curriculums, and that Greek becomes the shared language of all cultured Europeans.
In article Mihalis Panagiotakis <miha...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote: ...
>The "copying" of the Greek language was due to the fact that >Greece was the place that the roots of Latin and European thought >developed, and therefore it had the vocabulary to express the ideas >ready-made.
Some further clarification is needed here. It was not just, or even mostly, of the "ready made" of the Greek-words; it was the relevant original _text_, which gave a clear defi- nition or physical-reference to the relevant terms. I fact, there is a testimony of a Roman scholar (name?) in his despe- ration of translating those "Greek mind tricks" into Latin.
Heidegger had made a superb work into exposing the frequently great degradation that ancient Greek concepts had suffered during their transference into Latin (and later European lan- guages).
He gives the unique example of the word _Physis_, which was identified in Latin (and used in translations) with the word _Natura_. And he goes on to argue very convincingly that a whole philosophy about nature changed, when the Greek Physis, which means _self-blossoming_, was confused with Natura, which means _born_. (And also confused and identified with the biblical _creation_). From "self-respect", it was switched to "parental respect", to eventually "super-master respect".
> Actually I can tell you that translating Joyce into Greek the Wealth of >words and >idiom is so great that the problems" for a Greek translator were so >"endless" >that it took him something like 20 years (if I remeber correctly) to >finish the >job. Having translated a couple of books from English to Greek myself I >can >tell you that there are quite substantial problems there. To mention but >one >in Greek mechanic, engineer and mechanical are but one word (MHXANIKOS).
The same text in poetry is never understood by two people exactly the same way. In fact, the same text in poetry is never understood the same way by the same individual when read at different times. Do you expect a translated poetry to be uniquely mapped?!...
Word-specific and context-specific concepts are to be found in all languages, as well as an immense variaty of word-overtones are to be expected (except the Mathematical language).
>Actually translating an english *scientific* or science related text >into _modern_ Greek is a bitch, as I can attest from experience. With >Katharevousa it would be actually easier. Modern Greek is just not so >good in accurate descriptions and in detailing phenomena as Kathare- >vousa.
No. You know Katharevousa better than Demotic, that is. Or better said, Katharevousa and Demotic functioned as occupationally comple- mentary sublanguages.
>Why do you think that Modern Greek poetry has a much richer tradition >than prose? ;-)
Wrong inference. Correlations do not imply causations.
Kazantzakis is far more read (both in numbers and extent) than all the Nobelists poets. After all, Nobel is a W/N European academic evaluation, not a Greek readership one.
Mihalis Panagiotakis <miha...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote: >pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: > Errr, actually _parliamentary_ democracy was NOT an ancient Greek >invention. >In ancient Athens one had _direct Democracy_.
And that is not even a uniquely Greek phenomenon. Before the rise of feudal power in Scandinavia, free men had their say at the 'thing'. The king actually had to be elected or acknowledged by those institutions and there are examples of kings having their status revoked. And pre-Christian Scandinavia doesn't show many signs of significant Greek influence ...
In article Torsten Poulin Nielsen <tors...@diku.dk> wrote:
>On Mon Mihalis Panagiotakis <miha...@chem.fsu.edu> wrote: ... >> Errr, actually _parliamentary_ democracy was NOT an ancient Greek >>invention. >>In ancient Athens one had _direct Democracy_.
>And that is not even a uniquely Greek phenomenon. Before the rise of >feudal power in Scandinavia, free men had their say at the 'thing'. The >king actually had to be elected or acknowledged by those institutions >and there are examples of kings having their status revoked. And >pre-Christian Scandinavia doesn't show many signs of significant >Greek influence ...
This is a quite widespread belief among those who have a very vague understanding of what "Athenian democracy" was. What you describe was very close to what the Spartan political system was. In fact, in Sparta they had two Kings elected simultaneously in order to balance the system better. But Sparta is being described as a "tribal oligarchic" system. The key to Athenian democracy was that opposite _parties_ were functioning as _long-term incubators_ of _alternative policies_, and that constant education and oration was an integral part of the political system. Plus, in Athens every single citizen would get his chance to become a _decision maker_ about the common matters, not just a periodic party voter. Professional politicians was not what they were looking for. Of course, in practice, money bought virtually everything, as Thucydides says... (in perfect correspondence with modern times)!
In article <35294AB6.7...@chem.fsu.edu> Mihalis Panagiotakis
<miha...@chem.fsu.edu> writes: >pkar...@cc.ece.ntua.gr wrote: >> "SYMMETRIA" between two things does not mean 'similarity' of them.
>> It denotes rather a deep analogy of structure between the two parts, so that >> for any element of the former an element of the latter with analogous >> properties and function can be found.
>> What would you say in English? 'Co-measurity' maybe? :-)
> Actually one says *symmetry* in english. Commeasurable is something >else.
Sure, but how would I explain the term "symmetry" to my students, for example? Going back to the Greek origins of the term, I would opt for something like "total measure". Funny, although I always analyse "isometry" (a distance preserving transformation) as "equal distance", I never thought of explaining "symmetry", a much better known term to be sure. [I would guess that, while "symmetry" is indeed Greek, "isometry" is one of those Greek words born in the Diaspora :-) ]
|
