Beware The Greeks...Origin Of _O.K._
D. Spencer Hines
Having lived far too long in Athens, she has fallen in with the wrong sort
and has come to believe the Greeks invented everything.
Her codswalloped mindset is similar to that of the Soviets who claimed
everything from manned, heavier-than-air, powered flight to Russian roulette
had been invented by them.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhptvl$uj0$2...@mouse.otenet.gr...
> O.K. is an acronym for the Greek "Ola kala" = all well
>
> So, one would be saying "it's all all well".
She stupidly dates it as mid-twentieth century Greek shipping port language,
based on some offhand offal from her "hubby", which is FAR too late, and
then air-headedly admits somewhat later, in a complete _volte face_:
> Knowing the Greeks, they've probably claimed it as their own acronym!
Yes, Renia has been deucedly Greeked, by Jove [Zeus]!
_AU CONTRAIRE_........
Vide infra pro sapientia.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-----------------------------------------------------
Allen Walker Read wrote several papers in the journal American Speech in the
60s on the stages in the history of "O.K."
What is interesting is the term OK is a survivor from a fad of what
comes close to text-messaging from the 1839 period. A man who F.A. H.
"fell at Hoboken" as the result of a duel W.O.O.O.F.C. "With one of
our first citizens", any retribution to betaken R.T.B.S. "remains to
be seen".
Others are d.l.e.c. "Do let 'em come" as a response to an offer of
green peas, lost finished = d.u. "Dun up", w.y.g. "Will you go", and
the g.t.d.h.d. "give the devil his due".
"The First Stage of the History of "O.K.", Allen Walker Read, American
Speech, Feb. 1963, pp 5-27.
Obituary
Allen Read
Oct 24th 2002
From The Economist print edition
Allen Walker Read, etymologist, died on October 16th, aged 96
Columbia University
FOR much of his long career studying language Allen Read sought the
origin of OK, perhaps the most useful expression of universal
communication yet devised. You can use OK not simply to indicate
agreement but, with appropriate facial expressions, shades of
agreement, even disagreement. It is a vocabulary in itself. No wonder
that OK has found its way into nearly every language in every country,
and beyond. It was the fourth word, if you can call it that, heard on
the moon, spoken by Buzz Aldrin. For etymologists, establishing the
origin of OK became something of an obsession, equivalent to
mathematicians' long quest for the proof to Fermat's last theorem.
For years Americans assumed that OK must be of American origin, if
only because it was so successful. Some doubt about this claim arose
in the second world war when American soldiers discovered that OK was
already familiar in other countries; in Britain, of course, but in
Japan and even (according to H.L. Mencken, an American writer on
language) among the Bedouin in the Sahara.
Some linguists suggested that OK was of European origin. After all,
the Europeans had been knocking around the world long before Americans
got on to the scene. Germans said it was the initials of the fiercely-
sounding rank of Oberst Kommandant. The French put in a claim for Aux
Cayes, a town they had established in Haiti that produced superior
rum. A British scholar said the use of OK in Britain predated any
American influence and had probably come from Elizabethan English.
Things were getting serious in the world of etymology. Step forward
the Americans' champion, Allen Walker Read.
Racy words
As early as he could remember Mr Read was interested in the origin of
words. In Minnesota, where he was born, he sought the source of local
place names, and wrote a paper on the subject while studying at Iowa
University. He had a spell in England as a Rhodes scholar and returned
to teach English at various universities in the mid-west. He sought
words that he said had "a racy, human quality", and there were none
racier than the graffiti collected by Mr Read during a trip of several
months through the western United States and Canada in the summer of
1928.
He put together the results of his trip in a book entitled, "Lexical
Evidence from Epigraphy in Western North America: a Glossarial Study
of the Low Element in the English Vocabulary". Notwithstanding the
academic title, the book contained material unacceptable for
publication at the time in America. One of the milder entries, found
by Mr Read on a monument, reads: "When you want to shit in ease/Place
your elbows on your knees/Put your hands against your chin/Let a fart
and then begin". Mr Read had the book printed in Paris in 1935,
perhaps encouraged that James Joyce had first published "Ulysses"
there in the 1920s. Even so, only 75 copies of "Lexical Evidence" were
printed and issued privately to "students of linguistics, folklore,
abnormal psychology and allied branches of social sciences". The book
was published in the United States in 1977 as "Classic American
Graffiti".
Mr Read, who was professor of English at Columbia University in New
York for nearly 30 years from 1945, published several other books and
hundreds of papers, mainly on American English. Discovering the origin
of OK was, he said, no more than an agreeable diversion from his main
work. It was fun to do the research, helped by his wife Charlotte, a
scholar in semantics. But for envious fellow etymologists it was the
pinnacle of his career.
In his hunt for the origin of OK he was offered dozens of theories.
The first to go were the European ones. They were appealing: Mr Read
liked what he called "frolicsome" ideas. But they had no substance, he
said.
BINGO! -- DSH
He was convinced that OK was American. He warmed to the idea
that the popularity of Orrin Kendall biscuits, supplied to soldiers on
the Union side in the civil war, had lived on as OK. He noted there
was a telegraph term known as Open Key. But OK proved to have been
used much earlier. Writing in American Speech in 1963, Mr Read said
that he had come across it in the Boston Morning Post in 1839. In what
was apparently a satirical article about bad spelling it stood for
"Oll Korrect". The next stage in OK's popularity was when it was
adopted by followers of Martin Van Buren, who in 1836 became the
eighth president of the United States, and unsuccessfully stood for re-
election in 1840, by which time he was widely known as Old Kinderhook,
a nickname he derived from his home town. "Vote for OK" was snappier
than using his Dutch name.
Mr Read showed how, stage by stage, OK was spread throughout North
America and the world to the moon, and then took on its new form AOK,
first used by space people and frowned on by purists.
This being an exercise in the academic world, there remain some doubters.
Some believe that the Boston newspaper's reference to OK may not be the
earliest. Some are attracted to the claim that it is of American-Indian
origin. There is an Indian word, okeh, used as an affirmative reply to a
question. Mr Read treated such doubting calmly. "Nothing is absolute," he
once wrote, "nothing is forever."
Hmmmmmmm...
The question of WHICH American-Indian language has this word _okeh_ should
have been noted.
It is reportedly CHOCTAW.
Aye, Watson, the game is afoot.
[To Be Continued]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Jack Linthicum
In high school, Hines, this was called copying someone else's work and
passing it off as your own.
Ray O'Hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:_310j.671$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
O.K comes from "all clear?" slang made it OK, oll korrect
so hiney. you are as incorrect as you claim reina yo be,
turns oyt both of you have your head up your asses.
The historical record shows that O.K. appeared as an abbreviation for "oll
korrect" (a conscious misspelling of "all correct") in Boston newspapers in
1839
Allen Walker Read conclusively documented the early history of the
abbreviation O.K., now also spelled okay, in a series of six articles in the
journal American Speech in 1963 and 1964.[1][2][3][4][5][6] He tracked the
spread and evolution of the word in American newspapers and other written
documents, and later it spread to the rest of the world. He also documented
controversy surrounding O.K. and the history of its folk etymologies, both
of which are intertwined with the history of the word itself.
1.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1963). Some believe it the acronym to be accountable
to Gen. Custer's telegraphed reports of platoon casualties whereby OK "oh
key" meant "0 (zero) key (killed)". It may therefore be an acronym for no
killed in a platoon AKA P0K or "platoon fit to fight", a common telegraph
message. The first stage in the history of "O.K.". American Speech, 38 (1),
5-27.
2.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1963). The second stage in the history of "O.K.".
American Speech, 38 (2), 83-102.
3.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1963). Could Andrew Jackson spell?. American Speech,
38 (3), 188-195.
4.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1964). The folklore of "O.K.". American Speech, 39
(1), 5-25.
5.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1964). Later stages in the history of "O.K.".
American Speech, 39 (2), 83-101.
6.. ^ Read, Allen W. (1964). Successive revisions in the explanation of
"O.K.". American Speech, 39 (4), 243
D. Spencer Hines
From Mike Todd at:
<http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm>
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
---------------------------------------------------
Where did OKAY come from?
There can be no more universal term than Okay. It is used in just
about every language in the world, and its use is probably even more
widespread than Coca-Cola. Yet nobody really knows for sure where it
originated. In fact, just as there can be no more universal term, there can
also be no more controversial when it comes to determining its origin.
The reality is that most theories are folklore, invented (albeit based
on real occurrences) to try to provide a definitive explanation. Personally,
I subscribe to the "coincidental coinage" theory - that is, "OK" was in
isolated and independent verbal use in a number of places in the very early
part of the 19th century prior to its first written appearance (in the
Boston Morning Post, on March 23rd, 1839). It would have faded into
obscurity if it were not for some of the other appearances in the years that
followed.
So here are just some of the theories (some of which are, in reality,
just attempts to fix an earliest date, and some of which are highly
fanciful!), and my own personal summary appears at the end.
The Choctaw theory
In the American Choctaw Indian language, there is a word okeh, which
means "it is so". It is likely (although I can find no hard evidence) that
this word was used in some American communities in the early 19th century.
There is a report that Andrew Jackson, during the Battle of New Orleans in
1815, learned of this Choctaw word, liked it, and used it.
Woodrow Wilson also preferred this etymology, and used okeh when he
approved official papers. His use led to this particular form being picked
up by Okeh Records, "the name of a series of popular phonograph records"
[Mencken, 1936] as well as hot-dog stands, shoe-shining parlours and more.
The Andrew Jackson Libel theory
Some time around 1832, Seba Smith was accused of libel in claiming
that Andrew Jackson endorsed a pronouncement written by his literary
secretary, Amos Kendell, with OK Amos. The details are not very clear, but
it is possible that what was really written was OR, meaning "Order
Recorded". However, one newspaper reporting on the matter, presumably some
years later, said that the letters OK had been adopted "as a sort of
[Democratic] part cry and [were] fastened upon their banners". This does
give at least some credence to the idea that OK was at least in familiar use
prior to 1840.
The Wolof theory
Like Choctaw Indian, the Wolof language (spoken in Senegal and The
Gambia, formerly The Gold Coast) has something like okeh to mean an emphatic
"yes" (it's more like waa-key in reality). Wolof has given American English
a number of words, perhaps through the African slave trade, such as juke,
honky (to mean a white man), hipcat (or hepcat, meaning a jazz enthusiast),
jive and even dig (as in "to understand"), although it should be noted that
there is nowhere near universal agreement on these! It is likely that okeh
appeared in early black American spoken slang.
The Other Languages theories
Yet more languages have similar-sounding words for "yes" or "it is
so". Liberian has oke, and Burmese has hoakeh, for instance. Yet again, it
is possible that these examples crept into American use in small isolated
areas at some time prior to 1839.
The Indian Chief theory
Keokuk was an Indian chief (after whom Keokuk, in Iowa, is named). His
admirers sometimes referred to him as "Old Keokuk, he's all right", and the
initials OK, came to mean the same thing.
The orl korrect theory
The Internet fashion for condensing phrases into abbreviation
certainly not new! The 1830s saw a rise of quirky abbreviations for common
phrases, which for some reason seems to have been particularly popular in
Boston. ISBD was used to mean "it shall be done", RTBS for "it remains to be
seen" and SP for "small potatoes".
It went further, with KY used to mean "no use" (know yuse) and an
article in the March 23rd, 1839, edition of the Boston Morning Post, saw
this produce OK, short for "all correct" (orl korrect). This is the earliest
published appearance of OK that has so far been found.
The Richardson theory
William Richardson recorded his journey from Boston to New Orleans in
his 1815 diary. Transcriptions of the diary show "Arrived at Princeton, a
handsome little village, o.k. and at Trenton where we dined at 1p.m." -
although some have proposed that this showed the use of the expression in
1815, the original manuscript shows that this was actually part of some
alterations that may have been added by Richardson (or someone else),
possibly even after 1840 when the term had come into common use. Another
possibility is that the writing is of a.h., referring to "a handsome", but
there are many objections to this theory.
The 16th century theories
Several claims have been made to have found appearances of OK have in
16th century manuscripts. In one instance Notes & Queries (1911) points out
that the will of Thomas Cumberland in 1565 is shown to use OK. But more
careful scrutiny shows that this is more likely to have been the initials of
the scrivener.
Books published in 1593 and 1596 also have OK included, but apparently
as nouns. The text of one (Have with You to Saffron-Walden, by Thomas Nashe,
the British author) goes "Martin is Guerra, Brown a brone-bill, & Barrow a
wheelbarrow; Ket a knight, H.N. [referring to Henry Nichols] an O.K." As
Mencken states in his supplement to The American Language, "the meaning here
is unfathomable".
The Old Kinderhook theory
Martin van Buren was standing as the Democratic presidential candidate
in 1840. He had acquired the nickname of Old Kinderhook (he was born in
Kinderhook, New York). On March 24, 1840 the Democrats opened the OK Club in
Grand Street, New York City, based on the initials of van Buren's nickname.
The expression OK soon became the watchword of this club, and in that
same year, a Democratic newspaper equated the initials with the strivings of
the party to "make all things OK".
The Cockney Orl Korrec theory
The Times, in 1939, had an article reporting that it was of Cockney
origin. The author remembered its use as an abbreviation for Orl korrec when
he was a boy in the late 19th century. However, this post-dates its first
appearance by many years.
The French theory
During the American War of Independence, French sailors made
"appointments" with American girls aux quais (meaning when they were berthed
at the quayside). This theory was put forward by Britain's Daily Express
newspaper in 1940.
The Finish theory
The Fins have a word for correct, and it is oikea. In a 1940 article,
someone at the Cleveland Public Library suggested that this may be the
origin.
The British Parliament theory
The same source as the Cockney theory (The Times, in 1939) pointed out
that some bills going through the House of Lords had to be read and approved
by Lords Onslow and Kilbracken, and they each initialed them - producing the
combined initials OK.
The Anglo-Saxon theory
Several centuries before its first appearance, Norwegian and Danish
sailors used an Anglo-Saxon word, hogfor, which meant ready for sea. This
was frequently shortened to HG, which in turn would have been pronounced
hag-gay.
The Literary theory
Laurence Sterne was a British author of the 18th century, and in his
book A Sentimental Journey, published in 1768, he uses the emphatic French
form of yes: O qu-oui. In an anglicised pronunciation (oh-key), the phrase
was used by some to express affirmation.
The Schoolmaster theory
In a letter in the Vancouver Sun, in 1935, it was pointed out that
early schoolmasters would mark examination papers by adding the Latin Omnis
Korrecta, which was sometimes abbreviated to OK.
The Ship-Builder theory
Early ship-builders would mark the timber they prepared, and the first
to be laid was marked "OK Number 1", meaning "outer keel No. 1".
The Telegraph theory
Early telegraph operators abbreviated everything, to reduce the amount
of work needed. They would use GM for "Good Morning", GA for "Go Ahead" and
so on. In 1935, Tatler, in the Observer, suggests that they also used OK.
This doesn't stand up at all, as the telegraph post-dated the first written
occurrence and it is almost certain, in my view, that they adopted OK rather
than inventing it.
The Scottish theory
We've all heard the Scottish expression, och-aye. An author in the
Nottingham Journal in 1943 suggests that OK is simply an adaptation of this
expression. The Scottish expression derives from och, meaning an exclamation
of surprise and aye meaning yes, and has been in existence since perhaps the
16th century.
Hmmmmmmmm... -- DSH
The Old English theory
In early England, the last harvest loads brought in from the fields
were known as hoacky or horkey. It was also the name given to harvest-home,
which was the feast which followed the last loads brought in. The
satisfactory completion of harvest was therefore known as hoacky, which was
soon (at least according to an article in the Daily Telegraph in 1935)
shortened to OK.
The Prussian theory
The Times printed a suggestion that the Prussian general, Schliessen
(fighting for the American colonies during the War of Independence) was
properly given the title Oberst Kommandant. All his orders were initialed
OK.
The Greek theory
Probably the earliest suggestion comes from the Greek. The two Greek
letters omega and khi appear in a work called Geoponica in 920AD as being a
magical incantation (when repeated twice) against fleas!
Hmmmmmmm... Let's watch it work against the fleas on USENET. -- DSH
The Railway theory
Obediah Kelly was an early railway freighter. He is known to have
signed bills of lading with his initials, OK, and in railway circles OK came
to mean that something had been authorised.
The War-Department (or cracker) theory
During the Civil War, the US War Department bought supplies of
crackers from a company called Orrins-Kendall. Their initials appeared on
the boxes, and as the crackers were of a particularly high standard, the
letters OK became synonymous with "all right". This theory was originally
put forward in a publication called Linguist, from the Horace Mann School
for Boys in New York, although it has subsequently appeared in a number of
other publications.
The multitudinous other theories
During 1840, American politicians used the term frequently, and dreamt
up many absurd (and often pointed) origins. Out of Kash, out of kredit, out
of klothes, all became identified with van Buren's campaign. And on the
floor of the House of Representatives, a congressman from Illinois suggested
it meant Orful Kalamity.
Since 1840, many other explanations have been reported. The list
above, although long and fanciful, is only the tip of the iceberg!
So just where did OK come from?
I will leave the reader to come to his or her own conclusions
from the above. However, my own view is that there are bits of several of
the above explanations involved.
Unfortunately, etymologists and word-lovers alike seem to have
an innate desire to have a single point of origin for words. If they're
unable to find that, they like to see clearly defined lines of evolution. My
own view is that many words and phrases arise, not from single sources, but
through my own theory of "coincidental coinage", where many disparate uses
have occurred but which are brought together by some single act.
I would suggest that the Choctaw, and possibly even the other
foreign language influences, had resulted in small pockets of America using
okeh or something similar. This may have been the case perhaps back as far
as the 17th century, but more likely the 18th.
The existence of these examples reinforced the Democrats' use of
OK to mean Old Kinderhook, and soon the OK Club became well known.
Inevitably, the club would have become well known through the nation's
newspapers and, reinforced by folk etymologies, the term became quickly
established.
I would therefore argue that there is no single origin of the
expression, but it was the OK Club that was responsible for bringing the
expression to a wide public arena and which could, in some ways, be said to
have at least started the trend which has continued ever since.
Finally
The above notes have been compiled by me on and off over the past few
years. Many books and Internet sources reproduce the same arguments, and
these have been one foundation, backed up by rather firmer documentary
evidence that I have found. But the major source is undoubtedly "The
American Language", by HL Mencken, in its various editions and supplements.
---------------------
DSH
Renia
> Renia Simmonds has been truly "Greeked"...
>
> Having lived far too long in Athens, she has fallen in with the wrong sort
> and has come to believe the Greeks invented everything.
No, the Greeks themselves, bless 'em, think they invented everything.
That's Europe for you.
>
> Her codswalloped mindset is similar to that of the Soviets who claimed
> everything from manned, heavier-than-air, powered flight to Russian roulette
> had been invented by them.
Blocks.
Renia
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:_310j.671$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
>
> O.K comes from "all clear?" slang made it OK, oll korrect
>
> so hiney. you are as incorrect as you claim reina yo be,
> turns oyt both of you have your head up your asses.
I don't.
He does.
Renia
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:_310j.671$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
>
> O.K comes from "all clear?" slang made it OK, oll korrect
>
> so hiney. you are as incorrect as you claim reina yo be,
> turns oyt both of you have your head up your asses.
Wiki-what-not:
In Greek, O.K. is a correctly-spelled abbreviation for the expression,
Ola Kala (Ὅλα Καλά, ΟΚ), which has the same meaning as the American
English "okay". It is possible that Greek sailors used Ola Kala in
American ports. It is also said that "O.K." was written on the ships or
other places to show that the ships are ready.
Larry Swain
> More Grist For The Mill...
>
> From Mike Todd at:
>
> <http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm>
>
theories he collects may be dismissed from lack of evidence. "OK" isn't
attested in the language before 1839 in Boston, so any theories
regarding Anglo-Saxon, Old English, French, Greek, etc. are in error.
The "Choctaw" word is alleged, but not attested and furthermore lived in
Mississippi area, nowhere near Boston at the time that the word or
abbreviation enters the language. So you're just as wrong and incorrect
as you say Renia is.
Ray O'Hara
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
> > "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> > news:_310j.671$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
> >
> > O.K comes from "all clear?" slang made it OK, oll korrect
> >
> > so hiney. you are as incorrect as you claim reina yo be,
> > turns oyt both of you have your head up your asses.
>
> Wiki-what-not:
>
> In Greek, O.K. is a correctly-spelled abbreviation for the expression,
> English "okay". It is possible that Greek sailors used Ola Kala in
> American ports. It is also said that "O.K." was written on the ships or
> other places to show that the ships are ready.
greek sailors were in short supply in american ports in 1839.
they were too busy doing the turks bidding.
also said.
your hubby is steering you wrong.
Renia
The Turks had been evicted by 1839. Nafplion (lovely place) was
pronounced capital of Greece in 1828/9 until some bright spark decided
Athens should be the place.
Prior to that,some of them possibly fled the Turks and saile off to America.
D. Spencer Hines
Grasping At Straws.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhqmrt$98c$1...@mouse.otenet.gr...
>>>In Greek, O.K. is a correctly-spelled abbreviation for the expression,
>>>Ola Kala (??? ????, ??), which has the same meaning as the American
>>>English "okay". It is possible that Greek sailors used Ola Kala in
>>>American ports. It is also said that "O.K." was written on the ships or
>>>other places to show that the ships are ready.
>>
>> greek sailors were in short supply in american ports in 1839.
>> they were too busy doing the turks bidding.
>
> The Turks had been evicted by 1839. Nafplion (lovely place) was pronounced
> capital of Greece in 1828/9 until some bright spark decided Athens should
> be the place.
>
> Prior to that,some of them possibly fled the Turks and saile [sic] off to
> America.
Agamemnon
> Hilarious!
>
> Grasping At Straws.
Idiot.
The Greeks fled the Turks in 1453 when they invaded Constantinople and began
genociding the population, taking hundreds of thousands of books with them
in thousands of ships which started off the renascence in the west. There
were hundreds of thousands of Greeks living in western Europe since before
the middle ages. The family of Christopher Columbus were originally Greeks
from the island of Chios which was part of Genoa at the time and used
Byzantine maps to guide him to the Americas. He also kept a Greek journal
documenting his travels.
http://www.greecetravel.com/history/columbus/
The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more credible than
the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a moronic misspelling of All
Clear. For a start OK means everything is fine, not clear, like if you fall
over an hurt your leg you don't say its clear, you say its fine when get up.
Ray O'Hara
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:3aqdnZSGz7JRn9za...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:Bf50j.679$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
> > Hilarious!
> >
> > Grasping At Straws.
>
> Idiot.
>
> The Greeks fled the Turks in 1453 when they invaded Constantinople and
began
> genociding the population, taking hundreds of thousands of books with them
> in thousands of ships which started off the renascence in the west. There
> were hundreds of thousands of Greeks living in western Europe since before
> the middle ages. The family of Christopher Columbus were originally Greeks
> from the island of Chios which was part of Genoa at the time and used
> Byzantine maps to guide him to the Americas. He also kept a Greek journal
> documenting his travels.
>
> http://www.greecetravel.com/history/columbus/
>
> The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more credible
than
> the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a moronic misspelling of
All
> Clear. For a start OK means everything is fine, not clear, like if you
fall
> over an hurt your leg you don't say its clear, you say its fine when get
up.
>
except. no one used OK before it was invented in america.
its tough to claim something you never used.
but we do know what the greeks invented don't we.
"how do you seperate the men from the boys in greece?"
with a crowbar
choronik
news:rdWdnY2_NKOhmNza...@rcn.net...
Not for Agamemnon-ASS. He can claim anything.
Anyway it was the ancient Greeks who invented OK. It stands for Olon Kolon,
meaning "Total Bum". If you don't believe me ask Agamemnon-ASS. He can prove
it for you. After all he is a total bum "his-self".
And you know what before you can wink your eye, Agamemnonas will come up
with....
"IDIOT!" which is yet another Greek invention. Didn't you know that the
Greeks invented quad core chips 20,000 years ago while they were still an
Asian people before they moved into what is now Greece.
--
choronik
=======
Agamemnon
IDOT!
It was the British that invented same sex relationships not the Greeks.
Buggery with boys was illegal in ancient Greece and punishable by death.
Whereas the ancient Greeks only engaged in buggery as a means of
masturbation with consenting prostitutes the British engage in buggery for
love. Everyone in Europe considers Britain to be a nation of queers and
lesbians.
Vince
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:Bf50j.679$Ig4....@eagle.america.net...
>> Hilarious!
>>
>> Grasping At Straws.
>
> Idiot.
>
> The Greeks fled the Turks in 1453 when they invaded Constantinople
> and began genociding the population, taking hundreds of thousands of
> books with them in thousands of ships which started off the
> renascence in the west. There were hundreds of thousands of Greeks
> living in western Europe since before the middle ages. The family of
> Christopher Columbus were originally Greeks from the island of Chios
> which was part of Genoa at the time and used Byzantine maps to guide
> him to the Americas. He also kept a Greek journal documenting his
> travels.
>
> http://www.greecetravel.com/history/columbus/
>
> The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more
> credible than the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a
> moronic misspelling of All Clear. For a start OK means everything is
> fine, not clear, like if you fall over an hurt your leg you don't say
> its clear, you say its fine when get up.
Hey I have no problem that the Greeks have a lot to be proud of,
although some of your claims are just silly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus
In particular Columbus wrote in both latin and Greek. So did many people
The big fat Greek claim is simply not substantiated
Vince
Eugene Griessel
>It was the British that invented same sex relationships not the Greeks.
>Buggery with boys was illegal in ancient Greece and punishable by death.
>Whereas the ancient Greeks only engaged in buggery as a means of
>masturbation with consenting prostitutes the British engage in buggery for
>love. Everyone in Europe considers Britain to be a nation of queers and
>lesbians.
Oh dear. May I submit the above statement to the Nobel Committee for
the Ignorance Prize?
Eugene L Griessel
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Agamemnon
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:_-GdnZhqaYvekNza...@comcast.com...
Twaddle. Next you'll be claiming El Greco wasn't Greek.
>
> Vince
>
>
>
Ray O'Hara
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> It was the British that invented same sex relationships not the Greeks.
> Buggery with boys was illegal in ancient Greece and punishable by death.
> Whereas the ancient Greeks only engaged in buggery as a means of
> masturbation with consenting prostitutes the British engage in buggery for
> love. Everyone in Europe considers Britain to be a nation of queers and
> lesbians.
>
see the sacred band of thebes.
Ray O'Hara
juan de fuca was a greek though.
as was el greco.
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rdWdnY2_NKOhmNza...@rcn.net...
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:3aqdnZSGz7JRn9za...@eclipse.net.uk...
>> The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more credible
>> than the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a moronic misspelling
>> of All Clear. For a start OK means everything is fine, not clear, like
>> if you fall over an [sic] hurt your leg you don't say its clear, you say
>> its fine when [sic] get up.
>>
> except. no one used OK before it was invented in america.
> its tough to claim something you never used.
>
> but we do know what the greeks invented don't we.
>
> "how do you seperate [sic] the men from the boys in greece?"
>
> with a crowbar
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
Well, there are indeed thousands of them there -- but not the ENTIRE NATION.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:G7ednZVrdOpAkdza...@eclipse.net.uk...
> IDOT! [sic]
Agamemnon
Nothing to do with being gay or with sex in any way.
Protagoras
everything is OK. We Greeks also invented recursive definitions that
iterate to infinity.
Vince
El Greco was a Cretan , which was part of the republic of Venice
He spoke Greek and was probably of the Greek orthodox pursuasion
Whether that made him a Greek at the time is an open question
IIRC Crete joined Greece in 1913
Vince
Vince
As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
Vince
Agamemnon
The above is of a man masturbating his 12 to 13 year old wife's vagina. If
it were a man it would have shown him an erect penis, but the only genital
features that can be seen on her are female. Only the gay British could
mislabel something like this as being gay.
> http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/sex/homosex1/1-greek-erotic-homosex.jpg
So two men having sex with a pair of female prostitutes wearing jewelled
head bands and another man rubbing his leg is homosexual is it. Like fuck it
is. Only the gay minded British could come up with such an idiotic idea.
> http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/d/d9/250px-Greek_homosexual_couple.jpg
These people are not gay. They are embracing no differently to football or
rugby players who have just come out of the hot tub.
> http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/lovers2.jpg
>
So one picture of a man soliciting a male prostitute is all you can do?
> Vince
Vince
The Sacred Band of Thebes (ancient Greek: ????? ????? ??? ?????) was a
troop of picked soldiers, numbering 150 age-structured which formed the
elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC.[1] It was
organized by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and it played a
crucial role in the Battle of Leuctra, and was completely annihilated in
the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.
Plutarch reports that the Sacred Band consisted of homosexual couples
and the reason was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more
cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent
bonds. So according to Plutarch (in his Life of Pelopidas[2]), the
inspiration for the Band's formation came from Plato’s Symposium,
wherein the character Phaedrus remarks:
And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an
army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very
best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and
emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side,
although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover
would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved,
either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be
ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would
desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
But keep trying
Vince
Agamemnon
And Crete was and still is a Greek island.
>
> He spoke Greek and was probably of the Greek orthodox pursuasion
What you mean probably. He was an Orthodox Icon painter.
>
> Whether that made him a Greek at the time is an open question
>
> IIRC Crete joined Greece in 1913
IDIOT.
Crete was under Turkish occupation until 1913. It's been Greek since before
Minoan times. Where do you think Zeus was born?
>
> Vince
>
>
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:fMidnfNLdb0Pk9za...@rcn.net...
>>>
>>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:G7ednZVrdOpAkdza...@eclipse.net.uk...
>>>>
>>>> It was the British that invented same sex relationships not the Greeks.
>>>> Buggery with boys was illegal in ancient Greece and punishable by
>>>> death.
>>>> Whereas the ancient Greeks only engaged in buggery as a means of
>>>> masturbation with consenting prostitutes the British engage in buggery
>>>> for
>>>> love. Everyone in Europe considers Britain to be a nation of queers and
>>>> lesbians.
>>>>
>>>
>>> see the sacred band of thebes.
>>
>> Nothing to do with being gay or with sex in any way.
>
> The Sacred Band of Thebes (ancient Greek: ????? ????? ??? ?????) was a
> troop of picked soldiers, numbering 150 age-structured which formed the
> elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC.[1] It was organized
> by the Theban commander Gorgidas in 378 BC and it played a crucial role in
> the Battle of Leuctra, and was completely annihilated in the Battle of
> Chaeronea in 338 BC.
>
> Plutarch reports that the Sacred Band consisted of homosexual couples
NO HE DID NOT. The word "homosexual" did not exist until Victorian times and
was invented by the gay British.
> and the reason was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more
> cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent
> bonds. So according to Plutarch (in his Life of Pelopidas[2]), the
> inspiration for the Band's formation came from Plato’s Symposium, wherein
> the character Phaedrus remarks:
>
> And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army
> should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best
> governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating
> one another in honour; and when fighting at each other's side, although a
> mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not
> choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when
> abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a
> thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved
> or fail him in the hour of danger? [3]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
>
>
> But keep trying
IDIOT. If you had bothered reading Plato's Symposium in full you would know
that Plato derided gay sax and said that his FRIENDS, he doesn't call them
lovers, should not engage in any sexual act and the best way for this to
happen if both were men, since with women the man's thoughts would instantly
be turned to sex whereas with a man they would not. In other words Plato as
saying that Greek men were straight.
>
> Vince
>
Agamemnon
"Protagoras" <gemin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9463c6bd-1147-44d9...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> The word OK has its origins in the Greek Ola Kala that means,
> everything is OK. We Greeks also invented recursive definitions that
> iterate to infinity.
Funny how your post is showing up in soc.history.ancient but not
soc.culture.greek
D. Spencer Hines
Having lived far too long in Athens, she has fallen in with the wrong sort
and has come to believe the Greeks invented everything.
Her codswalloped mindset is similar to that of the Soviets who claimed
everything from manned, heavier-than-air, powered flight to Russian roulette
had been invented by them.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhptvl$uj0$2...@mouse.otenet.gr...
> O.K. is an acronym for the Greek "Ola kala" = all well
>
> So, one would be saying "it's all all well".
She stupidly dates it as mid-twentieth century Greek shipping port language,
based on some offhand offal from her "hubby", which is FAR too late, and
then air-headedly admits somewhat later, in a complete _volte face_:
> Knowing the Greeks, they've probably claimed it as their own acronym!
Yes, Renia has been deucedly Greeked, by Jove [Zeus]!
_AU CONTRAIRE_........
Vide infra pro sapientia.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-----------------------------------------------------
Allen Walker Read wrote several papers in the journal American Speech in the
60s on the stages in the history of "O.K."
What is interesting is the term OK is a survivor from a fad of what
comes close to text-messaging from the 1839 period. A man who F.A. H.
"fell at Hoboken" as the result of a duel W.O.O.O.F.C. "With one of
our first citizens", any retribution to betaken R.T.B.S. "remains to
be seen".
Others are d.l.e.c. "Do let 'em come" as a response to an offer of
green peas, lost finished = d.u. "Dun up", w.y.g. "Will you go", and
the g.t.d.h.d. "give the devil his due".
"The First Stage of the History of "O.K.", Allen Walker Read, American
Speech, Feb. 1963, pp 5-27.
Obituary
Allen Read
Oct 24th 2002
From The Economist print edition
Allen Walker Read, etymologist, died on October 16th, aged 96
Columbia University
FOR much of his long career studying language Allen Read sought the
origin of OK, perhaps the most useful expression of universal
communication yet devised. You can use OK not simply to indicate
agreement but, with appropriate facial expressions, shades of
agreement, even disagreement. It is a vocabulary in itself. No wonder
that OK has found its way into nearly every language in every country,
and beyond. It was the fourth word, if you can call it that, heard on
the moon, spoken by Buzz Aldrin. For etymologists, establishing the
origin of OK became something of an obsession, equivalent to
mathematicians' long quest for the proof to Fermat's last theorem.
For years Americans assumed that OK must be of American origin, if
only because it was so successful. Some doubt about this claim arose
in the second world war when American soldiers discovered that OK was
already familiar in other countries; in Britain, of course, but in
Japan and even (according to H.L. Mencken, an American writer on
language) among the Bedouin in the Sahara.
Some linguists suggested that OK was of European origin. After all,
the Europeans had been knocking around the world long before Americans
got on to the scene. Germans said it was the initials of the fiercely-
sounding rank of Oberst Kommandant. The French put in a claim for Aux
Cayes, a town they had established in Haiti that produced superior
rum. A British scholar said the use of OK in Britain predated any
American influence and had probably come from Elizabethan English.
Things were getting serious in the world of etymology. Step forward
the Americans' champion, Allen Walker Read.
Racy words
As early as he could remember Mr Read was interested in the origin of
words. In Minnesota, where he was born, he sought the source of local
place names, and wrote a paper on the subject while studying at Iowa
University. He had a spell in England as a Rhodes scholar and returned
to teach English at various universities in the mid-west. He sought
words that he said had "a racy, human quality", and there were none
racier than the graffiti collected by Mr Read during a trip of several
months through the western United States and Canada in the summer of
1928.
He put together the results of his trip in a book entitled, "Lexical
Evidence from Epigraphy in Western North America: a Glossarial Study
of the Low Element in the English Vocabulary". Notwithstanding the
academic title, the book contained material unacceptable for
publication at the time in America. One of the milder entries, found
by Mr Read on a monument, reads: "When you want to shit in ease/Place
your elbows on your knees/Put your hands against your chin/Let a fart
and then begin". Mr Read had the book printed in Paris in 1935,
perhaps encouraged that James Joyce had first published "Ulysses"
there in the 1920s. Even so, only 75 copies of "Lexical Evidence" were
printed and issued privately to "students of linguistics, folklore,
abnormal psychology and allied branches of social sciences". The book
was published in the United States in 1977 as "Classic American
Graffiti".
Mr Read, who was professor of English at Columbia University in New
York for nearly 30 years from 1945, published several other books and
hundreds of papers, mainly on American English. Discovering the origin
of OK was, he said, no more than an agreeable diversion from his main
work. It was fun to do the research, helped by his wife Charlotte, a
scholar in semantics. But for envious fellow etymologists it was the
pinnacle of his career.
In his hunt for the origin of OK he was offered dozens of theories.
The first to go were the European ones. They were appealing: Mr Read
liked what he called "frolicsome" ideas. But they had no substance, he
said.
BINGO! -- DSH
He was convinced that OK was American. He warmed to the idea
that the popularity of Orrin Kendall biscuits, supplied to soldiers on
the Union side in the civil war, had lived on as OK. He noted there
was a telegraph term known as Open Key. But OK proved to have been
used much earlier. Writing in American Speech in 1963, Mr Read said
that he had come across it in the Boston Morning Post in 1839. In what
was apparently a satirical article about bad spelling it stood for
"Oll Korrect". The next stage in OK's popularity was when it was
adopted by followers of Martin Van Buren, who in 1836 became the
eighth president of the United States, and unsuccessfully stood for re-
election in 1840, by which time he was widely known as Old Kinderhook,
a nickname he derived from his home town. "Vote for OK" was snappier
than using his Dutch name.
Mr Read showed how, stage by stage, OK was spread throughout North
America and the world to the moon, and then took on its new form AOK,
first used by space people and frowned on by purists.
This being an exercise in the academic world, there remain some doubters.
Some believe that the Boston newspaper's reference to OK may not be the
earliest. Some are attracted to the claim that it is of American-Indian
origin. There is an Indian word, okeh, used as an affirmative reply to a
question. Mr Read treated such doubting calmly. "Nothing is absolute," he
once wrote, "nothing is forever."
Hmmmmmmm...
The question of WHICH American-Indian language has this word _okeh_ should
have been noted.
It is reportedly CHOCTAW.
Aye, Watson, the game is afoot.
[To Be Continued]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Ray O'Hara
>
>
> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>
> Vince
his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
D. Spencer Hines
From Mike Todd at:
<http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/okay.htm>
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Deus Vult
---------------------------------------------------
Where did OKAY come from?
There can be no more universal term than Okay. It is used in just
about every language in the world, and its use is probably even more
widespread than Coca-Cola. Yet nobody really knows for sure where it
originated. In fact, just as there can be no more universal term, there can
also be no more controversial when it comes to determining its origin.
The reality is that most theories are folklore, invented (albeit based
on real occurrences) to try to provide a definitive explanation. Personally,
I subscribe to the "coincidental coinage" theory - that is, "OK" was in
isolated and independent verbal use in a number of places in the very early
part of the 19th century prior to its first written appearance (in the
Boston Morning Post, on March 23rd, 1839). It would have faded into
obscurity if it were not for some of the other appearances in the years that
followed.
So here are just some of the theories (some of which are, in reality,
just attempts to fix an earliest date, and some of which are highly
fanciful!), and my own personal summary appears at the end.
The Choctaw theory
In the American Choctaw Indian language, there is a word okeh, which
means "it is so". It is likely (although I can find no hard evidence) that
this word was used in some American communities in the early 19th century.
There is a report that Andrew Jackson, during the Battle of New Orleans in
1815, learned of this Choctaw word, liked it, and used it.
Woodrow Wilson also preferred this etymology, and used okeh when he
approved official papers. His use led to this particular form being picked
up by Okeh Records, "the name of a series of popular phonograph records"
[Mencken, 1936] as well as hot-dog stands, shoe-shining parlours and more.
The Andrew Jackson Libel theory
Some time around 1832, Seba Smith was accused of libel in claiming
that Andrew Jackson endorsed a pronouncement written by his literary
secretary, Amos Kendell, with OK Amos. The details are not very clear, but
it is possible that what was really written was OR, meaning "Order
Recorded". However, one newspaper reporting on the matter, presumably some
years later, said that the letters OK had been adopted "as a sort of
[Democratic] part cry and [were] fastened upon their banners". This does
give at least some credence to the idea that OK was at least in familiar use
prior to 1840.
The Wolof theory
Like Choctaw Indian, the Wolof language (spoken in Senegal and The
Gambia, formerly The Gold Coast) has something like okeh to mean an emphatic
"yes" (it's more like waa-key in reality). Wolof has given American English
a number of words, perhaps through the African slave trade, such as juke,
honky (to mean a white man), hipcat (or hepcat, meaning a jazz enthusiast),
jive and even dig (as in "to understand"), although it should be noted that
there is nowhere near universal agreement on these! It is likely that okeh
appeared in early black American spoken slang.
The Other Languages theories
Yet more languages have similar-sounding words for "yes" or "it is
so". Liberian has oke, and Burmese has hoakeh, for instance. Yet again, it
is possible that these examples crept into American use in small isolated
areas at some time prior to 1839.
The Indian Chief theory
Keokuk was an Indian chief (after whom Keokuk, in Iowa, is named). His
admirers sometimes referred to him as "Old Keokuk, he's all right", and the
initials OK, came to mean the same thing.
The orl korrect theory
The Internet fashion for condensing phrases into abbreviation
certainly not new! The 1830s saw a rise of quirky abbreviations for common
phrases, which for some reason seems to have been particularly popular in
Boston. ISBD was used to mean "it shall be done", RTBS for "it remains to be
seen" and SP for "small potatoes".
It went further, with KY used to mean "no use" (know yuse) and an
article in the March 23rd, 1839, edition of the Boston Morning Post, saw
this produce OK, short for "all correct" (orl korrect). This is the earliest
published appearance of OK that has so far been found.
The Richardson theory
William Richardson recorded his journey from Boston to New Orleans in
his 1815 diary. Transcriptions of the diary show "Arrived at Princeton, a
handsome little village, o.k. and at Trenton where we dined at 1p.m." -
although some have proposed that this showed the use of the expression in
1815, the original manuscript shows that this was actually part of some
alterations that may have been added by Richardson (or someone else),
possibly even after 1840 when the term had come into common use. Another
possibility is that the writing is of a.h., referring to "a handsome", but
there are many objections to this theory.
The 16th century theories
Several claims have been made to have found appearances of OK have in
16th century manuscripts. In one instance Notes & Queries (1911) points out
that the will of Thomas Cumberland in 1565 is shown to use OK. But more
careful scrutiny shows that this is more likely to have been the initials of
the scrivener.
Books published in 1593 and 1596 also have OK included, but apparently
as nouns. The text of one (Have with You to Saffron-Walden, by Thomas Nashe,
the British author) goes "Martin is Guerra, Brown a brone-bill, & Barrow a
wheelbarrow; Ket a knight, H.N. [referring to Henry Nichols] an O.K." As
Mencken states in his supplement to The American Language, "the meaning here
is unfathomable".
The Old Kinderhook theory
Martin van Buren was standing as the Democratic presidential candidate
in 1840. He had acquired the nickname of Old Kinderhook (he was born in
Kinderhook, New York). On March 24, 1840 the Democrats opened the OK Club in
Grand Street, New York City, based on the initials of van Buren's nickname.
The expression OK soon became the watchword of this club, and in that
same year, a Democratic newspaper equated the initials with the strivings of
the party to "make all things OK".
The Cockney Orl Korrec theory
The Times, in 1939, had an article reporting that it was of Cockney
origin. The author remembered its use as an abbreviation for Orl korrec when
he was a boy in the late 19th century. However, this post-dates its first
appearance by many years.
The French theory
During the American War of Independence, French sailors made
"appointments" with American girls aux quais (meaning when they were berthed
at the quayside). This theory was put forward by Britain's Daily Express
newspaper in 1940.
The Finish theory
The Fins have a word for correct, and it is oikea. In a 1940 article,
someone at the Cleveland Public Library suggested that this may be the
origin.
The British Parliament theory
The same source as the Cockney theory (The Times, in 1939) pointed out
that some bills going through the House of Lords had to be read and approved
by Lords Onslow and Kilbracken, and they each initialed them - producing the
combined initials OK.
The Anglo-Saxon theory
Several centuries before its first appearance, Norwegian and Danish
sailors used an Anglo-Saxon word, hogfor, which meant ready for sea. This
was frequently shortened to HG, which in turn would have been pronounced
hag-gay.
The Literary theory
Laurence Sterne was a British author of the 18th century, and in his
book A Sentimental Journey, published in 1768, he uses the emphatic French
form of yes: O qu-oui. In an anglicised pronunciation (oh-key), the phrase
was used by some to express affirmation.
The Schoolmaster theory
In a letter in the Vancouver Sun, in 1935, it was pointed out that
early schoolmasters would mark examination papers by adding the Latin Omnis
Korrecta, which was sometimes abbreviated to OK.
The Ship-Builder theory
Early ship-builders would mark the timber they prepared, and the first
to be laid was marked "OK Number 1", meaning "outer keel No. 1".
The Telegraph theory
Early telegraph operators abbreviated everything, to reduce the amount
of work needed. They would use GM for "Good Morning", GA for "Go Ahead" and
so on. In 1935, Tatler, in the Observer, suggests that they also used OK.
This doesn't stand up at all, as the telegraph post-dated the first written
occurrence and it is almost certain, in my view, that they adopted OK rather
than inventing it.
The Scottish theory
We've all heard the Scottish expression, och-aye. An author in the
Nottingham Journal in 1943 suggests that OK is simply an adaptation of this
expression. The Scottish expression derives from och, meaning an exclamation
of surprise and aye meaning yes, and has been in existence since perhaps the
16th century.
Hmmmmmmmm... -- DSH
The Old English theory
In early England, the last harvest loads brought in from the fields
were known as hoacky or horkey. It was also the name given to harvest-home,
which was the feast which followed the last loads brought in. The
satisfactory completion of harvest was therefore known as hoacky, which was
soon (at least according to an article in the Daily Telegraph in 1935)
shortened to OK.
The Prussian theory
The Times printed a suggestion that the Prussian general, Schliessen
(fighting for the American colonies during the War of Independence) was
properly given the title Oberst Kommandant. All his orders were initialed
OK.
The Greek theory
Probably the earliest suggestion comes from the Greek. The two Greek
letters omega and khi appear in a work called Geoponica in 920AD as being a
magical incantation (when repeated twice) against fleas!
Hmmmmmmm... Let's watch it work against the fleas on USENET. -- DSH
The Railway theory
Obediah Kelly was an early railway freighter. He is known to have
signed bills of lading with his initials, OK, and in railway circles OK came
to mean that something had been authorised.
The War-Department (or cracker) theory
During the Civil War, the US War Department bought supplies of
crackers from a company called Orrins-Kendall. Their initials appeared on
the boxes, and as the crackers were of a particularly high standard, the
letters OK became synonymous with "all right". This theory was originally
put forward in a publication called Linguist, from the Horace Mann School
for Boys in New York, although it has subsequently appeared in a number of
other publications.
The multitudinous other theories
During 1840, American politicians used the term frequently, and dreamt
up many absurd (and often pointed) origins. Out of Kash, out of kredit, out
of klothes, all became identified with van Buren's campaign. And on the
floor of the House of Representatives, a congressman from Illinois suggested
it meant Orful Kalamity.
Since 1840, many other explanations have been reported. The list
above, although long and fanciful, is only the tip of the iceberg!
So just where did OK come from?
I will leave the reader to come to his or her own conclusions
from the above. However, my own view is that there are bits of several of
the above explanations involved.
Unfortunately, etymologists and word-lovers alike seem to have
an innate desire to have a single point of origin for words. If they're
unable to find that, they like to see clearly defined lines of evolution. My
own view is that many words and phrases arise, not from single sources, but
through my own theory of "coincidental coinage", where many disparate uses
have occurred but which are brought together by some single act.
I would suggest that the Choctaw, and possibly even the other
foreign language influences, had resulted in small pockets of America using
okeh or something similar. This may have been the case perhaps back as far
as the 17th century, but more likely the 18th.
The existence of these examples reinforced the Democrats' use of
OK to mean Old Kinderhook, and soon the OK Club became well known.
Inevitably, the club would have become well known through the nation's
newspapers and, reinforced by folk etymologies, the term became quickly
established.
I would therefore argue that there is no single origin of the
expression, but it was the OK Club that was responsible for bringing the
expression to a wide public arena and which could, in some ways, be said to
have at least started the trend which has continued ever since.
Finally
The above notes have been compiled by me on and off over the past few
years. Many books and Internet sources reproduce the same arguments, and
these have been one foundation, backed up by rather firmer documentary
evidence that I have found. But the major source is undoubtedly "The
American Language", by HL Mencken, in its various editions and supplements.
---------------------
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
Grasping At Straws.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rdWdnY2_NKOhmNza...@rcn.net...
>
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:3aqdnZSGz7JRn9za...@eclipse.net.uk...
>> The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more credible
>> than the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a moronic misspelling
>> of All Clear. For a start OK means everything is fine, not clear, like
>> if you fall over an [sic] hurt your leg you don't say its clear, you say
>> its fine when [sic] get up.
>>
> except. no one used OK before it was invented in america.
> its tough to claim something you never used.
>
> but we do know what the greeks invented don't we.
>
> "how do you seperate [sic] the men from the boys in greece?"
>
> with a crowbar
D. Spencer Hines
Well, there are indeed thousands of them in Britain -- but not the ENTIRE
NATION.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:G7ednZVrdOpAkdza...@eclipse.net.uk...
> IDOT! [sic]
choronik
Re: "IDIOT!"
You always oblige, re Agamemnona.
Me ekanes kai egailasa!
--
choronik
=======
choronik
Pou einai ta vizia ths re? I can't see any female boobs!
>> http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/sex/homosex1/1-greek-erotic-homosex.jpg
>
> So two men having sex with a pair of female prostitutes wearing jewelled
> head bands and another man rubbing his leg is homosexual is it. Like fuck
> it is. Only the gay minded British could come up with such an idiotic
> idea.
Pale pou einai ta vizia ths gynekas ean eina pgragmati gyneka re? Again
where are the boo-boos of the woman if indeed it is a woman?
>> http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/d/d9/250px-Greek_homosexual_couple.jpg
>
> These people are not gay. They are embracing no differently to football or
> rugby players who have just come out of the hot tub.
It looks to me like the older man has got his hand aiming at the younger
man's dick! Hot tub, indeed!
>> http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/lovers2.jpg
>>
>
> So one picture of a man soliciting a male prostitute is all you can do?
Male to male foreplay? The older man is trying to give the younger one an
erection. Wonder what he is after?
Saved all these gems for use as and when the need arises. This subject is
bound to crop up again sooner or later!
Hey Agamemnona, why don't you proudly brag that Greeks also invented
homosexuality. After all Greeks invented everything, didn't they? Hey they
even invented computers with Quad Core Chips running on olive oil!!! Good
lubricant that olive oil. No need for butter a la Last Tango in Paris.
--
choronik
=======
>
>> Vince
>
>
Agamemnon
"choronik" <chor...@tvco.net> wrote in message
news:sQ80j.135153$vI1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
She hasn't grown any yet.
>
>>> http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/sex/homosex1/1-greek-erotic-homosex.jpg
>>
>> So two men having sex with a pair of female prostitutes wearing jewelled
>> head bands and another man rubbing his leg is homosexual is it. Like fuck
>> it is. Only the gay minded British could come up with such an idiotic
>> idea.
>
> Pale pou einai ta vizia ths gynekas ean eina pgragmati gyneka re? Again
> where are the boo-boos of the woman if indeed it is a woman?
You can see little small ones on the woman on the right.
>
>>> http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/d/d9/250px-Greek_homosexual_couple.jpg
>>
>> These people are not gay. They are embracing no differently to football
>> or rugby players who have just come out of the hot tub.
>
> It looks to me like the older man has got his hand aiming at the younger
> man's dick! Hot tub, indeed!
No he has not. They are both holding arms and the one man is aiming for the
other man's outstretched hand to shake it.
>
>>> http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/lovers2.jpg
>>>
>>
>> So one picture of a man soliciting a male prostitute is all you can do?
>
> Male to male foreplay? The older man is trying to give the younger one an
> erection. Wonder what he is after?
A bum job.
>
> Saved all these gems for use as and when the need arises. This subject is
> bound to crop up again sooner or later!
>
> Hey Agamemnona, why don't you proudly brag that Greeks also invented
> homosexuality. After all Greeks invented everything, didn't they? Hey they
There is no such term in ancient Greek. Gayism was invented by the British
in Victorian times.
> even invented computers with Quad Core Chips running on olive oil!!! Good
> lubricant that olive oil. No need for butter a la Last Tango in Paris.
IDIOT!
> --
> choronik
> =======
>
>
>>
>>> Vince
>>
>>
>
>
choronik
She must still be EXTRA VIRGIN like the olive oil, then.
--
choronik
=======
KLM
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
Renia Simmonds has been truly "Greeked"...
Having lived far too long in Athens, she has fallen in with the wrong sort
and has come to believe the Greeks invented everything.
Her codswalloped mindset is similar to that of the Soviets who claimed
everything from manned, heavier-than-air, powered flight to Russian roulette
had been invented by them.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhptvl$uj0$2...@mouse.otenet.gr...
> O.K. is an acronym for the Greek "Ola kala" = all well
>
> So, one would be saying "it's all all well".
She stupidly dates it as mid-twentieth century Greek shipping port language,
based on some offhand offal from her "hubby", which is FAR too late, and
then air-headedly admits somewhat later, in a complete _volte face_:
> Knowing the Greeks, they've probably claimed it as their own acronym!
Yes, Renia has been deucedly Greeked, by Jove [Zeus]!
_AU CONTRAIRE_........
Vide infra pro sapientia.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
-----------------------------------------------------
Obituary
Allen Read
Columbia University
Racy words
BINGO! -- DSH
Hmmmmmmm...
It is reportedly CHOCTAW.
[To Be Continued]
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Nashton
Wasn't Crete given to the Venetians in the 13 th Century as a gift from
the Roman Empire because they helped with a Crusade?
Didn't the Cretans rebel against the Venetians until the Ottomans, at
which point they didn't seem them as much of a threat but rather as
protectors?
>
> He spoke Greek and was probably of the Greek orthodox pursuasion
What else would it take for you to consider him Greek?
>
> Whether that made him a Greek at the time is an open question
Perhaps in your imagination.
>
> IIRC Crete joined Greece in 1913
And your point being?
>
> Vince
>
>
Nashton
And you were dead wrong in implying that Cretan=/=Greek.
Vince
it was an island where they speak Greek. many romans spoke Greek
Not all places that spoke English are England
>>
>> He spoke Greek and was probably of the Greek orthodox pursuasion
>
> What you mean probably. He was an Orthodox Icon painter.
No I mean he probably was born in the Greek orthodox church
>>
>> Whether that made him a Greek at the time is an open question
>>
>> IIRC Crete joined Greece in 1913
>
> IDIOT.
>
> Crete was under Turkish occupation until 1913. It's been Greek since
> before Minoan times. Where do you think Zeus was born?
you are still conflating the modern nation of Greece, the Linguistic
grouping of Greek speakers and the Hellenistic culture
I work with many fine intelligent people of Greek heritage.
They laugh at thsi kind of silly antic
Vince
Renia
It's not so silly. Most Greeks think this way. They are a very proud nation.
Vince
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
The Ptolomis were Macedonians
El Greco was unquestionably a Hellene.
Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
Vince
Vince
> Vince wrote:
>> you are still conflating the modern nation of Greece, the Linguistic
>> grouping of Greek speakers and the Hellenistic culture
>>
>> I work with many fine intelligent people of Greek heritage.
>>
>> They laugh at thsi kind of silly antic
>
> It's not so silly. Most Greeks think this way. They are a very proud
> nation.
proud sure
Doesn't always make them right
Just ask them if Alexander the Great was Greek
Vince
Jack Linthicum
> >news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>
> >> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>
> >> Vince
>
> > his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>
>
> Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
> The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>
> El Greco was unquestionably a Hellene.
>
> Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
>
> Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
>
> Vince
Yes 2200 years of invading ethnic groups and Greece contends it is 98%
composed of the same people who fought at Salamis and Marathon.
Agamemnon
So you don't want to answer my question. Zeus was born on Crete.
>
> I work with many fine intelligent people of Greek heritage.
>
> They laugh at thsi kind of silly antic
You are an IDIOT!
Crete is and always has been part of Greece and its people have always been
Greek. All the anthropological and DNA evidence proves that they are exactly
the same people as those of the Greek mainland and of Cyprus. Now go and
read Homer and see who fought with Agamemnon against the Trojans and where
his mothers side of the family came from.
>
> Vince
>
Agamemnon
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>>>
>>> Vince
>>
>> his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>>
> Please do not confuse Cretin and Cretan
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
IDIOT!
>
> Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
> The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>
And Macedonians are and always have been Greeks.
Jack Linthicum
> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>
> news:C5WdneSqYPDeCtza...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> >>news:LKSdnWPQt5sWjtza...@comcast.com...
> >>> Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >>>> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> >>>>news:_-GdnZhqaYvekNza...@comcast.com...
> >>>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
and read Herodotus and find that the island was repopulated three
times. Also who wrote Linear A? The language isn't Greek.
Vince
what a hoot
Got a birth certificate
Are you claiming that Zeus was Greek?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus
>>
>> I work with many fine intelligent people of Greek heritage.
>>
>> They laugh at thsi kind of silly antic
>
> You are an IDIOT!
>
> Crete is and always has been part of Greece and its people have always
> been Greek. All the anthropological and DNA evidence proves that they
> are exactly the same people as those of the Greek mainland and of
> Cyprus.
The same mixed breed of levanines, sure
Now go and read Homer and see who fought with Agamemnon against
> the Trojans and where his mothers side of the family came from.
What a hoot
Next you will be claiming that Alexander the Great was Greek
Vince
Jack Linthicum
> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>
> news:FvGdnXW41YYWBtza...@comcast.com...
>
> > Ray O'Hara wrote:
> >>news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>
> >>> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>
> >>> Vince
>
> >> his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>
> > Please do not confuse Cretin and Cretan
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
>
> IDIOT!
>
>
>
> > Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
> > The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>
> And Macedonians are and always have been Greeks.
>
> > El Greco was unquestionably a Hellene.
>
> > Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
>
> > Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
>
> > Vince
The Republic of Macedonia
Macedonian 64.2%, Albanian 25.2%, Turkish 3.9%, Roma (Gypsy) 2.7%,
Serb 1.8%, other 2.2% (2002 census)
Macedonian is a South Slavic language.
http://www.white-history.com/ychromo.htm
Catch "Pie Chart 10",
"Pie Chart "10" Greece: This chart shows less than 50% of the Y-
Chromosomes as being European, with the rest being comprised of non-
European markers (25% sub-Saharan/North African - blue; 25% Middle
Eastern - light green; and a small portion Asiatic - orange). This is
consistent with historical developments in Greece, namely of the
importation of slaves and occupation by the Ottoman Turks for 1000
years, as outlined in March of the Titans chapters 10 and 35. Using
the simplistic "one third of the Y-Chromosome data" technique, we see
that over 25% of Greek DNA is non-European in origin."
Vince
>
> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:FvGdnXW41YYWBtza...@comcast.com...
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>> news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>>
>>> his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>>>
>> Please do not confuse Cretin and Cretan
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
>
> IDIOT!
>
>>
>> Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
>> The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>>
>
> And Macedonians are and always have been Greeks.
>
>> El Greco was unquestionably a Hellene.
>>
>> Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
>>
>> Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
>>
>> Vince
>
Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
you will claim anything
Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
Fince
D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
DSH
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:w5mdnTQM___6Odza...@comcast.com...
> Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
> you will claim anything
>
> Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
>
> Fince [sic]
Renia
Macedonia is a sore point among Greeks at the moment.
FRYOM - The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a name accepted by
some countries today, but not by Greece who feels the name belongs to
them. Dora what-not, ex Mayor of Athens and now the Greek Foreign
Minister is conducting an aggressive stance and has persuaded some
countries, uncluding the USA, to think again about accepting the name.
The region of Macedonia is ethnically 52% Greeks, but the Balkan
Question still remains.
Jack Linthicum
> Vince wrote:
> > Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >>news:FvGdnXW41YYWBtza...@comcast.com...
>
> >>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
"at the moment"? May I suggest a reading of several Eric Ambler novels
from the 30s?
The Highlander
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Hilarious!
>
>Grasping At Straws.
>
>DSH
I agree that you're grasping at straws, but I don't see anything
hilarious about you. You're a pathetic sad old pederast trying to
wriggle out of your exposure by insulting women as always.
>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Qualities you apparently still have to explore.
I'm on Renia's side 100%. She is a decent lady who deserves respect
and certainly gets mine.
Renia
Thank you, Highlander.
Vince
it's a joke son
There is no Greek consonant "V"
My Greek friends use an "f" sound "phi"
Vince
Vince
Renia
That puts paid to Virginia and Veronica, then. :-)
Leticia Cluff
wrote:
>Vince wrote:
>
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>>> "Fince"...
>>>
>>> Hilarious!
>>>
>>> DSH
>>>
>>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>> news:w5mdnTQM___6Odza...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
>>>> you will claim anything
>>>>
>>>> Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
>>>>
>>>> Fince [sic]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> it's a joke son
??
>> There is no Greek consonant "V"
>>
>> My Greek friends use an "f" sound "phi"
>
>That puts paid to Virginia and Veronica, then. :-)
Just spell them Birginia and Beronica.
Beta is pronounced Vita in Modern Greek.
I thought we should tell Bince that!
Tish
Agamemnon
Got the next best thing. Linear A and B inscriptions from when he live and
was worshiped.
>
> Are you claiming that Zeus was Greek?
Of course he was Greek.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> I work with many fine intelligent people of Greek heritage.
>>>
>>> They laugh at thsi kind of silly antic
>>
>> You are an IDIOT!
>>
>> Crete is and always has been part of Greece and its people have always
>> been Greek. All the anthropological and DNA evidence proves that they are
>> exactly the same people as those of the Greek mainland and of Cyprus.
>
> The same mixed breed of levanines, sure
You are talking out of your arsehole again.
>
>
> Now go and read Homer and see who fought with Agamemnon against
>> the Trojans and where his mothers side of the family came from.
>
> What a hoot
>
> Next you will be claiming that Alexander the Great was Greek
IMBECILE! Alexander the Great was a Dorian Greek descended from Herakles on
his fathers side and Aeolian Greek descended from Achilles on his mothers.
>
> Vince
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:08:00 +0200, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vince wrote:
>
> >> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> >>> "Fince"...
>
> >>> Hilarious!
>
> >>> DSH
>
> >>>news:w5mdnTQM___6Odza...@comcast.com...
>
> >>>> Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
> >>>> you will claim anything
>
> >>>> Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
>
> >>>> Fince [sic]
>
> >> it's a joke son
>
> ??
>
> >> There is no Greek consonant "V"
>
> >> My Greek friends use an "f" sound "phi"
>
> >That puts paid to Virginia and Veronica, then. :-)
>
> Just spell them Birginia and Beronica.
>
> Beta is pronounced Vita in Modern Greek.
>
> I thought we should tell Bince that!
>
> Tish
Son of a Vitch, who'd a thunk it?
Vince
The Irish solve such disputes with Rugby and Whiskey
The Irish rugby team represents the whole island
And we never let politics interfere with drinking
Vince
Vince
You should see what the Germans do to "V"
Vince
Vince
Don't worry Ive run into Bincent in my travels
Vince
Agamemnon
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fhs9s1$ql2$1...@mouse.otenet.gr...
The region of Macedonia is 100% Greek. Macedonia is an ethnic term referring
to the tribe of Macedon. There is no region of Macedonia outside of Greece
since Greek places name referring to tribal origins always move with the
people as with Ionia and Achaia, therefore only the descendents of Macedon
are entitled to use the term. The Skopjians should learn that identify theft
is a crime.
Agamemnon
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> "Fince"...
>>
>> Hilarious!
>>
>> DSH
>>
>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> news:w5mdnTQM___6Odza...@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
>>> you will claim anything
>>>
>>> Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
>>>
>>> Fince [sic]
>>
>>
>
> it's a joke son
>
> There is no Greek consonant "V"
Yes there is IDIOT! Its the second letter of the alphabet, Vita.
Vince
>> What a hoot
>>
>> Next you will be claiming that Alexander the Great was Greek
>
> IMBECILE! Alexander the Great was a Dorian Greek descended from Herakles
> on his fathers side and Aeolian Greek descended from Achilles on his
> mothers.
I'm sure you stand a brilliant example of greek scholarship
You certainly show the level of education of be expected of a greek
got a real name o mythical figure
Vincent Brannigan
Vince
right
"agamemnon"
what is your real name not your stolen one
Vince
John Cartmell
<257f3c8e-90d2-4f77...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Pie Chart "10" Greece: This chart shows less than 50% of the Y-
> Chromosomes as being European
Don't confuse the Pie Charts and the descriptions with the ignorant racist web
site. By all means discuss what is shown by the web-site - but ask yourself
what is meant by 'European' when we are all Africans anyway. You have a choice
between those that entered Europe from the east having moved north from
Pakistan* and along part of the Silk road before heading west and those that
entered Europe from the south having moved north from Pakistan* and entered
the fertile crescent before settling around the Black Sea lake. Whilst the
former wintered in Russia, southern Europe and Spain during the Ice age the
latter moved north at the end of the Ice Age and the rising sea levels flooed
their farmlands whilst flooding the Black sea. Now which did you say were the
Greeks? ;-)
*having got there not too long after leaving Africa but deciding to hang
around the west side of the sub-continent until the frightening bangs from the
East stopped and a way could be found to head north.
--
John Cartmell jo...@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Agamemnon
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0d54e3a5-0722-4b38...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
By other GREEKS you IDIOT!
>Also who wrote Linear A? The language isn't Greek.
Yes it was Greek. According to recent studies its predominantly proto-Aeolic
and proto-Ionic dialect.
Agamemnon
> On Nov 19, 9:35 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>
>> news:FvGdnXW41YYWBtza...@comcast.com...
>>
>> > Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> >> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> >>news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>>
>> >>> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>>
>> >>> Vince
>>
>> >> his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>>
>> > Please do not confuse Cretin and Cretan
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
>>
>> IDIOT!
>>
>>
>>
>> > Cleopatra spoke Greek to both Caesar and Mark Anthony
>> > The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>>
>> And Macedonians are and always have been Greeks.
>>
>> > El Greco was unquestionably a Hellene.
>>
>> > Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
>>
>> > Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
>>
>> > Vince
>
> The Republic of Macedonia
There is no such entity recognised by the rest of the world or the UN.
Macedonia is a province of Greece. FYROM has nothing to do with Macedonia
and was known as Vadarska Banovina up until 1944 when Tito began making
illegal territorial claims against the Greek province of Macedonia.
>
> Macedonian is a South Slavic language.
BULLSHIT. Macedonian is a dialect of Greek. The FYROMians are ethnic
Bulgarians and speak a Bulgarian dialect that has no relation whatsoever to
Macedonian.
Vince
only in modern Greek
as spoken by linguistic mongrels
V
22nd letter of the English alphabet. Its sound is a voiced labiodental
fricative.
The ancient Greeks had no /v/ sound, but in modern Greek (which has no
/b/ sound) the letter beta is used for the /v/ sound. The Cyrillic
alphabet (ancestor of the Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Ukrainian
alphabets), which descended from the Greek, also used the Greek beta for
the sound /v/, and added a new variation of it for the sound /b/.
The Roman v had the sound either of the consonant v or the vowel u. Only
in the late Middle Ages was the v consistently employed for the
consonant, and u for the vowel.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/V+(letter)
Vince
Nope
I would suggest a little education
D. Spencer Hines
Brannigan is just a very sloppy and careless typist...
To the point he can't even type his own name.
DSH
D. Spencer Hines
"Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:6ISdnRvCI7pdLtza...@comcast.com...
a.spencer3
You've heard what they call their daddies too?
Surreyman
a.spencer3
In the Latin I was taught we would have said 'Wince' - appropriate? :-))
Surreyman
Leticia Cluff
Oh dear me!
Agamemnon, from the Former Turkish Colony Of Greece. has posted
something that confirms what I recently posted.
Normally when thie FTCOGian writes something you can be pretty sure
that the opposite is the truth.
It's rather confusing that he has gotten something right for once. But
he will return to his normal mode when I point out that the letter
hasn't always been pronounced V. In classical Greek it was a B sound.
Tish
Agamemnon
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:257f3c8e-90d2-4f77...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "Pie Chart "10" Greece: This chart shows less than 50% of the Y-
> Chromosomes as being European, with the rest being comprised of non-
> European markers (25% sub-Saharan/North African - blue; 25% Middle
> Eastern - light green; and a small portion Asiatic - orange). This is
> consistent with historical developments in Greece, namely of the
> importation of slaves and occupation by the Ottoman Turks for 1000
> years, as outlined in March of the Titans chapters 10 and 35. Using
NO IT IS NOT. The Turks are Asiatic Mongols. There is not a trace of any
Mongolian linage in Greek DNA. What you will find is that the tests show
that 90% of the genetic elements of the Greek population, M173, M35, M172
and M170 were present in Greece for the past 8,000 years or longer, and that
Turkish DNA is a mixture of Mongolian lineages and the DNA of their
neighbours who they forced to convert to Islam by brutality and child
abduction.
> the simplistic "one third of the Y-Chromosome data" technique, we see
> that over 25% of Greek DNA is non-European in origin."
COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT
The European M173 and M17 lineages both originate from Asia so you are
dissembling the facts and talking out of your arsehole. The Greek branches
of the African and Middle Eastern M35 and M172 lineages M78 and M102 were
present in Greece for the past 15,000 and 8,000 years respectively.
All Greek DNA is consistent with a completely homogeneous ethnic identity
unaffected by invasions and occupations and consitent with the internal
migration patterns recorded by ancient Greek historians.
Agamemnon
> On Nov 19, 9:19 am, Vince <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>> > "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> >news:LKSdnWLQt5sjjtza...@comcast.com...
>>
>> >> As I noted elsewhere El Greco was a Cretan
>>
>> >> Vince
>>
>> > his intellectual capacity aside, {:-P} he was an ethnic greek.
>>
>> Please do not confuse Cretin and
>> Cretanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism
>>
>> The Ptolomis were Macedonians
>>
>>
>> Greeks have an enormously interesting history, and
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks
>>
>> Which however some folks love to inflate or sanitize
>>
>> Vince
>
> composed of the same people who fought at Salamis and Marathon.
And the DNA tests POVE IT!
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Cite those recent studies, please. Real cites.
Who then were the Eteo-cretans? http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Eteocretan/Eteocretan.html
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>> news:6ISdnRvCI7pdLtza...@comcast.com...
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>>> "Fince"...
>>>>
>>>> Hilarious!
>>>>
>>>> DSH
>>>>
>>>> "Vince" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>>>> news:w5mdnTQM___6Odza...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Well if you are silly enough to claim that Macedonians were greeks
>>>>> you will claim anything
>>>>>
>>>>> Write when you have proof that Zeus existed
>>>>>
>>>>> Fince [sic]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> it's a joke son
>>>
>>> There is no Greek consonant "V"
>>
>> Yes there is IDIOT! Its the second letter of the alphabet, Vita.
>>
>
> only in modern Greek
>
> as spoken by linguistic mongrels
>
>
> V
>
> 22nd letter of the English alphabet. Its sound is a voiced labiodental
> fricative.
>
> The ancient Greeks had no /v/ sound, but in modern Greek (which has no
You're talking CRAP again. Beta has been pronounced V since Classical times
or do you want to argue with ancient Greek Grammarians such as Dionysios
Thraikos.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/Greek.htm
Vince
I think "Agamemnon" is a Turk doing his best to make Greeks look rude
boastful and stupid
Vince
Jack Linthicum
> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
>
> news:HY2dndSH1JuDINza...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >> "Vince" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> >>news:6ISdnRvCI7pdLtza...@comcast.com...
> >>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> >>>> "Fince"...
>
> >>>> Hilarious!
>
> >>>> DSH
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wonder what your soc.culture.greek people think of
you and your ignorance.
http://www.foundalis.com/lan/grkalpha.htm
The Greek Alphabet
The alphabet is among the few linguistic elements that have remained
essentially unchanged between the Ancient and Modern Greek languages.
Before listing the letters, let us make a brief comment on the
pronunciation of the language, as it evolved through the millennia.
Pronunciation
How close is the sound of Modern Greek to that of Classic Greek?
Phonetically, Classic Greek would sound rather alien to contemporary
Greeks, but don't ever say this to them! It is an issue that most
Greeks, even educated ones, ignore.(1) I suspect it is because the
alphabet has stayed unchanged, so Greeks can read classic texts with
no trouble at all (pronouncing in Modern Greek). After all, it all
looks Greek to them! If any (non-Greek) scholar attempts to pronounce
classic texts in the reconstructed(2) pronunciation, that, to Greeks
is tantamount to sacrilege. As a contemporary Greek myself, I can give
you my personal feeling for how the reconstructed pronunciation
sounds: it is as if a barbarian is trying to speak Greek.(3) For
example, take the word "barbarian" itself (which is of Greek origin):
in Classic Greek it would be pronounced [barbaros]. In Modern Greek,
it is [varvaros]. In general, the second letter of the alphabet, beta,
was pronounced as [b] in Plato's time, but was changed to [v] by the
time the Gospels were written. Now, to the modern Greek ear, [v] is a
soft sound (a "fricative" in linguistics), sort of smooth and gentle,
while [b] is a hard one (a "plosive"), kind of rough and crass. The
same can be said about the letter delta, which was pronounced as [d]
by Plato, and as [th] (as in this) since around Christ's time, and the
letter gamma ([g] in Classic Greek, [gh] later the latter sound is a
"voiced velar fricative"; click here to see the full repertoire of
Modern Greek sounds). Greek readers of this text who do not believe
that Plato, Socrates, etc., were sounding so barbaric, may take a clue
from this very word: "barbaros" was coined after somebody who, as a
non-native speaker of Greek would produce incomprehensible speech,
which sounded like... well, what? Could it be "var-var-var"? Wouldn't
it sound more barbaric if it were "bar-bar-bar"? Besides this word,
direct evidence for beta comes from a fragment of Attic comedy where
it is said that the voice of the sheep is BH-BH.(4) In Modern Greek
this would read as "vi-vi", rather un-sheepish-like; while in the
reconstructed way it would be "beeh-beeh", exactly the sound that we,
contemporary Greeks, attribute to the animal. (If the reader would
like to make a comment on the above issues, email to me, and let me
know what you think; but please make sure to have read first the links
that say "Evidence" on the righmost column of the table, below.)
However, the truth is when non-Greek scholars attempt to pronounce
Classic Greek in the reconstructed way, they think they pronounce
accurately. To me, American scholars sound distinctly American (like
Platos with spurs and cowboy hats), Germans sound German, etc.
Probably nobody can reproduce exactly the Classic Greek pronunciation:
we might know the rules of the reconstructed system, but when it comes
to moving our jaws, tongue, and lips, something different comes out of
our mouths. As native speakers of this or that language we necessarily
carry over our native phonology. Finally, let it be noted that Classic
Greek used pitch to differentiate vowels in words, while nearly all
modern European languages (including Modern Greek) use stress instead.
(5)
Vince
Right Which is why its not Alfavet soup
Vince
Agamemnon
IDIOT! Herakles and Achilles were real people. If they did not exist then
explain why the kings of Macedonia, Argos, Sparta, Elis, Messenia and Lydia
were descended from Herakles and the kings of Epirus were descended from
Achilles and why there were worshiped as ancestral heroes by their
descendents since Mycenaean times? Next you'll be telling us that Queen
Elisabeth cannot be descended from William the Conqueror because he was made
up, and there was no Julius Caesar either.
>
>
> Vincent Brannigan
Eugene Griessel
It's not? Now you have ruined my appetite!
Eugene L Griessel
'Hey, there's a gigantic wooden horse outside and all the Greeks
have left. Let's bring it inside!' Not a formula for long-term
survival. Now if they had formed a task force to study the Trojan
Horse and report back to a committee, everyone wouldn't have been
massacred. Who says middle management is useless?
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -
Agamemnon
"Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J:
Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the
Mediterranean Area"
Ornella Semino,1 Chiara Magri,1 Giorgia Benuzzi,1 Alice A. Lin,2 Nadia
Al-Zahery,1,4
Vincenza Battaglia,1 Liliana Maccioni,5 Costas Triantaphyllidis,6 Peidong
Shen,7
Peter J. Oefner,7 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,8 Roy King,3 Antonio Torroni,1 L. Luca
Cavalli-Sforza,2
Peter A. Underhill,2 and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti1
"Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of
Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe"
Siiri Rootsi,1,* Chiara Magri,2* Toomas Kivisild,1 Giorgia Benuzzi,2 Hela
Help,1
Marina Bermisheva,1,3 Ildus Kutuev,1,3 Lovorka Barac´,1,4 Marijana
Pericˇic´,1,4 Oleg Balanovsky,1,5
Andrey Pshenichnov,1,5 Daniel Dion,1,7 Monica Grobei,1,8 Lev A.
Zhivotovsky,6
Vincenza Battaglia,2 Alessandro Achilli,2 Nadia Al-Zahery,2 Ju¨ri Parik,1
Roy King,9
Cengiz Cinniog˘lu,9 Elsa Khusnutdinova,3 Pavao Rudan,4 Elena Balanovska,5
Wolfgang Scheffrahn,7 Maya Simonescu,8 Antonio Brehm,10 Rita Goncalves,10
Alexandra Rosa,1,10 Jean-Paul Moisan,11 Andre Chaventre,11 Vladimir Ferak,12
Sandor Fu¨redi,13
Peter J. Oefner,14 Peidong Shen,14 Lars Beckman,15 Ilia Mikerezi,16 Rifet
Terzic´,17
Dragan Primorac,18,19 Anne Cambon-Thomsen,20 Astrida Krumina,21 Antonio
Torroni,2
Peter A. Underhill,9 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,2 Richard Villems,1
and Ornella Semino2
>
> Who then were the Eteo-cretans?
Ethnic Greeks descended from the Dactyls of Idea
Agamemnon
>
> The Greek Alphabet
>
> The alphabet is among the few linguistic elements that have remained
> essentially unchanged between the Ancient and Modern Greek languages.
> Before listing the letters, let us make a brief comment on the
> pronunciation of the language, as it evolved through the millennia.
>
> Pronunciation
>
> How close is the sound of Modern Greek to that of Classic Greek?
<IGNORANT UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT SNIPPED>
http://www.bsw.org/?l=72081&a=Art06.html
Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS Filología Neotestamentaria 8 (1995) 151-185
THE ERROR OF ERASMUS
AND UN-GREEK PRONUNCIATIONS
OF GREEK
It does not appear to be generally known what factors and
circumstances led to the so-called "scientific" pronunciation of Greek. All
started with a practical joke played on Erasmus by the Swiss scholar Loritus
of Glarus. Later, however, Erasmus found out the trick played on him, so he
desisted from using the pronuntiation he had proposed, but his error finally
succeeded in ousting the Greek pronunciation of Greek. The article exposes
throughly the evolution of the pronunciation of Greek since the origins of
the language.
1. The Problem
On being taught how to pronounce Greek words, the student of New
Testament Greek is told that he is learning to pronounce the language not in
the Modern Greek fashion, which is a late development, but in the way in
which ancient Greeks used to pronounce it. A dichotomy is thus made between
ancient and modern pronunciation of Greek, and the student is often given
the impression that his pronunciation of Greek would be identical or almost
identical with the way the great objects of his study -Paul, Luke, John-
pronounced it, and to all intents and purposes identical or very similar to
the way Greeks such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle sounded it in Vth and
IVth century Athens. This pronunciation is presented as the scientific
pronunciation of Greek in contradistinction to the Modern Greek
pronunciation, which is considered to be a departure from it.
An inevitable consequence of the above situation has been certain
widespread but inaccurate views with regard to the pronunciation of Ancient
and Modern Greek as well as the relation of Modern Greek to the Greek of the
New Testament. This may be conveniently illustrated by quoting three
scholars. One scholar thought that what he called the Modern Greek
pronunciation was the pronunciation that the Greeks applied to the Dhimotiki
1. The truth is that pronunciation is related to the letters, not to the
form of words or the syntax. Another teacher of Greek thought that the
Greeks had changed the pronunciation of certain letters, as for example,
they pronounced "p" as "f" and cited as instance the word epta, (= "seven"),
which he thought Modern Greeks
_____________________
152
pronounced as efta 2. As a matter of fact, in Modern Greek the word for
"seven" occurs in two forms: as e9pta& (epta) and as e9fta& (efta), and each
of them is pronounced according to its particular spelling. Finally, a third
scholar thought that the relation of Modern Greek to the Greek of the New
Testament was approximately that of Swedish or Norwegian to the Runic! The
truth is that there is no truth in this statement.
It does not appear to be generally known what factors and
circumstances led to this so-called "scientific" pronunciation of Greek.
Those scholars who have worked with the very complex and technical evidence
bearing on Greek pronunciation are extremely few. The subject demands not
only a thorough knowledge of Greek (preferably in all its periods), an
acquaintance with the inscriptions and the papyri, which bear witness to the
spelling in ancient times, a good grasp of the historical developments in
ancient times with regard to the change of alphabet (the adoption of the
Phoenician alphabet) and its consequent accommodations as well as with the
spelling ratification under Eucleides (403-402 B.C.), but, what is not
least, also a mastery of the Greek rules regarding phonology (the study of
the evolution of sounds) and even phonopathy (the pathology of sounds under
various grammatical conditions for reasons of euphony, avoidance of hiatus,
etc.).
2. The Error of Erasmus
From the introduction of Greek learning to the West in the
XIII-XIVth century and until the beginning of the XVIth century, Greek was
universally pronounced in the manner in which Greeks pronounce it today. In
1528 the Humanist scholar Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, who for a time
happened to live in Leuven, in the Low Countries, composed a Dialogue in
Latin between a bear and a lion 3, in which he set forth a novel way of
pronouncing Greek, which has since come to be called the Erasmian
pronunciation of Greek, or Etacism, and to be regarded by its proponents as
the scientific pronunciation of Greek. The incentive to write this book came
from a practical joke that was played on Erasmus by the Swiss scholar
Henricus (Loritus of Glarus, hence)
_____________________
153
Glareanus. Glareanus, who had arrived from Paris, met Erasmus who, being
inordinately fond of novelties and credulous, was eager to learn what was
latest in the City of Lights; he told him that certain Greek scholars had
arrived in Paris who pronounced Greek in a different fashion than the one
received in Europe, and proceeded to give him an account of the new
pronunciation. There was a verisimilitude in the new suggestions inasmuch as
the Greeks gave to several letters the sound of 'I'. Moreover, Latin
transliterated e.g. the h of the second syllable of e0kklhsi/a with e (i.e.
ecclesia ) rather than with i (i.e. ekklisia.), as the h is pronounced by
the Greeks 4. In writing this dialogue Erasmus was motivated by an obvious
interest in factual truth, and he initiated his novel pronunciation in the
belief that it was actually used by Greeks. Not wishing to be anticipated,
he immediately composed his Dialogus. Later, however, he found out the trick
played on him, so he desisted from using the pronunciation he had concocted,
abiding by the received pronunciation (and enjoined his closest friends to
do the same), as did also his opponent Johannes Reuchlin and the latter's
nephew Philip Melanchthon as well as Martin Luther. But the "news" spread
like wild fire, and after centuries of struggle with the traditional
pronunciation, Erasmus's error finally succeeded in ousting the Greek
pronunciation of Greek and in establishing itself in all countries outside
Greece (apart from a few exceptions) 5.
_____________________
154
This Erasmian pronunciation claims to represent a united system of
pronunciation, but this is so only theoretically; in actual practice Greek
is pronounced in conformity to German, English, French and so on, according
to the mother tongue of the speaker 6 (hence in our international New
Testament conferences we are often conscious of a Babel-like experience when
trying to figure out which Greek word the speaker was trying to
pronounce) -although a Finnish New Testament scholar once assured me that
his pronunciation of Greek was identical with that of Socrates and Plato!
This state of affairs, naturally, robs the Erasmian pronunciation of the
right to being called scientific, hence the so-called scientific
pronunciation of Greek is -to paraphrase Hirsch's phrase 7- nothing but a
chaotic democracy of un-Greek pronunciations of Greek, each conceived
according to what is deemed natural in the speaker's own tongue.
3. Historical Circumstances
One may wonder, how was the practical joke on Erasmus possible? Why
could not the proponents of the new pronunciation check this novelty with
the Greeks? Why did the Greeks not protest? What is the explanation for the
rise and success of this novelty in pronouncing Greek?
There is an historical circumstance, which, as far as I can see, has
not been taken into account. Following its move of its capital from Rome to
Constantinople under Constantine, the Roman Empire of New Testament times
gradually was transformed into a new Greek Empire, the Byzantine Empire.
This Byzantine Empire had a life span of some 1100 years till the 29th May
1453, when Constantinople was finally taken by the Turks. Although many
Greek scholars, at the advance of the Moslems, took their libraries and fled
to Italy helping initiate there the Renaissance 8, there was
_____________________
155
now no longer a Greek State which could watch over the fate of the Greek
language and its pronunciation. The Greeks were engaged in a life-and-death
struggle with the Turks, a struggle that went on for more than 200 years
after the fall of Constantinople. Naturally, then, not only did they lack
the means of resisting the new pronunciation, but they were, for the most
part, unaware of what was going on in central Europe. The Western Europeans,
on their side, having preached their funeral sermon over Greece, felt now
free to dispose of her legacy as seemed fit to them.
The advent of the Greeks in Italy marked the beginning of the new
"Western School" of classical studies, which, following the death of its
founders, passed on into non-Greek hands. The (historical) grammarian A.
Jannaris 9 puts the matter pertinently when he says: "The first act of this
school, still in its infancy, was to do away with the traditional
pronunciation -which reflects perhaps the least changed part of the
language- and then to declare Greek a dead tongue".
This, in brief, is the historical background which made possible the
rise and establishment of the Erasmian pronunciation 10. Having established
it, its advocates proceded to produce "scientific proofs" for its
correctness.
_____________________
156
One of its foremost proponents was Friedrich Blass, whose arguments (set
forth in a writing of 41 pages, then increased to 109 and again to 140
pages) have often been refuted 11. Many scholars, English, Germans,
Americans, and Greeks, wrote against the Erasmian pronunciation, and the
fight over the pronunciation of Greek - at its hottest in the nineteenth
century 12 -ended in a stalemate: the Greeks continued to pronounce Greek in
the Greek way, while the other camp considered that they had discovered the
"authentic" pronunciation of classical antiquity. Curiously enough and
self-contradictorily they went on pronouncing Homer, Plato, the New
Testament as well as the Church Fathers- all in the same way!
4. The Historical Pronunciation of Greek
A classics professor once told me that he was aware that the
Erasmian pronunciation did not reflect the ancient Greek pronunciation,
"but", he explained, "it helps us to spell Greek correctly". Indeed, the
awareness
_____________________
157
that the Erasmian pronunciation of Greek is inaccurate is now fairly
widespread, and a welcome openness is noted in international scholarship.
As a matter of fact, during its four thousand year long history
Greek has not been pronounced uniformly. Our written records take us back
three and one half millenia. But there is no way of establishing how it was
pronounced in the second millenium and in the first part of the first
millenium B.C. The significant material comes to us in the form of
inscriptions from the VIIth century B.C. on and papyri a few centuries
later. In particular, the material that evinces not the official historical
spelling, often found in public inscriptions, but the popular, often
uneducated people's spelling, that tried to reproduce the sounds of the
spoken language, is the safest guide to the pronunciation of Greek in
antiquity. Careful study of the evidence leads to the following results:
The letters a, e, i, k, l, m, n, c, o, p, r, s, t, f, y are not in
dispute. They are pronounced by Greeks and Erasmians alike or practically
alike. The disputed letters are the consonants b, g, d, z, q, x, the vowels
h, u, w, the diphthongs, as well as aspiration and accents. The
pronunciation of the disputed letters is as follows (the Greek pronunciation
is indicated only approximately: as in all other languages the sound quality
can be learned only from native speakers):
Letters Greek pronunciation Erasmian pronunciation
b = v = b
g = gh (as Eng. "yet" with and without the i-sound
heard between the y and the e.) = g
d = dh (as th in Eng. "then") = d
z = z (as z in Eng. "zebra") = dz or zd
q = th (as th in Eng. "thin") = t
x = ch (as ch in Germ. "ich" and in Scot. "loch") = k
h = i = e (as in Germ. or Swed. ä)
u = i = u or y
w = o (as in Eng. "for") = o (long)
ai = e (as in Germ. or Swed. ä) = ai (as two sounds)
ei = i = ei (as two sounds)
oi = i = oi (as two sounds)
ui = i = ui or yi (as two sounds)
au = av (before vowel or b, g, d, z l, m, n, r)
or af (before all other consonants) = au (a two sounds)
eu = ev or ef (as above) = eu (as two sounds)
hu = iv or if (as above) = eu (long) (Swed. äu) (as two sounds)
9 = no aspiration = aspiration (= h)
/ \ ~ = accents heeded = accents not heedeed
_____________________
158
In studying the question of Greek pronunciation, two important facts
to consider are, (a) the change of alphabet from the pre-Phoenician alphabet
(Linear B?) to the Phoenician, which took place before 800 B.C., and (b) the
gradual adoption by Athens during the Vth century B.C. of the Ionic alphabet
(that is, the Phoenician alphabet as perfected by the Ionians), which was
finally ratified in 403 B.C. (being identical with the Modern Greek
alphabet), and the consequent confusion in spelling in the pre-Ionic and the
Ionic ways. That is, even after the Ionic spelling had set in, Greek words
continued to be spelled in the pre-Ionic way down to the IIIrd century B.C.
and in some cases to Byzantine times. This means that two systems were
contemporaneously in use: the old, official system, often found in monuments
of public character, such as a good many inscriptions are, and the new
spelling which better expressed the actual sounds of the language, found
mostly in inscriptions of a private character, but not seldom also in public
inscriptions as well as in papyri. It is imperative to bear this constantly
in mind if we are to solve a number of problems of detail. The argumentation
here can become quite involved and complex. However, a lucid statement will
be attempted here focusing on the spelling of the various sounds, the
exchange of one letter for another, and the earliest date it is documented
13.
Prior to the adoption of the Ionic alphabet (Vth century B.C.) the
letter E represented the sounds which later came to be represented by E, H
(as a vowel), and EI 14, while the letter O represented the sounds later
represented by O, W, and OU 15. With regard to the consonants the later
monograph F was during the same period represented by the digraph PH; the
monograph X was represented by the digraph KH; the monograph C 16 was
represented by the digraph KS (later XS) 17; the
_____________________
159
monograph Y 18 was represented by the digraph PS (later FS) 19, and the
monograph Q was apparently represented by the digraph TH. These alternative
spellings continue to the IIIrd century B.C. and later.
The letter H originally had been used for aspiration. The letter was
said to have been cloven into two, the left half becoming the spiritus asper
( 9 ), while the right half becoming the spiritus lenis ( 0 ). Thus, the
sign H originally had two functions: one, to mark aspiration and two, as the
second element in the digraphs PH, KH, and TH. In Ionia, where aspiration
had ceased by the VII century B.C., they made the sign H into a letter, the
long sound EE (as French tête) 20. Thus, until the Vth century B.C. Attic
had only five vowels: a, e, i, o, u for the five basic sounds of the Greek
language ever since: a, e, i, o, u. The signs of H and W, not having taken
the place of any other vowel-signs, nor representing existing sounds 21,
appear to have been adopted originally (Vth century B.C.) as mere technical,
compensatory marks for E and O respectively in accented (and therefore
lengthened) position. Finally, however, they came to be regarded as long
vowels. This length was apparently due to antectasis (lengthening of vowel
sound because of the dropping of a consonant, which thus disturbs the
rhythm) or ictus (the stress placed on the syllable chosen to carry the beat
of rhythm in verse, in distinction to the natural accent or stress of a
word), since it is natural for Greek to pronounce all vowels isochronously
(i.e. equally long).
Thus, in Attic inscriptions from early VIth c. B.C. on E occurs as
EI 22 and later as H, while O occurs as OU and later as W 23. After mid-Vth
century B.C. when H and W were taken as real letters, there is constant
confusion of E with H and of O with W. Between 450-300 B.C. there is
constant confusion also of E with EI, of EI with E, of E with H, of H with
E, of EI with H, of EI with HI, of O with OU 24 (but hardly
_____________________
160
ever of OU with O or W 25), of O with W, and of OI (i.e. i-subscriptum) with
WI.
Following 403 B.C. H took the place of that E which appeared as
"long" in verse because of ictus, and which in other dialects had been
represented by H 26. This H, which was now adopted for technical purposes,
was popularly used for EI, which at this time was pronounced as I.
A diphthong consists of two vowels. Owing to the paucity of
contraction in the Homeric epics and other early works, such diphthongs, in
so far as they were original to that period, ought to have had a
pronunciation whereby both vowels were sounded. In classical times, however,
when contraction had been fully developed, they were pronounced
monophthongally, i.e. as one sound. This is seen from the many examples in
which I replaces EI since the VIth century B.C. as well as from the Delphic
Hymns (after 146 B.C.), where, when a diphthong stands under a long note, it
is not dissolved into its constituent parts, but is repeated in whole, as if
it were a simple vowel 27. The pronunciation of diphthongs must take account
of the accent. The basic rule of trisyllabotony (i.e. that Greek words
receive the accent on anyone of the last three syllables) had as its effect
that the accent was placed either on the first or on the second vowel of a
diphthong: a&i-ai/, e/i-ei/, o&i-oi/, o&u-ou/, etc. Those diphthongs that
were accented on the first vowel became spurious [originally written as (AE)
AI, EI, OI, UI, later became AI HI WI UI] with the second vowel losing its
sound and being reduced first to i-adscriptum, and later (XIIth c. A.D.) to
i-subscriptum. Those diphthongs that were accented on the second vowel were
pronounced monophthongally. Thus, the pronunciation of AI tended towards and
finally became identical with that of E, that of EI, OI, and UI with I,
while with U increasingly moving towards I, the sound of U came to be
represented by OU 28. This process, as the evidence of the
_____________________
161
inscriptions indicates, was, for the most part, initiated already in
pre-classical antiquity.
Originally the diphthong AI was written as AE. This was changed to
AI by analogy with EI, OI, UI. However, because of its original composition
as AE, it did not acquire the sound of I, as did the other diphthongs, but
retained its original sound of E.
The two diphthongs AU and EU have fared differently. The original AU
= au and EU = eu, where the accent was on the first element thus: a&u, e/u
becoming áu, éu gradually led to the consonatization of the u and this
finally took the sound of v before a vowel or a sounded consonant (see
table, above) and the sound of f before a hard consonant. The labialization
(the pronunciation with the lips, i.e. as consonants) of these diphthongs is
witnessed since the Vth century B.C. (see below). Analogous sound was given
to the third diphthong, HU, which was added at this time.
1. Criteria for determining the Pronunciation of Greek
To determine the pronunciation of the various letters evidence has
usually been drawn from four areas: (a) indirect statements of ancient
authors, such as e.g. word-plays and cries of animals, (b) the inscriptions
and papyri, (c) comparative philology, in particular, transcriptions from
and to other languages, chiefly Latin, and (d) modern phonetic theory.
Earlier Erasmians used all four types of evidence, but did not succeed in
establishing a credible case because the material proved to be intractable.
More recent Erasmians avoid the inscriptions (particularly the earlier
ones) -the primary evidence for the pronunciation of Greek- and seek,
instead, to establish the pronunciation of Greek chiefly by phonetic
speculation and comparative philology 29. Thus, in
_____________________
162
addition to Latin, English, German, French, Norwegian, Lithuanic, Hungarian,
Persian, Sanscrit, Gothic, Slavic, Armenian, etc. are all used in the effort
to determine the pronunciation of classical Greek, but strangely enough
Byzantine and Modern Greek are almost completely left out of account! It
thus becomes virtually a case of trying to establish the pronunciation of
the English of Wyclif or Tyndale by setting aside Modern English and instead
making use of all the other European languages. When Modern Greek is
mentioned it is usually to illustrate its presumed distance from classical
Greek. This strange methodology is here deemed misguided and lacking in
scientific stringency.
Of the four areas of evidence, above (a) is of little value because
the ancients never teach the pronunciation of the various letters and
because their representations of animal sounds are not faithful to the
actual sounds 30. (c) -and here it is mainly a question of Latin- is of
meagre value because Greek sounds do not correspond to Latin sounds,
transcriptional values being only approximate. (d) can be quite useful, but
only when applied to the internal history of the evolution of the sounds of
the Greek language, i.e. from Ancient to Modern Greek.
The dead letter of the inscriptions, taken by itself, cannot tell us
anything about how the various signs were pronounced. We need a
reference-point both as an initial index for the value of each letter, and
against which to compare the phenomena of the inscriptions and evaluate the
developments. This reference-point is (and was also for Erasmus) the living
pronunciation of the Greek language. Hence, how some scholars can discuss
ancient Greek pronunciation by ignoring or setting aside the Modern Greek
evidence is difficult to understand 31. But to be up to the task it is not
enough to merely quote second-hand a
_____________________
163
few Modern Greek examples 32. One must be able to speak Modern Greek as a
Greek if he is really to understand (at least present) Greek phonology, and
to appreciate phonetic changes and the reasons for them, and so be in a
position to interpret the data correctly 33.
We are thus left with the inscriptions and the papyri as the most
relevant primary material. The reference point is the traditional Greek
pronunciation constituting the other end of the axis Ancient-Modern, within
which the evolution of sounds can be properly evaluated.
The pronunciation of each vowel and diphthong in particular becomes
apparent from their interchange with one another witnessed in the
inscriptions and the papyri. This interchange, this writing of one letter
instead of another, shows that the two letters (or diphthongs) in question
were sounded identically or similarly and hence were confused by those not
acquainted with historical orthography (i.e. the etymological spelling). As
our interest centers at the beginning rather than at the end of this
process, the inscriptional material is the more pertinent of the two.
2. The Pronunciation of the Vowels and Diphthongs
1. There is never any question as to the closed, thin i-sound of i.
This sound must be the reference-point for determining the sound of other
vowels or diphthongs when they are confused with it.
2. EI = I. EI interchanges with I since the VI-Vth century B.C.,
indicating both that it was sounded monophthongally, i.e. as one sound, and
that it was sounded as 'I', or something very similar to it 34.
_____________________
164
The interchange becomes very frequent from the Vth and IVth centuries B.C.
on. EI interchanges also with H already from the Vth and IVth centuries B.C.
35. Since EI had already in VI-Vth century B.C. assumed or tended towards
the sound of 'I', it is obvious that the H was tending in the same
direction. This interchange becomes frequent around 200 B.C.
3. U = I. The letter U (which originally was = u, later perhaps ü,
though this is uncertain) interchanges with I already by 600-550 B.C.
_____________________
165
and especially from the Vth century B.C. onwards. If its sound was not
completely identical with that of I at this early stage, it was at least
close enough to cause the confusion 36. This is corroborated further by the
fact that U interchanges with H 37 and OI (which also had begun acquiring
the sound of I) already by the IVth c. B.C. 38. U interchanges also with EI
by the Vth c. B.C. 39. The thinning down of the pronunciation of U towards I
is also confirmed by the fact that already in
_____________________
166
classical times U had lost its original sound of U, which now came to be
expressed by OU 40.
4. UI = I. The I of this diphthong very early 41 had come to be
swallowed by or contracted with the U, and the diphthong was pronounced as a
simple U (see above). This phenomenon is clearly witnessed since the Vth c.
B.C.42
5. OI = I. OI is confused with I at the latest by 329 B.C. 43. The
pronunciation of OI as I is confirmed further by the fact that in the same
inscription (above, dated 329 B.C.) OI interchanges also with EI (which,
since very early times, had acquired the sound of I) 44, since the V-IVth c.
B.C. with U (see above) and at the latest since 168 B.C. also with H 45,
both of which had come to be confused with I. The impossibility of
pronouncing the diphthongs in diaeresis (i.e. each vowel distinctly) becomes
obvious also from a word such as Eu0aoi=oi (see IGA 110, 2,
_____________________
167
early VIth c. B.C.). This word, which consists of seven vowels, pronounced
in the Erasmian way, would give the comical sound: 'E-u-a-o-i-o-i' - as if
it were an exercise in vowel mnemonics. Surely the correct pronunciation was
between 'Eva-ü-ü' and 'Eva-í-i'.
6. H = I. The letter H interchanges with I already by the Vth c.
B.C., i.e. before its official acceptance in 403 B.C., again confirming the
popular pronunciation of H as I, i.e. contrary to the original intention of
the theorists who had adopted it to represent positional E (i.e. technical
length).46 The frequency of its interchange with I increases from the IIIrd
century B.C. in the Ptolemaic papyri. The interchange of H with EI (which
was pronounced as I already by the Vth century B.C.) becomes very frequent
from around 200 B.C., again leading to the same conclusion 47. H
interchanges even with U, which was also tending in the
_____________________
168
direction of I 48. Owing to the historical orthography (i.e. spelling) prior
to the adoption of the Ionic alphabet, which continued to be used after the
adoption of the Ionic alphabet, H interchanges more often with E down to
Byzantine times.49
7. HI = I. The spurious diphthong HI interchanges with the proper
diphthong EI very frequently from the time of the adoption of H (Vth century
B.C.) to the Ist century B.C. 50. Since the dipthong EI was sounded
monophthongally (i.e. as a simple I), and the H of the spurious diphthong
was the only letter sounded, it becomes again clear that the H and the I
were, in these cases, sounded similarly if not identically, and hence were
confused. The increasing substitution of HI by EI may be exemplified by the
tribal names Ai0gh|/j, )Erexqh|/j and Oi0nh|/j, in which HI preponderates
around 400 B.C., while EI has completely eclipsed HI by 300 B.C.
8. O, OU and W. The letter O interchanges with OU very frequently
from the VIth century to the IIIrd century B.C. 51. However, it is
_____________________
169
interesting to note that OU, pronounced distinctly as U, is hardly ever
written instead of O or W. This shows that there was little distinction
between O and W 52, but a clear distinction between O and W on the one hand,
and OU on the other. From the IIIrd c. B.C. on O and W interchange very
frequently, which implies that they had become equivalent.
9. OI and WI. OI and WI (i.e. the older and new spellings with
i-subscriptum) interchange quite often 53.
10. AI = E. The diphthong AI (AE) interchanges with E already before
400 B.C. in Boeotia (where the Ionic H had taken the place of AI) revealing
the fact that AI was pronounced monophthongally and as E 54. The
pronunciation of AI as E in Athens is proved from the addition of i to the
diphthong 55, as well as from the confusion of ai with e 56.
_____________________
170
11. AU, EU and HU. The diphtongs AU, EU and HU retain the
pronunciation of both letters, but already by the VIth c. B.C. the U is
sounded as a consonant: v or f: av or af, ev or ef, and iv, or if. This is
proved beyond possible doubt by the mistake of the stone-cutters in
substituting F (digamma 57, which corresponded to the Phoenician letter waw,
and had the sound of v ) in place of u 58. It is further confirmed by the
transliteration of these diphthongs into Latin, which use e.g. ev for eu 59.
That this v cannot be mistaken for u (i.e. eu) is rendered beyond all
possible doubt by the fact that these words are also spelled with a double
vv. 60. Accordingly Lavinia becomes Lau=na (= Lavna) (Dionysius Halic. I,
70, 2) not La&ouna, which should have been the case if the sound desired was
a&ou, just as it happens with auctoritas = a)ouktw&ritaj (Dio Cassius, 55,
3. 4) This is also confirmed by the name Paulina, which is transcribed as
Pauli=na (i.e. Pavlina), though when the Latin sound is desired the word
becomes Paouli=na (CIG 6665). These examples confirm the pronunciation of
Pau=loj as Pavlos, not Paoulo(u)s 61. In general, however, Greek seeks to
transliterate foreign names by following the historical spelling as much as
possible, even though it departs from phonetic faithfulness. Thus Lord Byron
is not Lo_rnt Mpa&i+ron, but Lo&rdoj Bu/rwn, even though every Greek knows
that this is not the correct pronunciation of the original name. There is
also ambivalence from case to case. Thus, Wilson is Ou0i/lson, but
Watergate, and Woodhouse become Gouwtergkai/ht and Gou/ntxaouj.
_____________________
171
This evidence has hopefully made it clear that transliteration from
other languages to Greek and conversely cannot lead to any safe conclusions
as to the pronunciation of the Greek letters except in very broad lines 62.
Today in Greece the confusion of the various representations of the
I-sound, i.e. i, h, u, ei, ui, oi, is not infrequent among uneducated
people. Thus, for example, writing a word with h or oi instead of the
correct i does not imply that these Greeks pronounce the particular word
differently, but that their spelling is faulty. Exactly the same phenomenon
took place in ancient times, and these misspellings, witnessed in
inscriptions and papyri, divulge to us the actual pronunciation of the
living speech. The above interchanges of vowels and diphthongs show clearly
that the pronunciation of these letters already in the Vth c. B.C. had begun
to coincide with the so-called Modern Greek pronunciation (see table,
above). This pronunciation may not have set in everywhere at the same time,
but the process begun in classical times, or earlier, was not long
(relatively) in establishing itself everywhere, even if in one or two cases
it took many centuries to be completed (into Byzantine times, i.e. H). The
important thing is not when this process ended, but when it started. The
Ptolemaic papyri from Egypt confirm the above conclusions for the last three
pre-Christian centuries. However, the Egyptian papyri, being often written
by non-Greeks, who in their approximation of the pronunciation of the Greeks
had brought in the sounds of their native tongues, cannot methodologically
be relied upon as guides for the correct pronunciation of the Greek language
63.
3. The Pronunciation of the Consonants
The consonants in dispute are the mediae B, G, D, the aspirates Q,
F, X, as well as Z. As is to be expected the interchange of these
consonants, unlike the case of the vowels, is very limited. Hence their
sound can be determined chiefly (but not solely) by the principle of
syllabication, i.e. the rule that these consonants build syllables together
with the vowel following them, and this determines their sound. Confusion in
inscriptions is also valuable, while transcription from and to Latin is
obviously also of some assistance.
Now with regard to the aspirates Q, F, and X, they took the place of
_____________________
172
the earlier digraphs TH, PH, and KH. Accordingly, Latin TH, PH and CH were
used to transcribe these Greek digraphs in the historical spelling of words.
When the Greeks in time came to use the monographs Q, F, X in place of the
digraphs, the Romans had no equivalents for these letters except for F,
hence Latin F is usually transcribed with F! This is, moreover, confirmed by
the fact that the F is confused with the f -sound of the diphthongs au, eu
(pronounced af, ef ), but not with P. Were the f sounded like PH (i.e. P
with aspiration), it ought to have been confused with the P. Finally, the
fact that the preposition e0k does not change before k, t, p, but before q,
f, x it actually often becomes e0x (e.g. e0x Qettali/aj 64, e0x qhtw~n 65,
e0x fulh=j 66, e0x Xalki/doj) 67, which would be impossible to pronounce as
ek+h-K+h-alki/doj, etc. (i.e. aspirating the X as k+h and the F as p+h,
which would necessitate the resumption of the original position of the
tongue after the utterance of the first aspirate) shows that there is no
question of aspiration, and that these letters were pronounced
monophthongally as th (like Eng. "thin"), ph = f and ch (like Germ. "Bach"
and "Ich" [as pronounced in North Germany]) 68. Q and F had taken just these
sounds in Boeotia already in the Vth c. B.C.
Analogical considerations to the above in the case of B, G and D
lead to the conclusion that these letters already in Attic times were
sounded as v, gh (a sound which, before a, o, w, and ou as well as the
consonants b, d, l, m, n, r, x, is impossible to reproduce in English, but
which before e, h, i, and u it = y in "yet" or German "j") and th (as
English "then"), though it appears that in some positions (i.e. after a
nasal) they could have had the sound of b, g, and d, as they do today,
especially in uncultivated Greek, just as the double GG and GK: a!ggeloj (=
agelos) and e1gklisij (= eglisis). The pronunciation of B, G, D as v, gh,
and th (as Eng. "then") becomes clear from the following considerations:
1. The k of the preposition e0k before B, G, and D as well as before
L, M, and N is regularly changed to G for euphonic reasons 69. This
circumstance clearly supports the sound gh rather than that of g.
_____________________
173
2. The pronunciation of b as v is, in addition to the above, borne
out also by the confusion of this letter with the u of the diphthongs au,
eu, hu, which have already been treated (above) 70. Moreover, the b replaces
almost always the F (digamma), which was sounded as v. Furthermore, the LXX
transliterated with this letter the Hebrew waw: e.g. Dabi/d, )Iexoba& 71.
Finally the Latin U or V is often transliterated with the b in Greek, e.g.
Bergi/lioj (Vergilius), Bale/rioj (Valerius), Bati/nioj (Vatinius), Benu/sia
(Venusia), Benti/dioj (Ventidius), Balenti/a (Valentia), Be/sbioj
(Vesuvius), Bie/nna (Vienna), Bini/kioj (Vinicius), and Bonw&nhj (Vonones).
The transliteration of Greek B with Latin B and conversely is due to the
historical spelling 72. Moreover, the frequent transliteration of Latin U
(V) with ou [e.g. Ou0ergi/lioj (Vergilius), Ou0espasiano&j (Vespasianus),
Ou0ite/llioj (Vitellius), Ou0a&rrwn (Varro)], indicates that when Latin U
(V) is rendered by Greek B the sound of the latter is not b, but v, i.e. not
Bergilios, but Verghilios, hence it can also be spelled OUerghílios.
_____________________
174
3. With regards to D, in addition to what has been said above, it
may be pointed out that mhqei/j, mhqe/n, mhqeno&j, ou0qei/j, ou0qe/n,
ou0qeno&j, etc. occur from 378 B.C. side by side with the earlier mhdei/j,
mhde/n, ou0dei/j, ou0de/n, etc., from 300 B.C. to about 60 B.C. they
dominate, and from that time on the older forms take over again. The fact
that d does not become t, shows that the sound of d was closer to that of
the q and was not sounded as d. D interchanges with B, e.g. Delfo&j -
Belfo&j, o0belo&j - o0delo&j, which again precludes the sound of d. Also
bdomoj and o!gdooj speak against the d-sound; it is physiologically easier
to pronounce evthomos (or evdhomos) than [h]ebdomos (and we know that the
various modifications in spelling - contraction, elision, crasis, avoidance
of hiatus, etc. - were undertaken for the sake of achieving a smooth, easy
and well-sounding pronunciation). Now to sound a word such as e0kgdhmi/a 73
as ekgdemia (i.e. as three consecutive stops k-g-d) is almost impossible 74.
Here one should bear in mind that Greek, basically a polysyllabic,
vowel-loving language, avoids the concentration of unnecessary,
difficult-to-pronounce consonants so characteristic of German, cf. e.g.
Nietzsche and other words with six or even seven consecutive consonants 75.
Greek pronunciation cannot be determined by what is possible or acceptable
in other languages.
Finally, the letter Z, as its frequent replacing of S before B, G,
and D etc. shows 76, had a voiced s-sound like English s or z in "rose" and
"zebra" respectively, not the Erasmian dz (ds) or zd (sd). The same is shown
by the misspellings Seu=j (= Zeu=j, 340 B.C.); Busza&ntioi 77 instead of
Buza&ntioi; e0peyh/fiszen and sunagwniszo&menoj instead of e0peyh/fizen and
sunagwnizo&menoj 78. In Elis D was often substituted by Z 79. That this
tendency occurred at Athens as well may be inferred from Plato, Cratylus,
418: "nu=n de\ a)nti\ ... tou= ... de/lta zh=ta (metastre/fousin)". That
this pronunciation of z as z was classical is shown by )Azeioi/, )Azeih=j
80, and )Azzeioi/ 81, as well as by Buza&ntioi 82 and Buzza&ntioi 83. That
the z in all these cases could not have been
_____________________
175
sounded as dz or zd is shown by the resultant sound of the words, which is
impossible to pronounce: A-zd-zd-e-i-o-i and Bu-zd-zd-a-nti-o-i. No doubt
the Greeks pronounced them as A(z)ziü (later A(z)zií) and Bü(z)zantiü (later
By(z)zántii ) respectively 84.
5. Accents, breathings, etc. (Prosody)
Although a scanty use of rudimentary reading-helps was made already
in the Vth c. B.C., the traditional system of prosodical marks is an
Alexandrian invention (IIIrd c. B.C.). In Hellenistic times the number of
these marks was ten: ai9 de/ka prosw|di/ai. These were of four types: stops,
quantity symbols, accents and breathings.
1. Stops. The stops were the comma (u9postigmh/), the period
(telei/a) and the colon (me/sh stigmh/). (The interrogation mark (;) was
added in the IXth c. A.D). These stops are normally absent from the
inscriptions and early papyri since these texts were written in scriptio
continua.
2. Quantity. Greek verse was based on "quantity", which was
indicated by the symbols - (long) and } (short) 85. Quantity is achieved by
rhythmical beat. This had been physically represented by the putting down of
the foot (qe/sij or ba&sij tou= podo&j), which symbolized the accented and
therefore longer syllable, and the raising of the foot (a!rsij tou= podo&j),
which symbolized the relaxation of accent, and therefore the shorter
syllable 86. Hence the basic metrical unit was called pou/j. Thus, if a
syllable was placed in an "accented" position within the foot, it was
considered long by position (qe/sei makra&); if in an unaccented position,
it was considered short (a!rsei braxei=a). It would thus appear that the
vowels as such were neither "long" nor "short", but
_____________________
176
isochronous - as in Modern Greek. The situation became complicated with the
adoption of H and W. The syllables containing these letters came to be
considered as naturally long (fu/sei makrai/); consequently the syllables
containing any of the other vowels, depending on their position in the
metrical foot, were regarded as either makrai/, braxei/ai or di/xronoi, i.e.
long, short or variable.
The remarks and speculations of the Alexandrian Grammarians (e.g.
Dionysius Thrax, Apollonius Dyscolus, or Herodian) and others (e.g.
Dionysius Halicarnasseus) lead to the conclusion that quantity had ceased to
be felt already by the IIIrd c. B.C. The use of it in later versifiers (as
Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Callimachus, Menander, Theocritus, et al.) would
seem to have been a matter of tradition as it also was with the Byzantines
(e.g. Nonnos, Musaeus Grammaticus). Moreover, the use in Homer and the early
inscriptions of E and O for what later was expressed by EI, H, OU and W -
the kat ) e0coxh/n "long" sonic letters, - their treatment of long vowels
and diphthongs as though they were short and conversely, as well as other
phenomena, would seem to indicate that quantity even in the Archaic period
was not intrinsic to certain vowels, but that it owed its raison d' être to
position and accent. The soul of verse was accordingly the rhythm, and this
was indicated by the rising and falling of the accent as stress, the rising
being indicated by the acute, and the falling by the grave.
3. Accents. Since accent as stress is integral to all speech, its
existence in Greek must be as old as the language itself. Though accent was
not indicated by any marks in Archaic works, the inscriptions or the earlier
papyri, it was none the less presupposed. Thus, the ancients, without
writing accents, could distinguish e.g. between Glau=koj 87 and glauko&j 88,
Ca&nqoj 89 and canqo&j 90, o!roj 91 and o0ro&j 92, ou0 and ou] 93; Plato
spoke of Di/filoj (< Dii\ fi/loj) in which the original fi/ had lost its
o0cei=a (acute) and in the compound form received a barei=a (grave), i.e.
became unaccented 94, while the introduction of such marks was recent in
Aristotle's time 95 - though some of the accents attributed to Glaucus 96
(Vth c. B.C.) may have been written rather than merely acoustic.
Each syllable of a Greek word is accented. However, polysyllabic
words stress one and only one of the syllables above all others. This
dominant accent (stress) was called acute (o0cei=a) and was indicated by
_____________________
177
the mark ( / ), while all other syllables received the mark of the grave
(`) (barei=a): e.g. KA\TA\CI\W_QE/NTE\S 97. The third mark to come into
being was the circumflex ( = ) (i.e. perispwme/nh) placed on contracted
vowels and explained as the combination of the acute with the grave (^),
i.e. the percussion or stress and its absence on two adjoining vowels prior
to their contraction: e.g. NO&O_S > NOOU~S. However, the form of the
circumflex only indicated that it was the result of the contraction of two
vowels, one o0cuno&menon the other baruno&menon, but it had no rising and
falling tone in pronunciation - an impossibility in actual speech, - for
once the contraction had taken place there was but one position in the mouth
and one dominant accent, the acute 98. This is confirmed also by the fact
that in the rules governing accentuation, the circumflex functions exactly
like the acute: cf. e0k th=j gh=j e0stin with a)lhqh/j e0stin.
There are two important points about Greek accent which make it
different from English and German accent. In English and German the stress
of the accented syllable is stronger than that of the corresponding Greek
syllable. In English, for example, the stressed syllable tends to overshadow
the unstressed syllables, and some unaccented syllables are actually
swallowed up in fast speech. (The same is the case with French). Hence also
the great gradation in vowel-length. Greek, on the other hand, pronounces
all syllables distinctly and isochronously with one of the syllables having
a somewhat more dominant stress and hence being slightly longer than the
others because of the percussion, but it is never so stressed as to eclipse
any of the other syllables.
The second point is the rule of trisyllabotony. Unlike, for example,
English and German, in which the accent can recede further back than the
antepenultima (English: des / -ti-tute-ness; des / -spi-ca-ble-ness; German:
Wie / -der-seh-en; voll / -au-to-ma-tisch; Be-klei / -dungs-vor-schrif-ten),
so that sometimes a secondary accent becomes necessary (here indicated by /
/ ) (English: cir / / -cum-lo-cu / -tion; tet / -ra-darch / / -y; des /
/ -pi-ca-bil / -i-ty; German: Wind / -schutz-schei / / -be; Frau /
/ -en-eman-ci-pa-tion / ) the Greek accent can never recede further back
than the antepenultima, e.g.: kataginwskome/nouj, grammatodida&skaloj,
xorodidaska&louj, pipra&skesqai, e9bdomhkontakaiekatontaplasi/wn (Proclus,
Hypo-typosis 4, 104) e0nneakaieikosikaieptakosioplasia&kij (Plato,
Respublica 587 e), and even Aristophanes' jest-word (Ecclesiazusai 1169-75),
which consists of 169 letters (in gen. 171), has but one accent! - in the
penultima.
It is commonly assumed that ancient Greek accent was musical
pitch-accent, not stress-accent, as though the Greeks always sung and
_____________________
178
never used ordinary speech. This assumption is not free from serious
difficulties, but no adequate discussion is possible within the limits of
this paper. Suffice it to point out the following: (1) Stress need not
exclude pitch, and in fact no pitch is conceivable without stress. (2) All
Indo-European languages are based on stress accent. In Swedish, for example,
which is the most 'musical' of the Scandinavian languages, stress-accent is
clear and important. If Greek were different in this respect, it would have
been unique. (3) Since music was bound up with only one (the accented)
syllable, then it must be denied to all the others; how could Greek then be
musical? (4) If the accent was essentially musical, why was it then
disregarded by meter, which chose its own syllables - often unaccented - to
express the pitch? (5) Was there any relation between quantity and accent?
We have seen that before the period of contraction there was no "natural
quantity"; syllables were either naturally short or long by position. (6)
Greek meter therefore must have been based on rhythm, which consisted in
thesis (ictus) and arsis (fall) represented by the acute and the grave, the
only proswdi/ai known in early times. And (7) the principle of
trisyllabotony implies an expiratory stress-accent. Since Greek accent
lacked the intensity of e.g. English and German accent, it lent itself
readily to a treatment necessitated by meter.
However, irrespective of the situation in Archaic and classical
times, it is readily conceded by Erasmians that quantity and musical accent
had in post-classical times given place to stress-accent. The singing had
apparently ceased. The question here is not so much that in the first
Christian century accent was stress, which is conceded by almost every one,
but how far back in pre-Christian times does this stress-accent go?
It is a truism that the disappearance of quantity and the emphasis
on (Erasmians would say, emergence of) stress-accent go hand in hand. From
the remarks of the Alexandrian Grammarians we understand that quantity was a
matter of the past. But how long past? We have seen above that quantity had
started to vanish with the reduction of the diphthongs to monophthongal
pronunciation. Since this process was initiated already in the Vth c. B.C.,
quantity had come under fire already by that time. This disinterest in
quantity contradicts the thesis of Erasmians that H and W had been adopted
to express long vowels before left unexpressed. On the contrary, it supports
the thesis, above, that they were adopted as compensatory marks to indicate
technical length, and that they were not used for pre-existent values
hitherto unexpressed. No unexpressed sound can have objective existence in a
language! At any rate, the process for the reduction of quantity was a
protracted one, but it was practically complete by the time of Jesus. The
stress-accent therefore had come into prominence long before that time. Now
since accent is that which gives every word its individuality and integrity,
holding the sounds of the various syllables into a harmonic relation to one
another thus to constitute a whole - a unique whole - the like of
_____________________
179
which cannot be found, to pronounce Greek words in the undifferentiated
manner of the Erasmians as a string of unrelated sounds is to destroy the
living pulse of the language, that which makes it a living entity, speaking,
addressing the reader or listener, challenging him to understand and
respond. This stress-accent, which is supposed to have come into being
around the beginning of our era, has ever since held its iron grip upon the
language; its rules and principles are still unchanged in Modern Greek. If
accent had been a freak of the times, an incidence in language development,
would it have stayed unchanged, say, for 2000 years? This tenacity of the
Greek accent finds a satisfactory explanation only in its being an integral
part of the language; from the beginning (not merely from the Ist c. A.D.)
it has held the language together, it has given it meaning and rhythm.
4. Breathings. The spiritus asper and the spiritus lenis together
with the other prosodiai were according to tradition, created by the
Alexandrian Grammarian, Aristophanes of Byzantium (IIIrd c. B.C.), by
splitting the H into two halves (the left half indicating the spiritus asper
and the right half the spiritus lenis). The Alexandrians used the aspirate
on such words as should originally have been aspirated, and this custom was
applied on MSS in the VIIth c. A.D. In the XIth c. A.D. the breathings took
their present form.
With regards to earlier times the situation is as follows: In a
number of inscriptions representing the lesser dialects, the sign H occurs
as a kind of aspiration. However, the main dialects, Ionic, Aeolic and for
the most part Doric, know nothing of aspiration 99. Attic, which is crucial
for the issue under consideration, is, during the period prior to 403 B.C.,
very ambivalent. The H is often absent 100, more frequently it is present
101, but not always placed correctly. For example, in CIA I, 324 (408 B.C.)
the H is placed in front of most initial vowels irrespective of whether the
word is really an aspirate or not 102, and again in CIA IV, b, 53, a, (418
B.C.) the H is absent from all initial vowels except the word
_____________________
180
i9ero&j (four times).The same or similar word frequently occurs both with
and without the aspirate 103, and this applies also in the case of
interaspiration 104.
The frequent occurrence of H with r, l, g, etc. and F (digamma)
105 -where aspiration is impossible- indicates that the sense of aspiration
had been lost. This together with the evidence cited above respecting the
extremely erratic use of H shows conclusively that aspiration had ceased in
Athens already before the end of the classical period. When observed in
script it was as an old relic, not as a living item of language106 -just as
it has been till our own day!
6. Corollaries
The above investigation has shown that the Vth c. B.C was a century
of momentous changes for the Greek language. (Indeed, in certain respects
the process had begun already in the VIth c.). With the completion of the
24-letter alphabet, the old, inexact way of spelling was giving way
_____________________
181
to what came to be the normative spelling, which has been in force for the
past 2500 years. At the same time these accommodations in spelling were
accompanied by important changes in pronunciation. The diphthongs were
receiving a monophthongal pronunciation, assuming the sound of their second
vowel, which for the most part was I. The U was thinned down (at first
perhaps to French u and finally) to I, the u -sound being rendered by ou.
Quantity, which evidently had never been integral to the vowels, but was a
mere technicality, was now vanishing. The stress-accent, which must always
have existed, comes clearly into prominence.
In short, all those elements that are characteristic of the Modern
Greek pronunciation begin to make their appearance at this time. Even though
we may not be altogether sure of the exact quality of sound for each letter
we have considered above, we have sufficient evidence to know that the
present Greek pronunciation was in all essentials establishing itself
already in Vth and IVth c. B.C. This process was in some cases completed
rather soon, while in other cases it was protracted. This means that the
so-called "Modern Greek pronunciation of Greek" is not modern at all. Hence,
it is not correct to speak of "the Modern Greek" and of "the scientific
(i.e. Erasmian) pronunciation" of Greek. The correct procedure rather is to
speak of the Greek or (still better) the historical Greek pronunciation of
Greek and of the un-Greek, or artificial, or Erasmian, or Etacistic
pronunciation of Greek.
Today the error of Erasmus has been perceived and lies at the basis
of the awareness that the Erasmian pronunciation does not represent the
ancient Greek pronunciation 107. This has led to a change of argument from
scientific fidelity to practicality. Pronouncing Greek in the Erasmian way
is supposed to save the student of Greek from the trouble of distinguishing
between the spellings of the different i-sounds 108, and this facilitarian
argument has become the main argument for persisting in a variety of
pronunciations which are unnatural for Greek. However, this argument is not
entirely correct. In my twenty-three years of experience in teaching NT to
Swedish students (also British, Belgian,
_____________________
182
Dutch and others) (pronouncing it in the Erasmian way!) I have found that if
my students have been able to distinguish H from I, they have confused it
with E. They also tend to confuse X with K and Q with T. Moreover, the
disregard of stress (the accented syllable) by Erasmians not only produces
an un-Greek sound, but it also confuses different words spelled identically,
whose difference in meaning is indicated by their being accented on
different syllables 109. In other words, it is not quite true that this
un-Greek pronunciation "helps us to spell Greek correctly"!
In view of the results of the above investigation there seems to be
but one course to take: to abandon the Erasmian pronunciations and to return
to the Greek pronunciation. This is "a scientific demand and a practical
desideratum", to use a phrase coined by a great New Testament scholar in
another connection 110, and that for the following reasons:
1. The Erasmian claim to pronounce Greek in a scientific way, that
is, in the ancient Greek fashion, is beset by insuperable difficulties.
First, it is common knowledge that no-one can learn to pronounce a
foreign language by merely reading books in that language or consulting
dictionaries, even such as are provided with phonetic helps. One must expose
oneself constantly to the sounds of that language by listening to and trying
to imitate native speakers. And even then it will be extremely difficult to
learn to pronounce the language as the natives do, if the learner is older
than eight years of age. In the case of ancient Greek we have no longer the
possibility to hear Socrates or Plato, let alone the ability as grown-up
students of Greek to imitate its correct pronunciation.
Second, it becomes immediately incumbent upon the Erasmians that
they apply to the texts of each particular period the pronunciation that was
current at the time. Thus, Homer should be pronounced with the pronunciation
that was used in his time, Plato and Aristotle with the V-IVth c. Athenian
pronunciation (which was undergoing important
_____________________
183
changes), the New Testament with a pronunciation that was practically
identical with the Modern Greek pronunciation, and the Church Fathers in the
Modern Greek way 111.
Third, four and one half centuries of trying to establish the
scientific nature of the Erasmian pronunciation has led to results that are
demonstrably false, or that have failed to convince the theorists
themselves. To illustrate this I will quote a few passages from one of the
more recent defences of Erasmianism, Allen's Vox Graeca. Practical
difficulties in "distinguishing the voiceless unaspirated plosives from the
aspirated, both in speaking and hearing" lead Allen to bypass the Erasmian
pronunciation at these points and to counsel "pronouncing the aspirated
plosives in the Byzantine manner" (i.e. Modern Greek)! (p. 27). On p. 35 a
certain pronunciation is recommended not on scientific grounds, but "on
practical grounds"! On p. 57 "any degree of aspiration that may have existed
here can be ignored by the modern reader". When on p. 73 he cannot make up
his mind, he recommends a certain course because "if we are wrong, at least
we shall be doing nothing worse than, say, pronouncing Aeschylus as
Demosthenes might have done; whereas, if we adopt the other alternative, we
may be giving an author a pronunciation which he had never received in
antiquity"! This revealing admission is most telling, but one also wonders
why in the light of this Erasmians still persist in pronouncing e.g. the New
Testament (even from their point of view) in an anachronistic way? On p. 83
the conclusions to which his study has led him are not good enough for
recommendation, so he counsels "the simplest solution seems to be one which
is in fact quite widely adopted, namely to anticipate developments by two or
three centuries"! We may therefore, ask, Why not substitute the entire
concoction by what we know to have been the pronunciation "two or three
centuries" later, i.e. practically Modern Greek? With regard to the
notorious "musical accent" of ancient Greek, Allen says on p. 118: "The
author has listened to a number of recordings, recent and less recent, of
attempted tonal [i.e. musical] recitation of ancient Greek, and, whilst some
are less objectionable or ridiculous than others, has found none of them
convincing". After such a confession, which is tantamount to a total failure
by Erasmians to tell us how the so-called ancient Greek musical accent
sounded, one would have expected the author to recommend the so-called
Hellenistic stress-accent, (which still lives in Modern Greek). But nothing
of the kind. The author goes on: "The carefully considered advice is
therefore given, albeit reluctantly, not to strive for a tonal rendering,
but rather to concentrate one's efforts on fluency and accuracy in other
aspects of the language" 112. In the light of the above
_____________________
184
admissions the inevitable question arises: Just what is the point of
persisting in pronunciations in which even their supporters and theorists
have lost confidence?
If it is so clear then that the pronunciation (in the strict sense,
not only of the value of the various letters, but also of the sound quality)
of Homer and of classical antiquity is, in the absence of magnetic
tape-recordings, for ever lost to us and beyond the possibility of recovery
or reconstruction, is it not, in that case, historically and scientifically
more honest and correct to pronounce the language according to its own
natural and historical development, rather than to impose upon it foreign
sounds imported from other sister or rather "niece" languages within the
Indo-European family? If only one pronunciation is to be used in pronouncing
all these types of writing -coming as they do from a time span of 1200 years
and more, during which period the pronunciation in fact evolved- then surely
the Greek pronunciation (whose roots go back to the Vth and IVth c. B.C.),
is the only legitimate candidate, not the artificial construct of Erasmus.
2. The Greek pronunciation of Greek is a sine qua non for Textual
Criticism. The manuscript tradition is full of errors that were often the
inevitable consequence of the double tradition -the living language and
historical orthography- exactly the same type of errors that we find in the
Attic inscriptions of classical times. The Greek pronunciation is the key to
many variants and must be made the basis for a correct evaluation of their
origin as well as their solution 113.
3. There is also the pragmatic issue. Pronouncing Greek in the Greek
way will facilitate scholarly contact with Greece. Moreover, it will open an
avenue with the starting-point of a little knowledge of New Testament Greek
(or even classical Greek) to enter the wealth of Byzantine and Modern Greek,
which are the direct descendants of Hellenistic and New Testament Greek. In
this way New Testament Greek will cease to be treated as an island with its
attendant misconstructions; it will be seen as part of a greater living
unity, the Greek language, Greek thought, and the Greek literature as a
whole. This will not fail to enrich the scientific study of the New
Testament, which for too long has been deprived of inestimable insights by
its persistent adhesion to the error of Erasmus.
Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS
Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8
223 62 Lund (SWEDEN)
_____________________
185
SUMARIO
Al estudiante de NT se le enseña a pronunciar el griego de modo
distinto del del griego moderno, pero no son generalmente conocidos los
factores y circunstancias que dieron origen a esta llamada pronunciación
"científica" del griego, introducida por Erasmo de Rotterdam.
El autor expone en primer lugar cómo el origen de la pronunciación
erasmiana se debió a que el estudioso suizo Lorituus de Glarus le informó de
que habían llegado a París unos estudiosos griegos que pronunciaban el
griego de modo diferente al acostumbrado en Europa (que entonces coincidía
con el usado en Grecia). Como consecuencia, Erasmo publicó inmediatamente el
Dialogus. Aunque más tarde descubrió que se trataba de un fraude y volvió a
la antigua pronunciación, la "novedad" se extendió rápidamente y acabó por
desbancar en Occidente la pronunciación griega del griego.
El artículo señala a continuación las circunstancias históricas que
hicieron posible el error de Erasmo, expone la pronunciación histórica del
griego y sus diferencias con la erasmiana y estudia la evolución de la
pronunciación y de la grafía de la lengua griega desde sus orígenes.
Aduciendo una copiosa documentación, establece los criterios para la
pronunciación del griego, en primer lugar, de las vocales y diptongos, luego
de las consonantes. Se refiere a continuación a los acentos, espíritus y
otros elementos de prosodia. Entre los corolarios de estudio resaltan tres:
1) La pretensión erasmiana de pronunciar el griego "científicamente", es
decir, según el modo antiguo, encuentra dificultades insuperables. 2) La
pronunciación griega del griego es una condición sine qua non para la
crítica textual. 3) Desde el punto de vista pragmático, la pronunciación
griega facilitaría el contacto científico con Grecia y abriría el camino a
la riqueza del griego bizantino y del moderno. Se vería así el NT griego
como parte de una unidad viva mayor, la lengua, el pensamiento y la
literatura griegas como un todo.
© 1995 Filología Neotestamentaria
________________________________
NOTES
1 N.B. Modern Greek has another form, the Katharevousa, or the "literary"
(and till 1975 official) Modern Greek, which has its roots in the IInd c.
A.D. revival of classicism (Phrynichus, Moeris), though most Modern
literature is written in the Dhimotiki.
2 The very same mistake along with a mispronunciation of two other words
ascribed to Greeks occurs in no less a scholar than W. F. Howard, A Grammar
of New Testament Greek. Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1928, latest impression 1979) 45: "fqa&nw is in MGr ftáno,
ai0sqa&nomai is estánome ¼ e9pta& = eftá", and other inaccuracies about Mod.
Greek. Such inexactitudes about Modern Greek abound in F. Blass, Über die
Aussprache des Griechischen (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1st ed.
1870, 2nd ed. 1882, and 3rd ed. 1888) e.g. 2nd ed. 83 (= 3rd ed. 97), 3rd
ed. 103, while his unacquaintance with Modern Greek phonology is seen
throughout his book (cf. e.g. the 3rd ed. 132ff.). Blass introduced, or at
least contributed to, the inaccurate picture about Modern Greek rife in the
scholarly community ever since.
3 De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronunciatione dialogus (Basiliae:
Frobenius 1528).
4 Speculations along similar lines had been made earlier by the Spaniard
Antonio of Lebrixa, the Venice printer Aldus Manutius, and the Italian
Girolamo (Hieronymus) Aleander.
5 The story of the fraud (fraude) to which Erasmus fell victim is related in
an account dated 27 October 1569, and cited in one of the fervent supporters
of Erasmianism, in Gerardi Ioannis Vossii, Aristarchus, sive de arte
Grammatica libri septem etc., (Amstelædami: I. Blaev 1635, Editio secunda
1662) 106f. My thanks are hereby due to de heer Martin Engels, Conservator
of the Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland at Leeuwarden, Netherlands, who
kindly send me photocopies of the relevant pages of this book. The text runs
as follows: "Ac Erasmus quidem quâ occasione ad scribendum de rectâ
pronunciatione fuerit impulsus, paucis cognitum arbitror. Itaque visum hâc
de adjicere, quod in schedâ quadam habeo, scriptâ olim manu Henrici
Coracopetræi, viri egregiè docti, doctisque perfamiliaris. Ea ita habet:
'Audivi M. Rutgerum Reschium, professorem Linguæ Græcæ in Collegio
Buslidiano apud Lovanienses, meum piæ memoriæ præceptorem, narrantem, se
habitâsse in Liliensi pædagogio unà cum Erasmo, plus minus biennio eo
superius, se inferius cubiculum obtinente: Henricum autem Glareanum Parisiis
Lovanium venisse, atque ab Erasmo in collegium vocatum fuisse ad prandium:
quò cùm venisset, quid novi adferret interrogatum, dixisse (quod in itinere
commentus erat, quòd sciret Erasmum plus satis rerum novarum studiosum, ac
mirè credulum) quosdam in Græciâ natos Lutetiam venisse, viros ad miraculum
doctos; qui longè aliam Græci sermonis pronunciationem usurparent, quàm quæ
vulgò in hisce partibus recepta esset. Eos nempe sonare pro B vita, BETA:
pro H ita, ETA: pro ai æ, AI: pro OI I, OI: & sic in cæteris. Quo audito,
Erasmum paulò pòst conscripsisse Dialogum de rectâ Latini Græcique sermonis
pronunciatione, ut videretur hujus rei ipse inventor, & obtulisse Petro
Alostensi, typographo, imprimendum: qui cùm, fortè aliis occupatus,
renueret; aut certè se tam citò excudere, quàm ipse volebat, non posse
diceret; misisse libellum Basileam ad Frobenium, a quo mox impressus in
lucem prodiit. Verùm Erasmum, cognitâ fraude, nunquam eâ pronunciandi
ratione postea usum; nec amicis, quibuscum familiariter vivebat, ut eam
observarent, præcepisse. In ejus rei fidem exhibuit M. Rutgerus ipsius
Erasmi manuscriptam in gratiam Damiani à Goes Hispani pronunciationis
formulam (cujus exemplar adhuc apud me est) in nullo diversam ab eâ, quâ
passim docti & indocti in hac linguâ utuntur'. Henricus Coracopetræus
Cuccensis. Neomagi. CI I LXIX. pridie Simonis & Iudæ."
6 This holds true also of the theorists. Cf., for example, the precepts of
German theorists (e.g. F. Blass, E. Schwyzer) with those of American and
British theorists (e.g. E. H. Sturtevant, W. S. Allen).
7 E. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1967)
5.
8 Of the Greeks, who brought the Greek letters -and hence the historical
pronunciation of Greek- to the West both before and after the fall of
Constantinople, the following specimen may be given: The Hesychian monk
Barlaam the Calabrian (1290-1348) having studied at Constantinople
University (founded in A.D. 1045) was one of the first Greeks to spread the
knowledge of Greek in Italy. Among his pupils were Petrarch and possibly
Boccacio; Leontios Pilatos became professor of Greek at Florence University
in 1360. His translation of Homer was used by Petrarch and Boccacio in their
educational reform; Manuel Chrysoloras was professor of Greek at Florence
University (1396-1399); he lectured also in Pavia, Milan and Rome; Georgios
Gemistos Plethon (1360-1452), an observer at the Synod of Ferrara-Florence
(1438-1439), lectured during that period to the learned of Italy on Plato,
and his superiority to Aristotle, introducing his audience to the
differences between the two philosophers. The impression he made was such as
to lead the Medici to found the Platonic Academy of Florence (1459);
Archbishop Bessarion founded with the help of Pope Nicolas V an Academy for
Greek philosophy in Rome; Ioannes Argyropoulos was professor of Greek at
Florence 1456-1470, where one of his pupils was Politian; he was invited by
Hungarian king Matthias I Corvinus to introduce Greek learning in Hungary;
Demetrios Chalkokondylis (1423-1511) taught in Padua, then in Florence for
16 years, as well as in Milan at the invitation of Ludovico Sforza, at whose
court at this time resided also Leonardo de Vinci and Bramante; Constantinos
Lascaris taught Greek in Milan as well as at the monastery of San Salvatore
(1468-1501), where he succeeded another Greek, Andronikos Galesiotis;
Andronikos Kallistos taught in Padua, Bologna, Rome, Florence (1471-1475),
and presumably in London, where he died; Georgios Hermonymos was the first
Greek to teach at the Sorbonne: among his pupils were German Joh. Reuchlin,
Venetian Ermolao Barbaro, Dutchman Desiderius Erasmus, and Frenchman
Guillaume Budé; Janos Lascaris (1445-1535) became Librarian of Florence,
then succeeded D. Chalkokondylis as professor. At his recommendation Pope
Leo X founded the Greek Gymnasium of Rome in 1514; Markos Mousouros together
with Aldus Manutius published Greek classics in Venice; he taught in Padua:
among his pupils were Frenchman Germain de Brie, German Johan Konon,
Desiderius Erasmus, French Ambassador Jean de Pin, Hungarian humanist Janus
Vertessy, and Galenius from Prague. He was the first to publish the complete
works of Plato; together with Battista Egnazzio he founded the famous
Marcian Library of Venice; Franciscus Portos (1511-1581) taught in Venice
and Geneva; Aimilios Portos (1550-1610), son of the former, taught in
Geneva, Lausanne, Heidelberg, and other German cities; Leon Allatios
(1586-1669) was Librarian of Vatican and edited many Fathers and other
writers, such as Chrysostom and Photius.
9 To whom, among others, I am greatly indebted; see his An Historical Greek
Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect As Written and Spoken From Classical
Antiquity Down to the Present Time (London: MacMillan & Co., 1897) Preface
viii.
10 Their task was made relatively easy on the one hand by the fall of the
Byzantine Empire, which could no longer hinder this development, as well as
the waning presence of Greek intellectuals in the West, and on the other by
their ignorance of the inscriptions, which contradicted their conclusions.
As it turned out, the pronunciation of Greek was determined almost solely
with the pronunciation of Latin as the arbiter.
11 For example, a Greek scholar wrote a book of 752 pages (Q.
Papadhmhtrako&poulou, Ba&sanoj tw~n peri\ th=j e9llhnikh=j
profora~j )Erasmikw~n a)podei/cewn, )En )Aqh/naij, 1889) setting forth the
evidence available then in vindication of the historical Greek pronunciation
and at the same time showing the untenability of the arguments of Blass as
well as other advocates of Erasmianism.
12 Regrettably the argumentation sometimes exceeded scientific propriety. F.
Blass, for example, impelled by the nineteenth century Romantic view of
ancient Greece, according to which all subsequent development was a
retrogression (cf. his evaluative comment that the Italians are not "die
reine Nachkommen der alten Römer", 1st ed. p. 8) called the Modern Greeks as
well as the Byzantines "half-barbarians" ("Wohl sind die Neugriechen und
waren die Byzantiner micoba&rbaroi" [1st ed. p. 8]) and condemned Modern
Greek as barbarous, corrupt and worthless (despite the fact that the three
editions of his book give ample evidence that he was not acquainted with
Modern Greek phonology), cf. e.g. 1st ed. p.7: "Die Sprache eines Homer oder
Platon nach derjenigen der Syrer des dritten Jahrhunderts oder der
verkommenen Byzantiner umzuwandeln, wäre die reine Barbarei"; p. 8:
"Folglich ist die historische Grundlage [i.e. the Modern Greek
pronunciation], welche die Reuchlinianer [who pronounced Greek in the Greek
way] im Gegensatz zu uns [i.e. Erasmians] für sich in Anspruch nehmen, eine
gänzlich nichtige und wertlose" (italics mine), and considered that the
German pronunciation of Greek was practically identical with the true and
genuine pronunciation not only of Homer, but also of the entire period
during which the Greek language flourished - a strange position in view of
the enormous epigraphical evidence to the effect that the pronunciation was
undergoing deep changes in vth and ivth c. B.C.: "Unsere Aussprache ist in
allen andern Punkten des Vokalismus fest genug begründet als die wenigstens
annähernd wahre und echte nicht etwa nur der homerischen Zeit, sondern der
gesammten Blütezeit der griechischen Nation. ¼ " (italics mine). He ended
both the 2nd and 3rd editions of his work by a remarkable sentence
expressing arrogance and at the same time admission to have perverted
("Verhunzung") the pronunciation of Greek: "¼ die wirkliche Sprache aber mag
eher noch mannigfaltiger gewesen sein, und es ist hiernach wohl vollends
klar, welche ungeheuren Schwierigkeiten die griechische Aussprache für den
Ausländer dargeboten haben muss. Wir haben es leichter, da uns niemand
kontrolieren kann, und wenn es sich nicht schickt, ganz gleichgültig gegen
eine bessere oder schlechtere Aussprache zu sein, so wollen wir auch
andererseits nicht in pedantischer Weise uns so geberden, als ob eines Tages
die alten Hellenen auferstehen und uns über die Verhunzung ihrer schönen
Sprache zur Rechenschaft ziehen könnten" ! (italics mine).
13 The following statement is based chiefly on the evidence of the
Inscriptiones Graecae, particularly on the volumes of the Corpus
Inscriptionum Atticarum (CIA, the most relevant material for Athenian
pronunciation), the Inscriptiones Graecae Antiquissimae (IGA), the
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), and the Corpus Inscriptionum
Graecarum (CIG). Of these I have read most B.C. inscriptions in the four
folio volumes of CIA, all of the inscriptions in IGA, all the Attic
inscriptions in the 39 volumes of SEG and consulted the rest as well as
other publications. Relevant material is found also in other collections of
inscriptions, as well as in various collections of Egyptian Papyri. This
material shows in a concise way the approximate pronunciation of the various
letters.
14 E.g. the ostraca against Megacles and Aristeides: megakles hippokratos
(for Megaklh=j 9Ippokra&touj) and arissteides lusimaxo (for )Aristei/dhj
Lusima&xou) 482 B.C., see 9Istori/a tou= 9Ellhnikou= 1Eqnouj, Vol.
II, )Aqh=nai 1971, p. 311, and CIA IV, 27, a 75, 445 B.C.: efesin enai
aqenaze es ten heliaian (= e1fesin ei]nai )Aqh/naze e0j th\n e9liai/an).
15 E.g. the names hippokratos, lusimaxo (= 9Ippokra&touj, Lusima&xou) in the
preceding note, and CIA I, 32, A 9, 435 B.C.: e bole autokrator esto (= h(
boulh\ au0tokra&twr e1stw) - note the absence of aspiration!
16 Among the earliest examples of C are: CIA I, 440, before 444 B.C.:
cummaxoj, canqiaj; CIA I, 299, before 444 B.C.: xariceno (= Xarice/nou).
17 CIA IV, b,1, a,1, 570-560 B.C.: edoxsen tei bolei kai toi demoi (=
e1docen th|= boulh|= kai\ tw|~ dh/mw|). In citing the inscriptions ordinary
lower case letters will be used, capitals will be reserved for special
emphasis.
18 Among the earliest examples of Y, are: CIA I, 13,4, before 444 B.C.:
ye/fism[a] (= yh/fisma) and ibid. line 7: a)na&grayan.
19 SEG XXV, 59, 520 B.C.: 1Ofsioj (= 1Oyioj) CIA I, 32, A, 4, 435 B.C.:
e0fse/fisto (= e0yh/fisto).
20 Among the earliest examples of h as a letter before its official adoption
in 403 B.C., are: strathgou/j (CIA IV, 27, a, 77, 445 B.C.); a!rrhtoi (CIA
I, 23, a,2, before 444 B.C.); a)ne/qhken (CIA I, 398, 2, before 444
B.C.); )Aristokra&thj ¼ a)ne/qhken nikh/saj (CIA I, 422, 1, 4, before 444
B.C.).
21 As late as c. 340 B.C. the letters reckoned as vowels are five: a, e, i,
o, u, cf. CIA IV, 4321, 3f.: to_ de\ pe/mpton (i.e the last) tw~n fwnhe/ntwn
U. This quite clearly excludes H and W from the list. These two letters are
excluded even in an Ionic ABC of the vth c. B.C.
22 Thus, ei0mi occurs side by side with the infinitive meledai/nen (=
meledai/nein) (CIG I, 8, B, c. 570 B.C.).
23 Cf. e.g. CIA IV, 27, a 75, 445 B.C.: e1fesin ei]nai a)qe/naze e0j te\n
heliai/an (= e1fesin ei]nai )Aqh/naze e0j th\n e9liai/an); e1doxse te=i
bole=i kai\ to=i de/moi (IGA III, 3, 8, 458 B.C.; CIA I, 32, 435 B.C.) for
e1doce th|= boulh|= kai\ tw|~ dh/mw|); e1doxsen to=i de/moi (IGA I2, 1,1
(446 B.C.); SEG I, 4 (418 B.C.) stro/mata (for strw&mata).
24 O occurs as OU in SEG XII, 100 (377/6 B.C.) Monixiw~noj ¼ i0stame/no (no
aspiration!); SEG XII, 87,19 (336 B.C.) boleu/hi, cf. line 25:
bouleuth/rion.
25 W occurs instead of O (= ou) a few times, e.g. CIA I, 358, before 444
B.C.: leukolofi/dw (= Leukolofi/dou) and CIA I, 93, a,8, c. 420 B.C.: qeW (=
qeou=).
26 The sign H continued for a time to be used as an aspiration mark, though
its frequent absence in the same word implies that aspiration was not
observed. See horos (= o3roj) (CIA II, 1063; 1066; 1074; 1075, all early
ivth c. B.C.) and oros (= o3roj) (CIA II, 1064; 1069; 1070; 1071; 1072;
1073; 1076; 1079; 1080; 1081; 1082; 1085;1086; 1087; 1088; 1089; 1090; 1091;
1092; 1094; etc. all early ivth c. B.C.). CIA IV 54 b (363 B.C.) contains
about forty words that should have received aspiration, of which not one is
aspirated. This may, however, be due to the practice after Eucleides. See
the discussion under "Breathings", below.
27 See the data bank Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Delphi FD III:2 137, 2
e0[ri]bro&mouou, 3 Foi=oibon, 8 and 21 mantei=eion, 11 bwmoi=oisin, 12
o9mou=ou, 14 aei0o&loioij, 20 qnatoi=oij, 21 ei[eilej, e0frou/ourei, 138,15
a)dei=eian, 22 e1xeieij).
28 Phonetically the various vowel-sounds are formed in the front (i ),
middle (a, e), and back (o, u) of the mouth cavity. As for the position of
the lips, they are almost closed when sounding i and u, half open for e and
o, and open for a. Between these fixed points: front, middle, back, and
closed, half open, and open, there is an infinite scale of possibilities in
pronouncing i, e, a, o and u -sounds, as is witnessed by the great variety
of e.g. English and Swedish vowel-sounds. Thus, the transition, for example,
of EI, H, U, UI, OI to I cannot have been sudden and complete in each case,
but gradual, presumably passing through intermediary stages. Because of the
lack of intermediary letters which could register the phonetic progress of
each letter-sound in its inexorable, forward drive to the sound of I, we can
no longer trace and pinpoint the stages of this process to a particular date
in history. The mute evidence of the inscriptions and papyri can only tell
us that H, U, etc. are confused with I, but not whether in a particular case
they were sounded completely identically or only similarly with I. However,
the similarity must have been so great as to exclude other possilities of
confusion. Hence, we are justified in speaking of e.g. H, U, UI, EI, OI as
taking on the sound of I, and these confusions begin in the vth c. B.C. (in
some cases even earlier). When this process of levelling was completed for
the entire Greek-speaking world -from Spain to India- is impossible to say.
Presumably it was in the early Christian centuries. But this issue is
irrelevant to the present quest, which is concerned with Athenian
pronunciation in B.C. times and its relation to Modern Greek.
29 Cf. W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca. A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical
Greek, Cambridge 1968. The same may be said of E. H. Sturtevant, The
Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, Philadelphia 19402.
30 The cries of animals, often adduced by Erasmians, are not a safe guide to
the pronunciation of Greek and should not be brought into the discussion
unless we are of the opinion that frogs actually cry brekekeke\c koa\c koa&c
(Aristophanes, Ranae, 210) and French oxen bellow mu (pronounce mü <
mugir ). How self-defeating this line of argument is can be readily seen
from a comparison of the representation of such animal sounds in various
European languages. According to Aristophanes (Vespae 903) the dog's howling
is au] au]. In Mod. Greek it is a)b a)b or more often gau=, gau= or ga&b
ga&b (and the verb is gaugi/zw). In German, however, it is wau wau, while in
Swedish it becomes vov vov (pronounce: voov voov). Surely dogs make the same
sound in all countries. Similarly the cat cries in Greek nia&ou, but in
German miau, while Shakespeare (1 Henry IV, 3,1) represents it as crying
mew. The argument does not fare any better by associating w)ru/omai with the
roaring of lions or wolves. This implies that Cratinus's bh= bh= (see R.
Kassel - C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berolini et Novi Eboraci: De
Gruyter 1983-, Vol. IV) can prove neither the pronunciation of b nor that of
h.
31 Thus, Sturtevant, for example, hypothesizes on evidence he draws from
other Indo-european languages apparently under the supposition that Greek
must have had the same phonology. He largely disregards the evidence of the
inscriptions, and makes a number of unproved assumptions. All his reasoning,
however, is refuted by the concrete evidence of the inscriptions which make
his book hopelessly mistaken. His conclusions regarding the change of sounds
for each letter are most of the time wrong by several centuries.
32 For example, Allen, Vox Graeca, p. 19 states that to_n pate/ra is
pronounced in Modern Greek as tombatéra. The normal modern Greek
pronunciation is ton patéra. However, in fast and careless speech the sound
of n before that of p is often changed to m and the sound becomes something
between tom patéra and to mpatéra. In Greek generally m+p are used to render
English, German, etc. b. In our case the 'b'-sound pends between b and p.
This is true of Greek generally and especially of Southern Greece, including
Athens. In Northern Greece, however, especially among populations
originating in Pontus, the m+p tends to assume a thicker, rougher b-sound.
But even so I have yet to hear a Greek say tombatéra. In any case, this
pronunciation is not representative. On p. 67 Allen states that Modern Greek
represents the bleating of lambs by mee. Actually the form used in Greece is
mpe/, or, to reproduce more faithfully the sound, it becomes mpe/eee. I give
these as examples illustrating the elusiveness of sound-values for
non-natives and of the impossibility of rendering them accurately in
English, German, etc.
33 For a fairly insightful evaluation of the relation of Modern Greek to
ancient Greek by a non-Greek, see R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek,
Cambridge 19832 rp. 1989.
34 See e.g.: Pisi/s[t]ratoj (Hesperia Suppl. 8,405, viith c.-550 B.C.) for
Peisi/stratoj; )A[m]ini/aj (B. Graef-E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der
Akropolis zu Athen, I-II, Berlin 1925-33, Vol. II, 1324, early vith c. B.C.)
for )Ameini/aj; Xi/rwn (SEG XXXV, 37, 580-70 B.C.) for Xei/rwn; Kliti/aj
(J.C. Hoppin, A Handbook of Attic-Red-figured Vases, I-II, Cambridge 1919,
150,2, c. 570 B.C.) for Kleiti/aj; Klitome/nej (J. D. Beazley, Attic
Black-figured Vase-painters, Oxford, 1956, 167, 550-25 B.C.) for
Kleitome/nej; Kli/tarxoj (Beazley, Attic Black-figured Vase-painters, 174,1,
550-25 B.C.) for Klei/tarxoj; Qa&lia (Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum :
Deutschland, 21, pl. 56, 4, 9-10, c. 510 B.C.) for Qa&leia; vith cent. B.C.:
Poteida&n Poteda&n Potida&n, IGA 20: 2, 6-9, 12, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24-32; 68,
74-84, 110-114; )Afitre/tan, )Afitri/ta, )Anfitri/ta IGA 20, 2, 3, 71-73,
112, 114; )Anfitri/te SEG XXXV, 37, 580-70 B.C.; Tei/marxoj (IGA 372, 359)
instead of Ti/marxoj; cf. Homer, Iliad, II, 506 and Odyssey, VI, 266
Posidh/i+on derived from Poseidw&n (SEG XXXV, 37, 580-70 B.C.); also the
month Posidh/i+w&n (Anacreon Lyr. 6, 540 B.C.), later Posidew&n or
Poseidew&n; Xi/rwn (CIG IV, 8185 d) instead of Xei/rwn. vth cent. B.C.:
xeili/[w]n (IGA 381 c 12, b 15; d 12) instead of xili/wn; Diotei/mou
( )Aqh/naion E¢ , 419, 10, 1) instead of Dio&timoj (CIA 179 and 362 both vth
c. B.C.; ib. 433, 460 B.C.; IGA 362, vth c. B.C.); a)po&ktinen (CIA I, 9,
28) instead of a)po&kteinen; Stagiri=tai (CIA I, 230, 450 B.C.; 231, 449
B.C.; 233, 447, B.C.) instead of Stageiri=tai); again Stagiri=tai (CIA I,
234, 447 B.C.; 339, 441 B.C.); SEG V, 35, i, 15 (420/17 B.C.); Xalkia~tai
(SEG V, 6,i,29, 449/8 B.C.; CIA I, 229, 451 B.C.; 263, vth c. B.C.) instead
of Xalkeia~tai (230, 450 B.C.; 235, 445 B.C.; 237, 443 B.C.; 239, 439 B.C.;
259, 427 B.C.; 261, 427 B.C.) or Xalkea~tai (256, 428 B.C.); )Epafro&deitoj
(CIA II, 482, 108, 392 B.C.) instead of )Epafro&ditoj; )Afrodei/sioj (CIA II
482, 114) and )Afrodi/sioj (in ib. line 110, 392 B.C.); dieri/smata (CIA II,
678 b, 47, 378-367 B.C.) along with dierei/smata (CIA II, 651, 4, same
date); ivth c. B.C. Milixi/w| along with Meilixi/w| (Bulletin de Corr. Hell.
VII, 507; 509); o0ri/xalkoj (CIA II, 689) for o0rei/xalkoj (CIA II, 751 b
21; 766, 24 f.); a!rxi (SEG XXIX, 220, 350 B.C.) for a!rxei?; e1xij (SEG
XXX, 175, 350-300 B.C.) for e1xeij; Posidew&n (CIA II, 191, b,5, 320/19
B.C.; SEG XXV, 137, ivth c. B.C., also SEG XXVIII, 60,7, 270/69
B.C.); )Aristi/dou (Bull. de Corr. Hell. XII, 254, 14, 332 B.C.) instead
of )Aristei/dou; Fidi/aj (CIA III, Defixionum tabellae 29, 4 and 11,IV-iii
c. B.C.) for Feidi/aj; e0llei/pi (CIA I, 835, 66, 332 B.C.) side by side
with e0llei/pei; Dini/aj (SEG XXV, 186, 266/5 B.C.) for Deini/aj (SEG XXXVI,
220, 320 or 290-280 B.C.); a)pole/liptai ei0ko&noj ( )Aqh/naion H¢ v, 294f.
iiird c. B.C.) for a)pole/leiptai ei0ko&noj; Peisi/dhj (IG II2 10080, ivth
c. B.C.) and Pisi/dhj (IG II2 10081, iii-iind c. B.C.).
For Euboea see e.g. IGA 372 (vi-vth c. B.C.?): 29, 30,
31: )Aristokli/dhj along with 28: )Aristoklei/dhj; 72: Lewkrati/dej; 115
Eu0qunei/dhj and 117: Eu0ceini/dhj; 274, 281: Neoklei/dhj and 275:
Neokli/dhj; 312: Pi/riqouj (for Pei/riqoj) 359: Tei/marxoj and 365:
Ti/marxoj; 364: Timarxi/dhj.
For Boeotia the following examples may be cited, all vth c. B.C. or
earlier: IGA 223: eu0te/lia (for eu0te/leia); 259: Kalligi/ton (for
Kalligei/twn); 300: [ )Ar]istogi/ton (for )Aristogei/twn); Xaro&klia (for
Xaro&kleia); Au0tokra&tia side by side with correct Au0toktra&teia (245).
35 vth cent. B.C.: Mei/lixoj, Mh/lixoj Mi/lixoj (P. Kretschmer, Die
griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht, Gütersloh 1894,
133f, 233); ]Irij taxei=a understood as Trih/rhj taxei=a, Aristophanes,
Aves, 1204 (hence the question: Pa&raloj h2 Salamini/a - the two fast State
ships of Athens. See further a)nateqei/kasi (CIA II, 470, 71 and 80, 69-62
B.C.) along with a)nateqhko&twn (CIA II, 403, 38, iiird c. B.C.)
a)nate/qhken (CIA II, 835, 35 and 45, (line 35 a)ne/qhken), 320-317 B.C.)
and teqhko&taj (CIA II, 1053, 7, ist c. B.C.); kaqh=lkon (CIA II, 470, 20,
ist c. B.C.) for kaqei=lkon.
36 See e.g. 600-550 B.C.: Sukeeu=sin and Sigeneu=sin (IGA 492); Dio&nsioj
(Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters, p. 176, 2, 550-525 B.C.) for
Dio&nusoj (writing the letters in wrong order is a frequent phenomenon in
inscriptions); further, Lisikle=j (G. M. A. Richter-L. Hall, Red-figured
Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I-II, New Haven, 1936,
19,4, 510 B.C.) for Lusiklh=j; Hipotele (Beazley, Attic Black-figured
Vase-painters, p. 668, vi-vth B.C.) for HUpotele; Hipoki/menoj (Beazley,
Attic Black-figured Vase-painters, p. 668, vi-vth c. B.C.) for
Hupokei/menoj; Tu/rinqi (Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Great Britain, 4, III,
Ic pl. 8,2 a-b, vi-vth c. B.C.) for Ti/runqi; da&krion (P. Kretschmer, Die
griechischen Vaseninschriften, 119,97, vi-vth c. B.C.) for da&kruon;
Sigeieu=sin and Sigeiõn (SEG X, 13, 451/50 B.C.). Pi/qij (SEG XXXII, 32, c.
500 B.C.) for Pu=q-.; Dionisige/nej (Richter-Hall, p. 72,52, 490-480 B.C.)
for Dionusige/nhj. vth cent. B.C.: Dionisige/nhj for Dionusige/nhj; Krishi/j
for Krushi/j; Kriseu/j for Kruseu/j; Dioni/sia for Dionu/sia; Dio&nisoj
instead of Dio&nusoj and Tu/rinqi instead of Ti/runqi (P. Kretschmer,
Vaseninschriften, 119, and 64, 90.); )Aristoni/mo (Hesperia XIX, 383, 12,2;
13 and 16,2, 483/2 B.C.) for )Aristonu/mo; Qrasime/d[o]n (SEG XVI, 23,11,
465/4 B.C.) for Qrasume/don; Lisi/stratoj (SEG XVI, 23, 32, 465/4 B.C.) for
Lusi/stratoj; Kinduh=j (CIA I, 37, 425 B.C.; 233, 447 B.C., 240, 440 B.C.)
side by side with Kunduh=j (CIA I, 230, 450 B.C.); SEG III, 131 (400 B.C.)
subu/nh instead of sibu/nh, subh/nh or subi/nh; h3musu (CIA II, 17, a, 45,
378 B.C.; 794, d, 58, 356 B.C.; etc. SEG XXI, 527, 30, 363/2 B.C.) and
h3musun (CIA II, 1055, 37, 345 B.C.) instead of h3misu (CIA IV, 3, a, 8, 444
B.C.); )Amfiktu/onej ( )Amfiktuoniko&n SEG XXV, 39, 409/8 B.C.) side by side
with )Amfikti/onej (CIA II, 54, 374 B.C.); Eu0qi/dikoj (SEG XIX, 149 A col.
I, 19, 336/5 B.C.) for Eu0qu/dikoj (CIA I, 437, vth c. B.C.); Si/billa (CIA
II, 835, 54, 320 B.C.) for Si/bulla; 9Usmh/na (Kretschmer, Vasensinschr. 31,
ivth c. B.C.) for )Ismh/na; Ble/piroj (CIA III, Defix. tab. 7, iv-iiith c.
B.C.) for Ble/puroj; Sati/raj (CIA III, Defix. tab. 39, line 12, iv-iiith c.
B.C.) and Sa&tura (line 9); Mu/lhton (SEG XXXII, 318, 300-250 B.C.) for
Mi/lhton; Eu0tixi/j (CIA II, 2935, iiird c. B.C.), for Eu0tuxi/j; Mounuxiw&n
(CIA II, 247, 6, 306 B.C.) for Mounixi/a (-iw&n) (CIA I, 215, 9, 434-403
B.C.; CIA II, 600, 30, 300 B.C.); Xoi/ruloj for Xoi/riloj (Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique, Athens, 1890, 389, 279 B.C.); h3musu for h3misu
(230 B.C.); kulu/xnion Kunqukw|~ for kuli/xnion Kunqikw|~ (180 B.C.); h3musu
(Greek Pap. in Brit. Mus. 22, 6-10; 24,5; 25, 15-7; iind c. B.C.) for
h3misu, but h3misu in 46, 24; a)rxeipere/thn (Greek Pap. in Brit. Mus. 41,
121, 158-7 B.C.) along with a)rxiupere/thn (at 97); bi/bloj, bibli/on (CIA
II, add. 1, b, 25, 403 B.C.) and bubli/a, bu/bloj, bu/blioqh/kh (CIA II,
468, 25 (early Ist c. B.C.; 478, d,1, 68-48 B.C.); Munu/kioj
( )Efhmeri/j )Arxaiologikh/ III, 1884, 100, 73 B.C.) but Minu/kioj (Bulletin
de Corr. Hell. VIII, 154, 45 A.D.).
37 E.g. Khqh/r (SEG XVI, 123,28, 350 B.C.) for Kuqh/r.
38 E.g. Callias's word-play ke/rdoj ai0sxu/nhj a!meinon: e3lke moixo_n ei0j
muxo&n (mid. vth c. B.C.). See further Koi/bwn (IG II2 1635, 81, 374/3 B.C.)
for Ku/bwn; Poiqikou= (IG II2 2407, 5, 350 B.C.) for Puqikou=; Poi/tioj
instead of Pu/tioj (Dethier, Sitzungsberichte der Academie zu Wien, 1859,
Vol. 30, p. 431, iiird cent. B.C.); foi/lopij instead of fu/lopij (iind
cent. B.C., see Delti/on th=j )Esti/aj, 591, 24 Apr. 1888, p.2); a)nu/gete
instead of a)noi/gete, Louvre Papyrus 50, 7 (160 B.C.). The exchange becomes
very frequent after the Ist c. A.D.
39 E.g. Peiqago&ra (SEG XXI, 126, 9, 430 B.C.) for Puqago&raj.
40 Also L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, Vol. I, Berlin 1980,
p. 261 and 323, conceeds that u had in classical times become = y. This book
came to hand at the completion of this study. Unfortunately Threatte (like
his predecessor, K. Meisterhans (rev. by E. Schwyzer) Grammatik der
Attischen Inschriften, Berlin 1900) generally explains the earlier evidence
of the Attic inscriptions orthographically while the later evidence
phonetically. No valid reasons for this inconsistency are given.
41 Traces of it appear already in Homer, cf. the optatives in Odyssey, XX,
286 du/h instead of dui/h; XIX, 248 dainu/ato instead of dainui/ato; and
Iliad, XV, 99 dai/nutai instead of dai/nuitai.
42 The earliest example detected so far is Hile/qua (SEG XXXV, 37, 580-70
B.C.) for 9Ile/quia. See also a)pelhluqu/aj (CIA I, 273, vth c. B.C.)
instead of a)pelhluqui/aj; 9Ilei/qua (CIG 7403) instead of Ei0lei/quia (CIG
7402); kateagu=a (CIA II, 678 B, 65, 378-366 B.C.) instead of kateagui=a;
pareilhfua (CIA II, 811 c, 150, 326 B.C.) instead of
pareilhfui=a; )Wreiqui/a| (CIA II, 789, 64, 373 B.C.; 793 d, 7, 357 B.C.)
instead of )Wreiqui/a|; e0kpepleu[k]uw~n (CIA II, 793 a, 7f., 357 B.C.) for
e0kpepleukuiw~n; kwdu/aj (CIA II, 701, 1, 68, 70, 344 B.C.) for kwdui/aj;
o0rgua~j (CIA II add. 834, b, I, 9, 54, 329 B.C.) for o0rguia~j.
43 An earlier example is Mi=rai (SEG XXXV, 37, 580-70 B.C.) for Moi=rai. See
further perialifh/n (CIA II, add. 834, b, I, 61 = )Efhm. )Arx. 1883-4 p.
109, 329 B.C.) instead of perialoifh/n; similarly SEG XIX, 58, vs. 85 (307/6
B.C.) a)lifh/n and SEG III, 147 (289/8 B.C.) th\n a)lifh/n (for a)loifh/n),
and especially from the iind century B.C. on (e.g. sunhkolouqhko&toi instead
of sunhkolouqhko&ti, F. G. Kenyon, Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British
Museum, p. 9, 13-14).
44 Cf. duei=n ( )Ef. )Arx. 1883-4 p. 125, line 73) along with the correct
duoi=n (p. 119, line 34, and CIA 834 b II, 42 and 71, and 834 c 73, 329
B.C.). It is interesting to note that duei=n occurs in CIA II, 167, 78, 307
B.C.; 281, 5 (Macedonian times); 1138, 7, 302 B.C.; 281, 5, c., 300 B.C.;
380, 27, 229 B.C.; 591, 4, before 200 B.C.; SEG XXI, 525,42, 282/1 B.C. and
SEG XIX, 80, 25 (date?), while duoi=n occurs always in the older
inscriptions, e.g. CIA I, 273, f 31, 420-416 B.C.; 312, 409 B.C.; 324, 408
B.C., though also later, e.g. SEG XXV, 65, 336/4 B.C. and SEG XXXIX, 175
Face A col. II,58, 300/299 B.C. See also CIA II, 168 (late ivth c. B.C.)
Falhrei= (for Falhroi=); Periqei/dhj (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1890. p. 62, late
ivth c. B.C.) for Periqoi/dhj; CIA II, 476, 12f., 101 B.C. toi=j loipei=j
for toi=j loipoi=j. SEG XIX, 129, 2, 352/1 B.C. e0n tw~i deute/rwi toi/xwi
(also lines 6, and 17) may be a confusion for tei/xwi.
45 So far detected in papyri, e.g. Louvre Pap. 55, 11-15 (168 B.C.): h1nou
instead of oi1nou (3 times); Greek Papyri in Br. Museum, p. 9, 13-14 (162
B.C.): sunakolouqhko&toi soi (for -ko&ti soi); dioi/khsan (165-158 B.C.).
46 As examples may serve the following: Dimosqe/nij (SEG XIX, 37 vth c.
B.C.) instead of Dhmosqe/nhj; )Aqina~ (SEG XIX, 37, vth c. B.C.)
for )Aqhna~; 1Arij (SEG XIX, 37, vth c. B.C.) for 1Arhj; Dimosqe/nij (SEG
XIX, 37, vth c. B.C.) for Dhmosqe/nhj; Kamhrh=j (CIA I, 228, 12, 452 B.C.)
instead of Kamirh=j (CIA I, 233, 447 B.C.; 237,11, 443 B.C.; 239, 52, 441
B.C.; 240, 75, 440 B.C.); Sikinh=tai (CIA I, 37, 79, 425 B.C.) instead of
Sikini=tai; Eu1fiboj (Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften, 138, vth c. B.C.) for
Eu1fhboj; Pidash=j (CIA I, 37, 425 B.C.) instead of Phdash=j (CIA I, 233,
447 B.C.); 9Hppokra&thj (IGA 26, 425 B.C.) for 9Ippokra&thj (CIA I, 273, b
3, 426 B.C.); subh/nh (CIA I, 170, 19, 422-419 B.C.) instead of subi/nh;
also 172, 18 (420 B.C.); again Kamhrh=j (CIA I, 263, 9, 420 B.C.) and
Kamirh=j (CIA I, 37, 425 B.C.; 256, 17, 430 B.C.); ti/nde instead of th=nde
and síma instead of sh=ma (IGA 382, 3-4, ivth c. B.C. or earlier);
Sikinh=tai (CIA I, 37 B, 31, 425 B.C.; II, 17 b, 31, 378 B.C.) for
Sikini=tai; Melhsa&ndrou (CIA II, 801, 14, c. 350 B.C.) instead of
Melisa&ndrou; Quai/ni (CIA II, 754, 13; 755, 7, 344 B.C.) instead of
Quai/nh; qermasti/n (CIA II, 754, 29, mid-ivth c. B.C., cf. 755, 21; 756, 8)
instead of qermasth/n; u3lin (CIA II, 1059, 9, 321 B.C.) instead of u3lhn;
a(mach/poda (CIA II, add. 834, c, 42, 329 B.C.) instead of a(maci/poda;
geish/pouj (CIA II, 167, 51, c. 307 B.C.) instead of geisi/pouj;
geishpo&disma (SEG XIX, 58, vs. 63, 307/6 B.C.) and again geishpo&disma (CIA
II, 167, 63 and 114, 305 B.C.) instead of geisipo&disma; also geish/pouj for
geisi/pouj (iiird c. B.C.); a)reti=j (CIA II, 258, 16, 304 B.C.) instead of
a)reth=j; th/qh (CIA II, 836, c-k, 43 iiird c. B.C.) instead of ti/tqh (?);
9Hraklew&tij (CIA II, 2936, iiird c. B.C.) for 9Hraklew&thj; )Epikrath/j
(CIA II, 3222, iiird c. B.C.) for )Epikrati/j; Dimi/trioj (Bull. de Corr.
Hell., V, 168, no. 33, iiird c. B.C.) for Dhmh/trioj; Dhw&na (C. Carapanos,
Dodone et ses ruines, Pl. XXXVI, no. 2 and 5, iiird c. B.C.) instead of
Diw&na; oikh/aj (CIG 1690, 21, iiird c. B.C.) instead of oi0ki/aj. The
following readings are all dated before Roman times: )Arimni/stei instead
of )Arimnh/sth; )Hphrw~tij xristh/ instead of )Hpeirw~tij or )Hpirw~tij
xrhsth/; dhangei=lai (Dittenberger, Sylloge, 195,7) instead of diangei=lai;
and i0rw&wn (Ross, Inscr. græc. ined. Fasc. III, p. 15, no. 264) instead of
h(rw&wn. In Egyptian papyri didaskallh/w| (Louvre Pap. 51, 10, 160 B.C.)
instead of didaskali/w|, and often in these papyri. See also SEG XIX, 124, 2
(152/1 B.C.) pe/mptei instead of pe/mpth|. Further: tì (Louvre Pap. 15 a,
15, 120 B.C.) for th\n [mi/an]; Au0rili/aj side by side with Aurh/lioj
(Mittheilungen des Arch. Instituts, Berlin, 1876, XIV, 114, 72, 3-6, 120
B.C.) for Au0rhli/a; yi/fisma (Mittheilungen, 110, 66, 120 B.C.) for
yh/fisma; fhlw&ta (Mittheilungen, 105, 51, 120 B.C.) for filw&ta. An example
from Selinous, Sicily is: )Aristofa&nioj and )Aristofa&nhoj (SEG XXVI, 1113,
late vith c. B.C.);
47 To the examples cited under EI, add e.g. th|= boulei= (CIA II, 38, 7,
before 376 B.C.) instead of th|= boulh|=; xalkoqh/kei (CIA II, 61; 7,13,
357-353 B.C.) instead of xalkoqh/kh|; a)gaqh|= tu/xei (CIA II, 186, 26, 322
B.C.) instead of a)gaqh|= tu/xh|; afei=ke (CIA II, 811, c, 119) (323 B.C.)
instead of a)fh=ke); Ai0nh/ou (CIA II, 1049 A 55, 120 B.C.) for Ai0nei/ou;
cf. also Ai0ne/aj (CIA IV, b, 34, c,2, c. 434 B.C.) and Ai0neia~tai (CIA I,
259, 18, 428 B.C.), with Ai0nea~tai (CIA I, 234, 34, 446 B.C.); 1Arhoj
pa&goj (CIA III, 63, Augustan age; 452; 567, 39 B.C.; 587, 11 B.C. etc.)
instead of 1Areioj pa&goj; ei1thken (CIA II, 331, c. 280 B.C.) for h1thken.
From the ivth c. B.C. on EI stands for HI exceedingly often (e.g. SEG
XXVI,93, iiird c. B.C.). This may be due to the old, historical spelling,
however, since the new spelling with H occurs often in the same inscription
(E.g. SEG XXVIII, 139, 42 (356-340 B.C.): tau/tei para&keitai (also line
50); SEG XXVIII, 60 (270/69 B.C.): o0gdo&ei, ei0kostei=, tei= boulei=, kai\
tw~i dh/mwi (!), tei= )Arxige/tidi, tei= qew~i (!), tei= dhmok[rati/]ai,
a)gaqei= tu/xei, tei= dioikh/sei, tei= a)gora~i, sth/lei liqi/nei) and even
the same construction (e.g. CIA II, 38,2 (c. 380 B.C.): e0n sth/lhi liqi/nei
(also line 19); CIA II, 61, 7 (357-353 B.C.): e0n th=i xalkoqh/kei; CIA II,
114,4 (343/2 B.C.): e0n te=i boulh=i; SEG XXX, 69 (304/3 B.C.):
th=i )Agaqei= Tu/xei), it would seem that the interchange is due to
confusion on account of similar or identical pronunciation.
48 See e.g. Khqh/r (SEG XVI, 123,28, 350 B.C.) for Kuqh/r.
49 The reason for this is probably that on the one hand E had a "closed"
rather than open sound, and on the other that H had not yet been thinned
down to such a degree as to coincide completely with I; for a long time H
lay somewhere between E and I.
50 E.g. klhij (= klh|/j) (CIA II, 675, 44, c. 403 B.C.) and kleij (CIA II,
675, 47, c. 403 B.C.; 678, b, 64 (klej), 378-366 B.C.); lhistw~n (=
lh|stw~n) (Mitteilungen X, p. 57 line 11 346 B.C.) and leistw~n (CIA II,
804, B, b, 35, 344 B.C.); lhitorgiw~n (= lh|tourgiw~n) (CIA II, add. 554 b,
14, 386 B.C.) and leitou[r]gou=ntej CIA II, 316, 11, 282 B.C.; pentelhikou/j
( )Efhm. )Arx. 1886, p. 199ff. lines 79, 94, early iv c. B.C.; CIA II, 1054,
31, 33, 45, 347 B.C.) and pentele[i]kou/j ( )Efhm. )Arx. 1886, p. 201f.,
early ivth cent. B.C.); )Aristhi/dhj (CIA II, 814 a, B, 22; 864, 29, 400-350
B.C.) and )Aristei/dhj (CIA II, 814, a, A, 22f., 374 B.C.); )Arrinhi/do
(= )Ar)r(enhi/dou) (CIA II, 864, iii, 21, 400 B.C.) and )Arrenei/dei (CIA II
add. 834 b, II, 60, 329 B.C.); )Arxenhi/dou (CIA II, 793, b, 70, 357 B.C.)
and )ArxenEÍdou (CIA II, 811, d, 141, 323 B.C.).
51 For spurious ou (written as o) see e.g. misqónta (Mittheilungen. IX, p.
117, line 6, 570 B.C.); e0lqõsan (CIA IV, 27, a 13, 445 B.C.); u9porgoi=j
(CIA I, 301, 31, 378 B.C.) for u9pourgoi=j; [e0n]oikóntwn (CIA II, 17, 17,
378 B.C.) for e0noikou/ntwn; a)posto&lo (CIA II, 809, b 24, 325 B.C.) for
a)posto&lou; nausta&qmo (CIA II, 809, a 220, 325 B.C.) for nausta&qmou; and
for original ou: bõn (439 B.C.) for bou=n; again bõn (SEG I, 4, 418 B.C.);
tõto (e.g. CIA I, 128, 415 B.C.) instead of tou/tou.
52 O interchanges with W infrequently from the latter's appearance to the
end of the iiird c. B.C. (e.g. on Attic vases of v-iv c. B.C.: Di/filwj
(beside Di/filoj), Diw/nusoj (for Dio&nusoj), )Alki/maxwj (for )Alki/maxoj),
kalw/j (for kalo&j); Lewnti/j (CIA II, add, 17, 4, 378 B.C.; CIA II, 73, 11,
368 B.C.) along with Leonti/j (CIA II, 835, 62, 320-317 B.C.), cf. also
Leonti/noij (SEG X, 48, 433/2 B.C.); Sa&mwn (for Sa&mon) CIA II, 808 a, 130,
326 B.C.); lipón (for lipw&n) (CIA 2836, 6, c. 300 B.C.); mnhmei=wn
(Mitthei-lungen X. 363) for mnhmei=on; to_n e1ggonwn, paraggelle/tosan
( )Efhm. )Arx. 1884/85, p. 137, 11 and 14) (for e1ggonon, paraggelle/twsan);
Qeodwsi/a (CIA 3216) for Qeodosi/a; gnómh (CIA 3580) for gnw&mh; Lusi/wni
side by side with Lusi/oni ( )Efhm. )Arx. 1886, p. 158, 103; 264; 291);
au0twu= for au0tou= (CIA II, 578, 23, 344 B.C.). The instances of confusion
of these two letters in the papyri are times without number.
53 E.g. komoidi/a (for kwmw|di/a) (ivth cent. B.C.); tõi dh/moi (CIA II,
277, 7, c. 300 B.C.) for tw|~ dh/mw|; tõi i9erw|~ (300 B.C.) for tw|~
i9erw|~.
54 )Ari/sthxmoj (cf. IGA 300, vth c. B.C.?) (for )Ari/staixmoj, cf. IGA 397
and 398, vth c. B.C.?), )Hgosqeni/thj (for Ai0gosqeni/thj), Dhmh/netoj (for
Dhmai/netoj), 1Hxmwn (for Ai1xmwn), Fh/dimoj (for Fai/dimoj), xh=re (for
xai=re), tami/h (for tami/ai), ti/ptomh (for ti/ptomai), klh/w (for
klai/w) )Aqanh=oi (for )Aqanai/oi).
55 See e.g. )Elaii=tai (CIA I, 228, 4, 452 B.C.) (pronounce Ele-í-te, not
Ela-i-i-ta-i); e0lai/i+noj (CIA II, 678, B, 10, 378 B.C.) (pronounce:
elé-ï-nos, not ela-i-i-nos); )Aqhnaii+ko&n (CIA II, 780, 14, c. 300 B.C.)
(i.e. Athene-ï-kón, not Athena-i-i-kon); 9Ermaii+ko&n (CIA II, 781, 4, 5, c.
300 B.C.) (i.e Erme-ï-kón, not [H]erma-i-i-kón).
56 See Dikeaikes (= Dikea&rkhj?) in Corp. Vas. Antiq.: Gr. Brit., Vol. 4,
pl. 39, 2 a-b (end of vith c. B.C.); Xairai/a (W. Klein, Die griechischen
Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften, 2. Aufl. Leipzig 1897, no. 38, 530 B.C.);
xai=re kai\ pi/ai (J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters and Attic
Red-figure Vase-painters, 2nd ed. Oxford 1971, p. 77, 1, 530 B.C.) for pi/e
(?); ma&[o]me kai\ pote/o (Hoppin, Handbook of Attic Red-figured Vases, 410,
29, late vith c. B.C.); )Aristai/ou (IG I Suppl. 491 35, line 3, 450 B.C.)
and line 1 )Ariste/aj, line 4 )Ariste/ou; 9Eléra (Corp. Vasor. Antiq.: Gr.
Br. 8, III Ic, pl.91, 1 a-d (bis), late vth c. B.C.) for 9Elai/ra;
Pedi/arxoj (SEG XXV, 198, ivth c. B.C.) for Paidi/arxoj; Pe/darx[oj] (CIA
III, Defix.tab.29,5, iv-iiith c. B.C.) for Pai/darxoj; Plateeu/j (IG II2
10089, ist B.C. - ist A.D.) for Plataieu/j; Peanieu/j (IG II2 2297, mid-ist
c. A.D.) for Paianieu/j; e0lai/ou (IG II2 4786, ist c. A.D.) for e0le/ou.
For papyri occurrences, see e.g.Timotheos papyrus III, 79-80, ivth B.C.:
paleomi/shma for palaiomi/shma and pa[l]e[o]numfaiogo&non for
palaionumfaiogo&non. See further Col. Zen. 39, 6, iii B.C.: to_ palio&n
balanei=on (palio&n = Mod. Greek < palaio&n); [e0pi/s]tame for e0pi/stamai
(PSI 540, 10, iii B.C.; tele/sesqai for tele/sesqe (Tebt. 703, 255, iii
B.C.); e0sxhke/ne for e0sxhke/nai (SB 9874, 3, ii B.C.); e0pife/rhtai for
e0pife/rhte (Tebt. 816, 32, 192 B.C.); a)nu/gete (Louvre Pap. 50, 7, 168
B.C.) for pass. a)nu/getai; o9ra~tai (Louvre Pap. 1, 386, 165 B.C.) for
o9ra~te; e0cenaikei=n for e0cenegkei=n (Weil III, 9, before 160 B.C.);
paleou= instead of palaiou= (UPZ 94, 8, 159 B.C.); o0lioyuxi/sqai for
o0ligoyuxi/sqe, (UPZ 78, 10, 159 B.C.); e1fair ) for e1fer ) (UPZ 79, 7, 159
B.C.); shméan (Greek Pap. Brit. Mus. 38, 23; 39, 45; 40, 66, 158 B.C.) for
shmai/an; ei0dh=tai (Louvre Pap. 43,4, 154 B.C.) for ei0dh=te, etc.
57 An archaic letter almost entirely substituted since vth c. B.C. by b or
consonantal u.
58 vi-vth c. B.C.: NaFpakti/wn side by side with Naupakti/wn) (IGA 321);
e1Fqetoj (IGA 20, 101) instead of eu1qetoj; a)riste/Fonta (IGA 343, 4)
instead of a)risteu/onta; a)Futou= (IGA 409) instead of au0tou=; )AFlw~ni
(instead of Au0lw~ni); a)moi/Fan (IGA add. 20, 108 a, vith c. B.C.) for
a)moiba&n; ; e0Fpragi/ej (instead of eu0pragi/ej). The pronunciation of u as
v is proved also by Eu0Faoi/oij (IGA 110, 2, early vith cent. B.C.);
Eu1androj side by side with Eu1bandroj (C. Carapanos, Dodone, Pl. XXXIV, nr.
3, ivth cent. B.C.); iiird cent. B.C.: e3udomon (CIG 1563) for e3bdomon, and
e9udomh/konta (CIG 1845, 47) for e3bdomh/konta; iii-iind cent. B.C.:
e0pi/stefse (Wescher et Foucart, Inscriptions recueilles à Delphes, Paris
1863, no. 403, 5) instead of e0pi/steuse.
59 I.e. Evenus (Eu1hnoj) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (= CIL) V, 1009;
Evanthe (Eu0a&nqh, -i/a) CIL V, 6107; Evangelo (Eu0a&ggeloj) CIL V, 647;
Evodiae (Eu0odi/a) CIL III, 2435; Evodus (Eu1odoj) CIL II, 4970; Evelpistus
(Eu0e/lpistoj) CIL II, 213; Evonetus (Eu0o&nhtoj) CIL II, 1648.
60 Evvenus (CIL II, 4534), Evvangelo (CIL V, 1200), Evvaristus (CIL V, 8110,
80a), Evvodia (CIL V, 2310), Evvantia (CIL V, 6222) Evvodo (CIL III, 2413),
Evvagrio (CIL IV, 1198).
61 Similarly Aulus, Aurelius become Au]loj (Avlos), Au0rh/lioj (Avrilios)
rather than 1Aoulo(u)j (Aulo(u)s) )Aourh/lio(u)j [Aurelio(u)s], and
Claudius, Claudia, and Augustus become Klau/dioj, Klaudi/a and Au1goustoj,
not Klaou/dio(u)j, Klaoudi/a, )Aou/gousto(u)j, which were possible.
Accordingly, in Modern Greek, too, the natural form would be Pauli=na (i.e.
Pavlina), though if one prefers the foreign sound one may write Paouli=na (=
Paulina).
62 How correct would one be if one were to determine the English sounds for
th and w by means of the German pronunciation of these letters, and
conversely to determine the German v, j and z by means of the pronunciation
of the corresponding English letters?
63 On the other hand, the Orientals' ignorance of historical orthography may
sometimes more faithfully represent the actual sound than the documents of
the more learned Athenians.
64 CIA II, 222, 5, 9, 322 B.C.
65 CIA I, 31, B, 9, 444 B.C.
66 CIA I, 31, A 7, 444 B.C.
67 See e.g. CIA IV, 27, a 5, 17, 445 B.C. Also SEG I, 3 (420 B.C.) e0x xalkõ
(= e0x xalkou=). Similarly SEG III, 44 (before 420 B.C.) line 5: to&g
xrusi/on (change of n to g before x) supports the pronunciation of g =gh and
x = ch (as loch).
68 The pronunciation of words like sumfqei/rw, h0rxqhn, h0le/gxqhn in the
Erasmian manner, i.e. sum-p+h-t+h-e-i/rw, h1r-k-h-t+h-hn,
h0le/-g-k+h-t+h-hn, are physiologically impossible in normal, esp. fast
speech not only for Greek but for any language. Examples like uphill,
hothouse and blockhead are no parallels, since the p -h, t -h and k-h belong
to two different syllables and even words, and furthermore do not contain
two consecutive aspirates.
69 Before B: e0g Buzanti/ou (CIA I, 40,35, 444 B.C.); e0gbolh=j ( )Aqh/naion
Vol. II. p. 484, 15, 300 B.C.) for e0kbolh=j; e0g boulh=j (Bull. de Corres
Hell., VIII, p. 197, line 67, 71, 83; p. 198, line 1,3, 329 B.C.) for e0k
boulh=j; e0g Ben[d]ide/wn (CIA II, 741, A, a, 22, 334 B.C.); Before G:
e1ggonoj (CIA I, 381, vth cent. B.C.) for e1kgonoj, as well as e0g
Garghtti/wn (CIA III, 1640,2, Imperial times). Before D: e0gdw|~ (CIA IV,
1,a,31, before 450 B.C.); e0g Dio&j (CIA IV, b, 53, a, 34, 418 B.C.); e0g
Dionusi/wn (CIA II, 741, A, a, 7, 16, 334 B.C.); e0g de/ (CIA II, 836, ab,
11, 320-295 B.C.) for e0k de/; e0g Delfw~n (CIA IV, b, 27, b, 5, 26, 439
B.C.) for e0k Delfw~n; e0g Dh/lou (CIA II, 813, a, 3, before 400 B.C.).
Before L: e0g Li/ndou (CIA I, 239, ii, 59, 441 B.C.) for e0k Li/ndou;
e0gle/gein (for e0kle/gein), e0glexqh|= (for e0klexqh|=) etc. (CIA IV, b,
27, b, 8, 16, 439 B.C.); e0g Leonti/nwn (CIA IV, 33, a, 1, 433 B.C.);
e0gle/contej (CIA I, 38, g, 22, 432 B.C.); e0g Le/sbou (CIA I, 170, 19, 421
B.C.); e0G Le/sbo (SEG III, 131, 400 B.C.); e0g lime/noj (CIA II, 1078, 4,
v-ivth c. B.C.). Before M: e0g Makedoni/aj (CIA IV, b, 35, c, 440-432 B.C.);
e0g Muri/nhj (CIA I, 443, 1, 430 B.C.); e0g Mur)r(inou/tthj (CIA II, 872,
iii, 22, 341 B.C.) for e0k Mur)r(inou/tthj; e0g Mega&rwn (CIA II, add. 834,
c, 28, c. 329 B.C.). Before N: e0g nh/swn (CIA II, 62, 16, 357 B.C.); e0g
newri/wn (CIA II, add. 834, c, 12, c.329 B.C.). All these examples as well
as the interchanges of g with k (in e.g. gnafei=on (CIA II, 817, a, 28, vith
cent. B.C., cf. knafeu/j, CIA IV, 373, f, ivth cent. B.C.), Gni/fwnoj (CIA
II, 671, 7, 376 B.C. and SEG XXIV, 165,7, ivth c. B.C.), cf. Kni/fwn (CIA
IV, b, 446, a, 18, 409 B.C.); a)gropo&lei (CIA II, 272, 11, end of ivth
cent. B.C.) instead of a)kropo&lei) indicate that the g was voiced as gh and
that the b and d had the sounds of v and th (in "then") respectively. As for
the y -sound of g, this is borne out by such examples as o0líoj instead of
o0li/goj, e0pitah/ instead of e0pitagh/ (cf. also the later Trageianou= for
Traeianou=, Ägyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin, 68),
which would hardly have been possible if the g was sounded as g, but are
readily explainable if the g is sounded voiced as the Greeks sound it.
70 Thus, in Eu1bandroj, as the form Eu1androj shows, the B cannot have been
pronounced as English B, i.e. Evbandros, but as V: Evvandhros (dh = like th
in then). Similar assimilation occurs also in Eu1boia, i.e. Evvüa (Evvia),
not Evboia.
71 See further Au0a& (4 Kingd. 19:13); Au0i/m / Au0ei/m (Josh 18:23); Eu1a
(Gen 4:1); Eu0i/ (Josh 13:21; Eu0ila& (Gen 10:7); Leui/ (Gen 29:34);
Leuia&qan (Aquila, Symmachus: Job 3:8); 9Ragau= (Gen 11:19); Nineuh/ (Gen
10:11); Sauh/ (Gen 14:6). That the u had the sound of v in all these cases
is proved by the original Hebrew waw, as well as by alternative spellings,
e.g. Daui/d / Dabi/d, Lebia&qan, Sabu/ (Cod. Sinaiticus). That Hebr. beth is
also transliterated with Greek b is natural since they were the closest
equivalents. It should, however, be remembered that beth was pronounced both
as b and as v.
72 E.g. Ba&kxoj > Bacchus, Bakxuli/dhj > Bacchylides, Ba&ktra > Bactra and
barbatus > barba~toj, Barcino (Barcelona) > Barkelw&na, Burrus > Bou=rroj,
and Brutus > Brou=toj.
73 W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, Lipsiae 31915-24, 200,
12 (196 B.C.)
74 The voiced g (gh ) and d (dh), sounded by Greeks, eases the
pronunciation.
75 Cf. e.g. Blitzschlag, Bisamstorchschnabelkraut, Durchschrift,
Dirnd[e]lschürze.
76 i.e. prezbeutou= (instead of presbeutou=), zmu/rna (instead of Smu/rna),
a)nabazmou/j (instead of a)nabasmou/j), Pelazgiko&n (instead of Pelasgiko&n)
(iv B.C., see M. Ph. Le Bas, et al., Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en
Asie Mineure, II (Paris 1888), 122).
77 )Aqh/naion, Vol. III, p. 480, line 20, 346 B.C.
78 CIA II, 325, a, 5, before 268 B.C.
79 E.g. IGA 112 (vth c. B.C. or earlier): ze/ (= de/), zi/kaia (= di/kaia),
ze/ka (= de/ka), Zi/ (= Dii/), )Ellanozi/kaj (= 9Ellanodi/kaj, note the
absence of aspiration), zamiourgi/a (= damiourgi/a), zi/fuion (= di/fuion).
80 CIA I, 228, 5,b, 454 B.C.
81 CIA I, 238, 12, 442 B.C.
82 CIA I, 231, 22, 449 B.C.
83 CIA I, 230, 10 b, 450 B.C.
84 It must not be overlooked that Greek polysyllabism is responsible for the
relative poverty of Greek vocalism. To confine ourselves roughly to the last
2000 years, Greek has had five vowel sounds: a, e, i, o, u, clear and
well-demarcated from one another. This contrasts sharply with other European
languages, which tend to be more monosyllabic, with large concentrations of
consonants, and which, therefore, are in greater need of vocalic
differentiation, hence the great variation both in vowel-length and
vowel-quality (as e.g. German ä, ü, ö; French é, è, u; Dutch aa, oo, oe, ou,
eu, ui, ij; Swedish å, ä, ö, y), which has no equivalence in Greek. The
changes from Archaic Greek that were taking place in classical times,
monophthongizing the diphthongs, levelling the i-class of vowels (ei, h, oi,
u), applying crasis, elision, etc. at the same time as they completed their
alphabet, indicate that the Greeks were seeking to perfect their linguistic
medium. It is significant that once these fundamental changes had been
wrought, both alphabet and phonology have remained unchanged ever since.
That it was possible for Homer to be recited contracted in classical times
is proved by its being so recited in Modern Greece.
85 These marks apparently came into use after 403 B.C. (cf. Aristotle,
Poetica, 26,3 and I. Bekker's Anecdota Graeca, III, 780) and are found in
e.g. Harris Iliad, ist c. B.C.
86 Later, when it became customary to use the hand rather than the foot, the
raising of the hand (a!rsij xeiro&j) came to symbolize the beat or ictus,
while its lowering (qe/sij xeiro&j) symbolized the dropping or absence of
beat or ictus. This converse significance passed into modern terminology.
87 Homer, Iliad, VII, 118.
88 Homer, Iliad, XVI, 34 (glaukh/, masc. presupposed); Plato, Timaeus, 68 c.
89 Homer, Iliad, XX, 74.
90 Plato, Timaeus, 68 b.
91 Homer, Odyssey, XIX, 432.
92 Homer, Odyssey, XVII, 225.
93 Aristotle, Sophistici Elenchi, 166b, 3-6; 177b, 35-178a.
94 Cratylus, 399 a-b.
95 Sophistici Elenchi, 177b 6 h1dh para&shma poiou=ntej.
96 Varro, IV, 530:
97 Later this practice was discontinued i3na mh\ kataxara&sswntai ta\
bibli/a, Sch. Dionysius Thrax 139 h.
98 The adduction of really! against the above contention misses the point.
Even if really! were really sounded in the way claimed, it is an adverb
expressing astonishment. Is it really credible that Greeks would have
pronounced all their circumflexed words as words expressing astonishment?
99 For Elis see SEG I, 94 (viith c. B.C.): uyeli/dai ane/qen ec hraklei/as.
100 E.g. a)lieu=si (CIA I, 433, 3, 460 B.C.; also 337, vth c. B.C.) instead
of a(lieu=si.
101 E.g. IG I2 372 (409/8 B.C.) lines 118 he/kpodej; 162 he/kpode; 226
he/kpoj.
102 We thus get such monstrosities as: a col. I: 4 katista~sin (for
kaqista~sin); 5, 6, etc. e1dran (for e1dran); 9, 12, 13, etc. hoikou=nti
(for oi0kou=nti); 14 hikriw&mata (for i0kriw&mata); 14, etc. hen (for e0n);
17, 19, 20, etc. hoikw&n (for oi0kw&n); 22 hek (for e0k); 24,27,28 etc.
hoikou=nti (for oi0kou=nti); 29, 35 hergazome/noij (for e0rgazome/noij); 37
horofh/n (for o0rofh/n); 44 hepi/ (for e0pi/); 45 hento&j (for e0nto&j); c
col. I: 1 he/xonta (for e1xonta); 5 hopisqofanh= (for o0pisqofanh=); 7 A1rma
for a#rma; 9 ha&gonta (for a!gonta); 13 hepikrou/onta (for e0pikrou/onta);
15 halopekh=[si] (for a)lwpekh=si); 18 handra (for a!ndra); 19 ei0sthko&ta
(for ei9sthko&ta); 21 h0 (for h(); 31 hej (for e0j); 36 hapo& (for a)po&);
49 heu/docoj for Eu1docoj; c col. II: 2, 5 heij (for ei0j); 13 hepi/ (for
e0pi/); 13 hepistuli/w| (for e0pistuli/w|); 14 hento&j (for e0nto&j); 17
proshape/domen (for prosape/domen); 27 i0era& (for i9era&); 32 henegra&yamen
(for e0negra&yamen); 52, 60 hexo&menoj (for e0xo&menoj); 72 heumeli/[dhj]
(for Eu0meli/dhj). See also IG I2 374 (408/7 B.C.): col. IX, 280
henegra&fsamen; 282 heij; 285 hoikõntoj, etc.
103 The confusion of aspiration may be illustrated by the following
examples: IG I2 16 (465 B.C.) line 6 o!ti instead of ho&ti and line 24 o0
instead of ho; IG I2 17 (450 B.C.) o0rkõsai (for horkw&sai), 4 o!poj (for
ho&pwj) and IG I2 19 (453 B.C.) ho&rkon, hoi, ho&poj; IG I2 14-15 (440/39
B.C. =SEG X, 17 (450 B.C.) o0j (for hoj), ai0reqe/ntej (for haireqe/ntej),
o!poj (= ho&pwj), e1kastoj (= he/kastoj), e0me/raj (= heme/raj), o!ti (=
ho&ti) ; SEG X, 14 (450 B.C.) he/xon (for e1xwn); IG I2 41 (446/5
B.C.) )Estiai/aj and hEstiai/aj, e0a\n de/ tij a!gei, de/sqo ho halo&j (=
a!lloj?); SEG X, 35 (446/5 B.C.) o0rko=sai (for horkw&sai), o0rkotõn (for
horkotw~n) and o!poj (for ho&pwj); hAsshri=tai (CIA I, 234, 26, 444 B.C.)
and )Asshri=tai (CIA I, 229; 230; 231; 238; 242-244); hh/ssioi (CIA I, 230,
frg. 25, 6, 450 B.C. and 1Hssioi (CIA I, 226, 9, 454 B.C.; 264, 20, 420
B.C.); hariqmo&n (CIA I, 167, 9, 412 B.C.; ) and a)riqmo&n (CIA I, 322, a,
97, 409 B.C.; 228, 17, 452 B.C.); hÁbdhra (CIA I, 242, 20, 438 B.C.);
hAbdhri=tai (CIA I, 226, 5 (454 B.C.) as well as par ) 1Abdhra (CIA I, 228,
16, 452 B.C.); hAirai=oi (CIA I, 230, 5, 450 B.C.; 232, 6, 448 B.C.; 233, 5,
b, 447 B.C. etc.) and Ai0rai=oi (CIA I, 226, 6, b, 454 B.C.; 240,7, 440
B.C.; 238, 11 (Ai0raih=j), 442 B.C.); hAisw&nioi (CIA I, 240, 49, 440 B.C.)
and Ai0sw&nioi (CIA I, 257, 53, 427/425 B.C.); helpi/di (CIA I, 442, 8, 432
B.C.) instead of e0lpi/di; hEcistra&th (W. Klein, Die griechische Vasen mit
Meistersignaturen, Wien 1887, 33, vii-vith c. B.C.) and eu0ca&menoj (CIA IV,
b, 373, 202, vith c. B.C.); he/xei (CIA IV, 373, b, beginning of vith c.
B.C.) instead of e1xei; kaqe/xei (i.e. aspirate: CIA I, 479, 3, c. 500 B.C.)
instead of kate/xei; he/xon (CIA IV, 170, 7, 422 B.C.; 166, 6, 413 B.C.)
instead of e1xon; SEG X, 49 (432/1 B.C.) o0seme/rai for hoseme/rai; SEG X,
63 (430 B.C.) e0auto&n for heauto&n; SEG X, 67, 13 (428/7
B.C.) )Ellhnotami/ai instead of hEllhnotami/ai.
104 E.g. proshhke/tw (CIA I, 40, 15, 428/423 B.C.) and prosh/kein (same
inscription, line 45); trihhmipodi/ouj (CIA I, 322, a, 12, 409 B.C.) and
trihmipo&dia (CIA I, 321, 15, before 409 B.C.).
105 See e.g. lhewn ( )Efhm. )Arx. 1886, p. 87, vii-vith c. B.C.); hroj in
CIA II, 1066 (bis, ivth c. B.C.; lhabo_n li/qon (= labw_n li/qon), IGA 360,
vth c. B.C.?; kho&r(h) (CIA IV, b, 373, n. 97, b, vii-vith c. B.C.);
mhega&lou (CIA IV, b, 373, 208, vith c. B.C.).
106 Plato never mentions aspiration in his Cratylus, although he ought to
have had occasion to do so, while according to Aristotle the only difference
betwee ou[ and ou0 was one of stress (the acute), Sophistici elenchi, 177b,
35-178a, 4; see also 166b, 3-6.
107 This recognition has led to a nonchalant attitude with regards to the
pronunciation of Greek by teachers of Greek. This may be exemplified by a
conversation among teachers of Greek (i.e. classical scholars) that I
happened to witness one time. One of them, new in the circle, was asking the
rest whether he should pronounce the letter Q as T or as English th (in
"thin"). Several of the group gave their opinion to the effect that it did
not really matter how the letter was pronounced! To underline the
unimportance of the issue one of them went on to say that since he was
unable to pronounce the Greek sound X (in e.g. the word xa&rij) as ch
sounded like German "Bach", he pronounced it like English sh (i.e. sharis)!
108 The complaint that Modern Greek has too many i-sounds -i.e. six (seven
with h|) in all- is totally unfounded. The i-sounds occurring in English
have been computed to be about twenty-eight. A check of the first 100 vowels
occurring in Matthew (ch. 2), John, Romans, Acts, and Revelation gives the
following average of i-sounds per 100 vowels: Greek 19.2; English 32.4;
German 19.6; French 13.6; Italian 20.2; and Dutch 21.8.
109 E.g. a!kmhnoj (fasting from food) a)kmhno&j (full-grown); a)kra&twj
(without being mixed) a)kratw~j (in uncontrolled manner); ba&toj
(bramble-bush) and bato&j (verbal adjective: "that can be passed"); de/rein
(pres. inf.) derei=n (fut. inf.); dh=moj (people) dhmo&j (fat); diai/rw
(lift up) diairw~ (divide); do&koj (= do&khsij, opinion) doko&j (beam);
e3dranon (seat) e9drano&n (neut. adj.: steady); ei]mi (go) ei0mi/ (I am);
e1leusij (coming) )Eleusi/j (Eleusis); zh/tw (Pres. ind. 3rd pers. sing of
za&w) zhtw~ (I seek); qe/a (view) qea& (goddess); qe/rmh (warmth, heat)
qermh/ (adj.: warm); i9e/reia (priestess) i9erei/a (festival, sacrifice);
i1w (Pres. subj. of ei]mi) i0w& (exclamation: alas!); ko&nij (dust) koni/j
(nit); no&moj (law) nomo&j (pasture, district); oi]noj (wine) oi0no&j (=
oi1nh: the ace on the dice); po&te (when?) and pote/ (ever); ti/j, ti/noj,
ti/ni, ti/na (interrogative pronouns) tij, tino&j, tini/, tina& (indefinite
pronouns), as well as the verbs with Attic future, e.g. ai0sxu/nw (present
ind.) and ai0sxunw~ (future ind.); kri/nw (pres. ind.) and krinw~ (fut.
ind.); me/nw (pres. ind.) and menw~ (fut. ind.), ne/mw (pres. ind.) and
nemw~ (fut. ind.).
110 The sub-title of an important study by Anton Fridrichsen, in A.
Fridrichsen, Exegetical Writings. A Selection, Translated and edited by
Chrys C. Caragounis and Tord Fornberg (WUNT 76, Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr (P.
Siebeck) 1994) 21.
111 The same principle should apply to the different dialects, Attic,
Boeotian, Ionic, Aeolic, Doric, Thessalic, etc.
112 Although on p. 142 he deplores the Henninian pronunciation practised in
England as a hinder to e.g. learning Modern Greek, he nowhere argues for a
change.
113 The relevance of pronunciation for text-critical work is exemplified by
the author's recently published study, C. C. Caragounis, ""To Boast" or "To
Be Burned"? The Crux of 1 Cor 13:3" (SEÅ 60 (1995) 115-27, Fs. for R.
Kieffer, Eds. B. Holmberg and T. Fornberg) on a hitherto unsolved problem.
Agamemnon
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:4741d39e...@news.uunet.co.za...
Really. The Trojans were also Greeks. The people attacking Troy were called
Achaeans and Danaioi.
Vince
What nonsense
take a look at
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf
Greece is a very nice mongrel mix of all the genetic forces around it.
M35 EU 4 in particular is shared with the Lebanese and Albanians in
about the same measure
Feel free to post a scientific article describing distinct "Greek" dna
pattern found in all Greeks and only Greeks
Otherwise your just proving that they are levantine mongrels like
everyone else in the same region.
Vince
Vince
Vince
Agamemnon
NO IT IS NOT YOU IDIOT.
>
> M35 EU 4 in particular is shared with the Lebanese and Albanians in about
> the same measure
IDIOT. M35 was in Greece 10,000 years ago before there was an Albania or a
Lebanon.
>
> Feel free to post a scientific article describing distinct "Greek" dna
> pattern found in all Greeks and only Greeks
I already have.
>
> Otherwise your just proving that they are levantine mongrels like everyone
> else in the same region.
IDIOT. Wherase your British ancestors are of mongrel
Celtic-Viking-Germanic-French decent as of only 1,000 years ago the Greeks
have remained ethnically pure and distinct from their neighbours since 1900
BC and Genetically pure for over 8,000 years. Your ancestors are newcomers
whereas the Greeks ancestors have been in the region over 8 millennia.
>
> Vince
>
>
>
>
>
Agamemnon
Nashton
> No, you separate them with POGEY BAIT.
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:rdWdnY2_NKOhmNza...@rcn.net...
>> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:3aqdnZSGz7JRn9za...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
>>> The Greek explanation for the origin of OK is infinitely more credible
>>> than the hilarious proposal that it was all down to a moronic misspelling
>>> of All Clear. For a start OK means everything is fine, not clear, like
>>> its fine when [sic] get up.
>>>
>> except. no one used OK before it was invented in america.
>> its tough to claim something you never used.
>>
>> but we do know what the greeks invented don't we.
>>
>> "how do you seperate [sic] the men from the boys in greece?"
>>
>> with a crowbar
>
>
You sound like a bigot. Are you a bigot?
Vince
Oh, and there you pretended to be educated
But ok I'll teach you
History is the study of documents created contemporaneously with an
event.Historical figures can be analyzed by such contemporary documents.
When documents have been copied we have to decide which statements are
original and which are later interpolations. We also have to deal with
deletions. We analyze secondary sources, who at least claim to have
access to original documents now lost to us. There is a methodology to
history. While deciphering the Rosetta stone allowed us to read
Egyptian, it does not demonstrate that the documents we could now read
are true.
We have a reasonably good body of knowledge about when the books we call
the Bible were written in their modern form. That in no way validates
the events described in the bible, since the bible is myth making on a
grand scale. As we go further back in History we study archeology.
Archeology is the study of artifacts, which can be in historical or
prehistoric times.Pre-historic times are those before documents
The Greek kings used myths about pre history to solidify their power
so did Romans, Jews, the Irish and many other ethnic groups
History and archeology can be cross checked with science. Carbon dating
DNA analysis, forensic anthropology and stratification analysis are
all scientific techniques.
the claims you keep making are simply so silly that no one familiar with
history or archeology would take them seriously.
The Greeks have much to be proud of. I'm just back for looking at the
Pergamon Altar in Berlin. I support the return of the Elgin Marbles.
But why pollute the undoubted accomplishments by making such silly
claims
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
U of Maryland
Vince
10,000 years ago there was no "greece"
>>
>> Feel free to post a scientific article describing distinct "Greek"
>> dna pattern found in all Greeks and only Greeks
>
> I already have.
post it again
>
>>
>> Otherwise your just proving that they are levantine mongrels like
>> everyone else in the same region.
>
> IDIOT. Wherase your British ancestors are of mongrel
> Celtic-Viking-Germanic-French decent as of only 1,000 years ago the
> Greeks have remained ethnically pure and distinct from their neighbours
> since 1900 BC and Genetically pure for over 8,000 years. Your ancestors
> are newcomers whereas the Greeks ancestors have been in the region over
> 8 millennia.
>
prove it , with a real citation and quotation supporting this
claim
>
> "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E
> and J:
> Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in
> the
> Mediterranean Area"
>
a citation includes where it's published
but I do know the article its
at
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n5/40867/40867.web.pdf
now quote the article to support your claim
Greeks have remained ethnically pure and distinct from their neighbours
> since 1900 BC and Genetically pure for over 8,000 years.
or its just more foolishness
I will wait laughing
> Ornella Semino,1 Chiara Magri,1 Giorgia Benuzzi,1 Alice A. Lin,2 Nadia
> Al-Zahery,1,4
>
> Vincenza Battaglia,1 Liliana Maccioni,5 Costas Triantaphyllidis,6 Peidong
> Shen,7
>
> Peter J. Oefner,7 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,8 Roy King,3 Antonio Torroni,1 L. Luca
> Cavalli-Sforza,2
>
> Peter A. Underhill,2 and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti1
>
>
>
> "Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of
> Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe"
>
more nonsense
absoulutely nothing about greek purity
Sorry son
you lose
Vince