Ancient Greek/Modern Greek differences and similarities

Luis Zalot   Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:39 pm GMT
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. I suspect it is because the alphabet has remained the same, 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(1) 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.(2) 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.(3) 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.)

On the other hand, 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, not only because as native speakers of this or that language we necessarily carry over our native phonology, but also because the Classic Greek pronunciation used pitch to differentiate vowels in words, while nearly all modern European languages (including Modern Greek) use stress instead.(4)

The Alphabet
(Click on the name of the letter to hear the pronunciation in Modern Greek)

Letter Name & Sound Modern Greek pronunciation Classic Greek Pronunciation (Attic)
1 Alpha [a], as in “father”. Same as [a] in Spanish and Italian. Phonetically, this sound is: open, central, and unrounded. As in Modern Greek

2 Beta [v], as in “vet”; a voiced labiodental fricative. [b], as in “bet”; a voiced bilabial plosive. Evidence

3 Gamma [gh], a sound that does not exist in English. If followed by the sound [u] then it sounds almost like the initial sound in “woman”, but with the back of the tongue touching more to the back (soft) palate. To pronounce [gha], try to isolate “w” from “what” without rounding your lips, and then say [a]. In Castilian Spanish this sound exists in “amiga”. Same is true for [gho]: try eliminating the [u] sound from “water”. (C. Spanish: “amigo”.) On the other hand, due to a phonetic phenomenon called palatalization, [ghe] sounds a bit like “ye” in “yes”, and [ghi] sounds a bit like “yi” in “yield”. Phonetically, gamma is a voiced velar fricative. (Its palatalized version is a voiced palatal fricative.) [g], as in “got”; a voiced velar plosive.

Evidence
4 Delta [th], as in “this”; a voiced dental fricative. [d], as in “do”; a voiced alveolar plosive. Evidence

5 Epsilon [e] as in “pet”, except that the [e] in “pet” (and in most other English words) is lax, while in Greek it is tense. As in Modern Greek

6 Zeta [z], as in “zone”, a voiced alveolar fricative. Actually, the remark for sigma (see below) applies to zeta as well (it is shifted a bit towards [Z], as in “pleasure”). [zd], as in “Mazda”. Also: [z], and even: [dz]. Evidence

7 Eta [i], as in “meet”, but shorter, not so long. This is one of the three [i] in the Greek alphabet; they all have identical pronunciation. The reason for this redundancy has to do with Classic Greek, where they were not redundant. long open mid-[e], as in “thread” (but long). Evidence

8 Theta [th], as in “think”; a voiceless dental fricative. In Castilian Spanish: “zorro”. [th], as in “top”, but more aspirated.

Evidence
9 Iota [i], exactly like eta (see above). The name of the letter is pronounced “yota” in Modern Greek. (the reason for the y-sound in front of the letter’s name is due to phonetic transformation of [io] into [yo]). As in Modern Greek

10 Kappa [k], as in “pack”. Notice that in English [k] is aspirated if it is at the beginning of a word; Greek makes no such distinction. When followed by the vowel [e] it is pronounced nearly as in “kettle”, while when followed by [i] it is pronounced nearly as in “kill”. For the exact pronunciation in the last two cases, please check the page on palatalization. Phonetically, it is a voiceless velar plosive. (Its palatalized version is a voiceless palatal plosive.) As in Modern Greek


11 Lambda [l] as in “lap”. When followed by the vowed [i] it becomes palatalized, turning to a sound that does not exist in English (check the page on palatalization). The name of the letter is pronounced “lamtha” ([b] is eliminated because it is difficult to pronounce it between [m] and [th]). A voiced alveolar lateral approximant. As in Modern Greek


12 Mu [m], as in “map”; a voiced bilabial nasal. Notice that the name of the letter is pronounced “mi” (mee), not “mew” as in American English.
As in Modern Greek

13 Nu [n], as in “noble”; a voiced alveolar nasal. When followed by the vowed [i] it becomes palatalized, turning to a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Spanish; check the page on palatalization). Notice that the name of the letter is pronounced “ni” (nee), not “new” as in American English. As in Modern Greek

14 Ksi [ks] as in “fox”. Contrary to the English “x”, the letter ksi does not change pronunciation at the beginning of a word (it does not become a [z]; Greeks have no trouble starting a word with [k]+[s]). For example, in the word ksenophobia (ξενοφοβία = xenophobia) the initial [p] sound is not omitted. Do not put any aspiration between [k] and [s] when pronouncing this letter. As in Modern Greek

15 Omicron [o] as in “hop”, except that the [o] in “hop” (and in most other English words) is lax, while in Greek it is tense. Same like [o] in “got” the way it is pronounced in British English. A mid-close back rounded vowel. As in Modern Greek

16 Pi [p], as in “top”; a voiceless bilabial plosive. Notice that in English [p] is aspirated if it is at the beginning of a word; Greek makes no such distinction. As in Modern Greek

17 Rho [rh], a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Scottish). Sounds very much like the Italian, or Russian [r], or the Spanish [r] in “caro”. (Spanish speakers: in Greek there is no difference in how long you trill your rho; better to make it like in “caro” than like in “carro”.) Phonetically, it is a voiced alveolar trill. Probably as in Modern Greek. Word-initially: aspirated: [hr]

18 Sigma [s], as is “soap”; a voiceless alveolar fricative. Actually, if you listen carefully to native Greek speakers, it sounds a bit between [s] and [sh] (probably because there is no [sh] in Greek, so the sound is somewhat shifted in the phonological space). However, it is much closer to [s], rather than [sh], and every Greek speaker would swear they pronounce it exactly like the English [s], unless forced to admit the difference by looking at spectrograms. This is the way “s” is pronounced in Castilian Spanish (as opposed to Latin American Spanish). Notice that the second way of writing the lower case sigma is used exclusively when the letter appears at the end of a word (there is only one capital form); this rule has no exceptions. Probably as in Modern Greek

19 Tau [t], as in “pot”; a voiceless alveolar plosive. Notice that in English [t] is aspirated if it is at the beginning of a word; Greek makes no such distinction. As in Modern Greek

20 Upsilon [i], exactly like eta and iota (see above). The name of the letter is pronounced [ipsilon] (ee-psee-lon), not “yupsilon” as it is called in American English. Rounded [i], as in French “une”. Evidence

21 Phi [f] as in “fat”; a voiceless labiodental fricative. [ph], as in “pit”, but more aspirated. Evidence

22 Chi [ch], a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Scottish, as in “loch”; German: “Bach”; Spanish: “Jorge”). When followed by vowels [e] or [i] it is pronounced nearly as in German “ich”. For the exact pronunciation in this case, please check the page on palatalization. Phonetically, it is a voiceless velar fricative. (Its palatalized version is a voiceless palatal fricative.) [kh], as in “cut”, but more aspirated. Evidence

23 Psi [ps] as in “lopsided”. Contrary to English, the sound of the letter does not change at the beginning of a word (it does not become a [s]; Greeks have no trouble starting a word with [p]+[s]). For example, in the word psychologia (ψυχολογία = psychology) the initial [p] sound is not omitted. Do not put any aspiration between [p] and [s] when pronouncing this letter. As in Modern Greek

24 Omega [o], exactly like omicron. (Once again, the reason for the redundancy is to be found in Classic Greek.) Long open mid-back [o], as in “law”. Evidence

Phonology and Orthography
Oops! Twenty-four letters only? Surely some sounds must be missing?

That’s correct. There are sounds common in other languages that do not exist in Greek. Such sounds are all the postalveolar fricatives and postalveolar affricates ([sh] as in “shop”, [Z] as in “pleasure”, [ch] as in “church”, and [dZ] as in “job”). So what do Greeks do when they want to pronounce foreign words with these sounds? If they are not trained to pronounce correctly, they simply transform these postalveolar sounds to their corresponding alveolar ones: [sh] [s], [Z] [z], [ch] [ts], [dZ] [dz]. Ask a Greek to pronounce “fish ’n chips” next time you want to have some linguistic fun.

And what about other very common sounds, like [b], [d], [g], etc.? These seem to be missing from the alphabet, too! Are they also missing from the repertoire of the sounds of the language?

No! These are existent as sounds in the language. It is just that there are no single letters to denote them. When Greeks want to write those sounds they write them as two-letter combinations: [b] is written as μπ (mu + pi), [d] as ντ (nu + tau), and [g] as γκ (gamma + kappa), or as γγ (double gamma). Why all this trouble? Remember, as explained in the introductory paragraph on this page, the sounds [b], [d], and [g] used to exist in Classic Greek. Later, probably some time after the New Testament was written in the so-called koine (common) Greek, these three sounds had shifted in pronunciation to the corresponding “soft” ones ([v], [th], and [gh]). This left a void in the phonological space. Words that contained combinations like “mp” and “nt” started being pronounced as [mb] and [nd], respectively. So the “plosive” sounds were re-introduced, but pairs of letters were used now to denote them.

There is one more sound in the language which is absent from the alphabet: it is the “ingma”, the last consonant in “king”. (This consonant rarely ever has the honor to be denoted by a single letter in the alphabet of any language!) This sound is very rare in Greek, and when it appears (as in “άγχος”: anxiety; “έλεγχος”: checking) it is denoted by the combination gamma + chi, with the gamma pronounced as ingma.

All of the above plus much more, including the pervasive phenomenon of palatalization, can be found in this page on the details of Modern Greek pronunciation, which includes sound samples with the author’s voice for all of the presented examples.

You may also find useful this page, showing the sounds of Modern Greek against all possible sounds of any language in the world. The tables for consonants and vowels in that page are very familiar to linguists, but you don’t need to be a linguist to understand it.

What about vowels? Is there any similarity with the English vowels, or with those of any other language?

Vowels in Greek are easy. That is, if you are not a native speaker of English! That’s because although English is a very rich in vowel sounds, still, it lacks almost completely the Greek vowels. The latter are more like the vowels of Italian, Spanish, or Japanese: they are the five sounds [a], [e], [i], [o], and [u](5). Now, there are three letters for [i] in the alphabet (eta, iota, and upsilon), pronounced identically, and two letters for [o] (omicron and omega), also pronounced identically. For the sound [u] (as in “loot”) the combination ου (omicron + upsilon) is used.

Here are three good rules of thumb for native English speakers:

Greek vowels never sound like glides. That is, English speakers tend to pronounce Greek [e] almost always as [ei] (as in “bay”, “buffet”, “claim”, etc.), a phenomenon known as gliding. In Greek that’s wrong! Try to avoid adding the sound [i] at the end just stay with [e] (almost like “bet”, but notice, that [e] in “bet” is lax; whenever the tense [e] is pronounced in English, it glides and sounds like [ei]). The same is true for [o]: Avoid pronouncing it as [ow] (as in “rope”, “bone”); just stay with [o], as in “awe”, “law”, etc., but make it a bit shorter (and don’t open your mouth as much as is required by “awe”; that’s suitable for the Classic omega; Modern Greek [o] is a bit more closed).
If you know Spanish, or Italian, or Japanese(5), there is a one-to-one correspondence between the five vowel sounds in these languages and Greek. Trust your knowledge then, and use it.
Greek words often end in [s] (sigma), and when English speakers hear Greeks pronouncing such endings they think they hear [sh]. (For an explanation read the comments on letter sigma, in the table.) If you can’t reproduce the Greek sigma exactly, simply approximate it with English “s”, as in “boss”. Remember, there is no [sh] in Greek! (Except in the dialect of Crete, to be accurate.)
So, sounds simple. Is there anything else about vowels?

Not in pronunciation. In writing, however, there is. There are three so-called “diphthongs”, which are not diphthongs anymore, but digraphs. (A diphthong is a long vowel with more than one parts, each of which has a different quality, such as the ou in “loud”, or the oy in “boy”; a digraph is two letters which, when put together, are read as one unit, such as the th in “think”, or the ph in “graph”.) Here are the Greek digraphs of vowels:

Digraph Modern Greek pronunciation Classic Greek Pronunciation (Attic)
Exactly like ε (epsilon, 5th letter, see above) [ai], as in “buy”. Evidence
Exactly like ι (iota, 9th letter, see above) [ei], as in “bay”. Evidence
Exactly like ι (iota, 9th letter, see above) [oi], as in “boy”. Evidence
[u], already explained in the previous paragraph As in Modern Greek
[av] if the following sound is voiced, and [af] if the following sound is unvoiced [au], as in “loud”. Evidence
[ev] if the following sound is voiced, and [ef] if the following sound is unvoiced [eu]. Evidence
[iv] if the following sound is voiced, and [if] if the following sound is unvoiced ~[e:u]. Evidence
Exactly like ι (iota, 9th letter, see above; also read comment below) ~[yui]. Evidence

Thus, Archimedes’s famous “eureka!” (εύρηκα) in Modern Greek is pronounced as [evrika] (with the stress on epsilon); but in ancient Greek it should be [eure:ka] (again with the stress on the first vowel of the diphthong, i.e., the [e]). The letter-combination ηυ (eta + upsilon) is extremely rare in Modern Greek; it appears in two verb-forms only: απηύδησα [apivthisa] (=“I got fed up”), and απηύθυνα [apifthina] (=“I gave sb. the right to speak”); it was much more common in ancient Greek, though. Also, the letter-combination υι (upsilon + iota) appears in a single word in Modern Greek: υιός [ios] (=“son”, but this form is obsolete; the modern one is γιος), and its derivatives: υιοθετώ (=“adopt”), υιοθεσία (=“adoption”), and υιικός (=“filial”).

If you want to know the reason why these weird-looking combinations of letters exist, once again, blame ancient Greek, where these were true diphthongs. When later the vowel space was flattened to its present five members, and no long vowels existed anymore, the diphthongs were transformed as the table above shows.

Does that mean that the sound [ai] (as in “buy”), for example, can never occur in Modern Greek, because if written as αι it would be pronounced [e]?

It is possible to have the letters alpha and iota next to each other and producing the sound [ai], but then we need to show this in writing. We do this by putting a pair of dots, the diaeresis, over the iota, like this: αϊ, as in the word παϊδάκι [paithaki] (=“rib steak”). It is even possible to have the stress together with the diaeresis over the iota: παΐδι [paithi] (=“rib”). The diaeresis can “dismiss” any of the vowel-digraphs: αϊ, εϊ, οϊ, οϋ, αϋ, εϋ (ηϋ and υϊ do not occur in Modern Greek), in which case the two constituent vowels are pronounced separately.

What are those short straight lines placed over some vowels in Greek texts?

That’s the stress. It shows which syllable should be pronounced slightly higher in pitch than the rest. Stress can be placed only over lowercase letters, and only over the vowel of the syllable. If the vowel is written with a digraph (see above), the stress-mark is placed over the second vowel of the pair. Monosyllabic words are not shown with stress, since the information would be redundant. In Greek, only one of the last three syllables of a word can be stressed. Native Greek speakers “internalize” this rule (they also learn it explicitly at school), and tend to apply it even to languages that allow placement of stress on any syllable, such as English. (For example, the word difficulty is often pronounced [dee-`fee-kal-tee] by Greeks who start learning English as a second language.)

In Classic Greek there were no lowercase letters only capitals. So there were no stress marks over the letters. Later, during the Hellenistic times (last three centuries BC) lowercase letters were introduced, and along with them, the stress marks. However, the situation was quite complex, because there were three marks for the stress, and two “aspiration marks”, placed over the initial vowel of a word, if any. One of the latter two (the “rough breathing mark”, written like a tiny “c”) stood in place of the by-then-obsolete initial letter H, and was pronounced like [h] in English (in Classic times this letter was actually written). So, words like “history”, “hydrogen”, “hour”, “Hellenic”, and many others, passed into English (filtered first through Latin) with the initial “h” written and pronounced, while the corresponding Greek words were written with the rough breathing mark over the initial vowel. Later, even the pronunciation of this mark was dropped, so one had to learn what breathing mark to put over the initial vowel without having any clue from pronunciation. This situation lasted until fairly recently (as a child, I had to learn those orthographic rules, too). In 1982 all breathing marks were officially dropped, and the three types of stress marks were reduced to one and even that one is used only on polysyllabic words.

Do Greek letters have some inherent meaning?(6) What are the dictionary definitions of words like “alpha”, “beta”, etc.?

No, there is no meaning in Greek letters. You are probably thinking of Chinese ideograms, or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, which were symbols with some associated meaning. Alpha, beta, gamma, delta, etc., bear no more meaning in Greek than a, bee, cee, dee, etc., bear in English. Their names are just a bit longer, that’s all, that’s why they look like meanigful words. Now, there is an English letter the name of which can be said to have some meaning, however trivial: it’s w, which we pronounce “double-u”. The name of this letter is derived from ancient forms of it, when it was written as two U’s, joined like this: UU. Similarly, there are a handful of Greek letters that can be said to have such trivial meanings, associated always with their pronunciation: epsilon (εψιλον) is really e-psilon, meaning “light e”, or “bare e”, or “mere e”, a name introduced in Byzantine times, to distinguish it from the other [e], the digraph alpha-iota (see above). In ancient (e.g., classical) times this distinction was unnecessary, because ε and αι had completely different sounds, so the name of this letter was simply ε. Similarly, upsilon (υψιλον) is really u-psilon, meaning “mere u”, distinguishing it from the other two [i], ι and η; in ancient Greek its name was υ. Finally, omicron (ομικρον) is o-micron, or “little o”, to distinguish it from o-mega (ωμεγα), or “great o”. Again, these names were introduced in later times, when the pronunciations of the two letters had become identical; in ancient times their names were simply ο and ω.

That said, it should be mentioned that the origin of the Greek letters, which is the ancient Phoenician alphabet, did assign meaning to each letter. For example, the first letter of the Phoenician alphabet (a close cousin of the Hebrew alphabet, the first three letters of which are aleph, beth, and gimel) was written as an inverted A, a stylized depiction of the triangular head of an ox with its horns. In Phoenician, the name of the letter was the word for “ox”. Similarly, the letter gamma (Hebrew gimel) is derived from the Phoenician word for “camel”; and so on. But that all is not Greek, it is Semitic languages. In Greek the letters are just symbols, devoid of meaning.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:mK4Iytr8oToJ:www.answers.com/topic/romance-languages+Castilian+spanish+close+to+Classical+latin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence for the pronunciation of Ancient Greek Θ (theta) as [th]

Ancient Greek letter theta was pronounced as [th] ([t] aspirated, nearly as in English tip) at least until the 2nd century BCE. Its pronunciation started shifting to fricative [θ] (as in English thin) in various places at different times. Up until the 5th century CE there must have been a few places where theta was still pronounced as [th], although by then it was pronounced as [θ] in most localities. In later Byzantine times it was certainly pronounced as [θ]. Evidence for the above comes from the following:

Ancient Greek grammarians (e.g., Dionysius Thrax) divide consonants into two primary categories: the aphona (beta, gamma, delta, kappa, pi, tau, theta, phi, and chi), and the hemiphona (zeta, ksi, psi, lambda, mu, nu, rho, sigma). In Aristotle's Poetics (1456b) the aphona (of which theta is a member) are described as "having contact" (= "meta prosboles"), but not being pronounceable without a vowel. In modern parlance we would say that aphona are the plosives, pronounced instantaneously, while hemiphona are fricatives, and those other consonants that can be pronounced continuously, without the need for a following vowel. If theta were fricative, it would be classified as one of the hemiphona.

Letters theta, phi, and chi were called "dasea" (= "thick", neuter, plural) by Greek grammarians (and are still learned as such in modern Greek elementary school). The term for "aspiration" in Greek is "daseia" (= "thick", feminine, singular), or "pneuma" (= spirit, blowing, breeze); in writing, the "rough breathing mark". Dionysius, in fact, refers to the category of dasea as having "the addition of the aspiration" (= "ten tou pneumatos prostheken").

When Greek preposition kata is followed by a noun starting with vowel, the final [a] is elided (eliminated), replaced in writing by an apostrophe: kat'. However, when the following vowel is aspirated (written with a rough breathing mark in Greek, or h in romanized form), letter t of kat' is changed to a theta: kath'. For example: kata + hyperbolen kat' + hyperbolen kath' hyperbolen. Similarly, proto- + hypourgos prot' + hypourgos prothypourgos (= "prime minister"). Thus, letter t followed by aspiration h turns to th, written with letter theta in Greek.

Herodotus, using the Ionic dialect, writes metiemi instead of methiemi (= "I let loose", "I forgive") (Hdt. Histories, e.g. Book 1:12). Although this is not clear evidence, it is easier to believe that in Ionic Greek the aspiration after met- was missing (as opposed to Attic Greek), thus requiring the spelling with tau, rather than that the fricative theta was pronounced as plosive tau in Ionic (there is no such general trend in Ionic Greek).

Latin renders Greek theta through the digraph th (as in Thebes, Thucidides), which in Latin was pronounced as [th]. If theta were fricative, as in modern Greek, there would have been other possibilities (since Latin lacked a fricative [θ], as in English thin), such as using "s", or even "f" (as was the case many centuries later in Russian, where the cyrillic letter ф was used to transliterate theta in words of Greek origin, such as Афины for Athens, or Фёдор for Theodore; however, this choice was made when theta was already pronounced as [θ], in Byzantine times).

The word for "hair" (a single strand) in the nominative is thriks (θριξ), while in the genitive it becomes trikhos (τριχός). Such a transformation of consonants is not casual. There is a linguistic law, known as Grassmann's law (after mathematician and linguist Hermann Grassmann, who discovered it in 1862), according to which if there are two originally aspirated initial syllables (as there would be if we had thrikhos), then the first syllable loses its aspiration (hence, trikhos). The same law operates when originally aspirated hekho (cέχω = "I have"), as evidenced by future form hekso (cέξω = "I will have"), becomes unaspirated ekho (έχω). Grassmann's law applies in other languages, too, with similar treatment of aspiration, such as Sanskrit.

The perfect tenses are formed by reduplication, i.e., repeating the initial consonant of the present root. For example, pino (πίνω = "I drink") in perfect becomes pepoka (πέπωκα = "I have drunk"); temno (τέμνω = "I cut") becomes tetmeka (τέτμηκα = "I have cut"); kamno (κάμνω = "I work") becomes kekmeka (κέκμηκα = "I have worked"). However, verbs the root of which starts with one of the dasea consonants (theta, phi, and chi, see above) have their reduplicated consonant as one of the corresponding psila (tau, pi, and kappa), which is another application of Grassmann's law (see previous). For example, pheugo (φεύγω = "I leave") in perfect becomes pepheuga (πέφευγα = "I have left"); thaumazo (θαυμάζω = "I marvel") becomes tethaumaka (τεθαύμακα = "I have marveled"); and khairo (χαίρω = "I rejoice") becomes kekhareka (κεχάρηκα = "I have rejoiced"). The important pattern to notice here is that the reduplicative syllable is always a plosive in these cases, agreeing with the initial consonant if the latter is pronounced as a plosive. On the contrary, verbs with fricative initial consonants, such as [s] and [m], reduplicate their consonant with a fricative, such as syro (σύρω = "I drag"), which in perfect becomes sesyrka (σέσυρκα = "I have dragged"), or manthano (μανθάνω = "I learn"), in perfect: mematheka (μεμάθηκα = "I have learned"). If theta were a fricative, its reduplication in thaumazo, for example, would produce *thethaumaka (*θεθαύμακα).

The doubling of consonants is another case in point. Continuous consonants, including fricatives, are doubled normally: -σσ-, -λλ-, -μμ-, -νν-, -ρρ-, which in ancient Greek were pronounced by prolonging the articulation of the consonant. So were unaspirated plosives: -ππ-, -ττ-, -κκ-, -ββ-, -δδ-, which were probably pronounced by prolonging the stop (as in modern Italian). Aspirated plosives, however, (as well as the doubles ζ, ξ, ψ) were never doubled like the other consonants: there is never a -θθ-, -φφ-, or -χχ- in ancient Greek. Instead, their doubling was effected with the corresponding unaspirated (psilo), thus: -τθ-, -πφ-, -κχ- (e.g., in the words titthe, apphys, kakkhazo). If theta were a continuant ([θ]), it would be doubled normally, like the other continuants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is REALLY interesting, because

"modern-castilian spanish,venetian,modern-greek have the "th" ([θ]), "cena"= thena in ancient times it was as "Ancient Greek letter "theta" was pronounced as [th] ([t] aspirated, nearly as in English tip)" similar to modern languages depicted...

in old spanish; "tsena"
in modern spanish; "thena"
in latin-american spanish; "sena" or "ssena" (hiss-like sound)

The sibilant "s" is used and was used in "ancient-greek,modern-greek,classical-latin,castilian-spanish and variants of latin-american spanish.

other similarities--------------->>>>>>.

Gamma [gh];

a sound that does not exist in English. If followed by the sound [u] then it sounds almost like the initial sound in “woman”, but with the back of the tongue touching more to the back (soft) palate. To pronounce [gha], try to isolate “w” from “what” without rounding your lips, and then say [a]. In Castilian Spanish this sound exists in “amiga”. Same is true for [gho]: try eliminating the [u] sound from “water”. (C. Spanish: “amigo”.) On the other hand, due to a phonetic phenomenon called palatalization, [ghe] sounds a bit like “ye” in “yes”, and [ghi] sounds a bit like “yi” in “yield”. Phonetically, gamma is a voiced velar fricative. (Its palatalized version is a voiced palatal fricative.)

Nu [n];

as in “noble”; a voiced alveolar nasal. When followed by the vowed [i] it becomes palatalized, turning to a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Spanish; check the page on palatalization). Notice that the name of the letter is pronounced “ni” (nee), not “new” as in American English.

Rho [rh];

a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Scottish). Sounds very much like the Italian, or Russian [r], or the Spanish [r] in “caro”. (Spanish speakers: in Greek there is no difference in how long you trill your rho; better to make it like in “caro” than like in “carro”.) Phonetically, it is a voiced alveolar trill.

Chi [ch]

a sound that does not exist in English (but exists in Scottish, as in “loch”; German: “Bach”; Spanish: “Jorge”). When followed by vowels [e] or [i] it is pronounced nearly as in German “ich”. For the exact pronunciation in this case, please check the page on palatalization. Phonetically, it is a voiceless velar fricative. (Its palatalized version is a voiceless palatal fricative.)

Enjoy!
S.P.Q.R   Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:41 am GMT
<<<'vigil' and the modern Italian word for this, guardia di notte.<<<
Not really, Vigile also exists in italian.
Aldo   Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:09 pm GMT
Luis and all,

That was very interesting and I find very fascinating this matter of the evolution of languages but there's something that has intrigued since ever and it's how do linguists know how words or letters sounded 4000 or even 500 years ago if there were no media to record sounds ?
JGreco   Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:36 pm GMT
Why is Modern Greek, Italian, and Spanish pronunciation so similar. I remember hearing Greek spoken thinking yes I could only pick out a few words from my knowledge of Soanish and Italian but the pronunciation was so strikingly similar. Please can someone explain this phenomenome.
JR   Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:30 pm GMT
Spanish, also has:

vigilante de noche (night-watchman)

or

vigia de noche (watch of night)


JGreco; Spanish,Italian & Greek are similar...for various reasons, really.
One notion I would speculate about would be that they've been MUCH isloated from Germanic, etc influences...Portuguese was also too at one time, but sought refuge to reform some of it's phonology to resemble french intonation, hence in medieval times. Another assumption would be that Greece, Spain & Italy: one time or the other 'ONE' has conquered it's country and kept strong ties with eachother more or less. Furthermore these are just my theories and perhaps of others....but are valid points in some ways.

Aldo: Not really sure, but it might be LINKED to what I've mentioned to "JGreco" (being MUCH isolated from germanic etc influences and phonology.) Also, the fact they would probably trade a lot more and were easier trading routes towards "greece, italy & spain" which is parallel to cross from greece to italy & italy to spain and vice versa. And last but not least, that all three of them have once conquered their country, with respect. There's more observations & answers, the internet is an great source and tool to verify.
Gringo   Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:27 am GMT
JR
««Portuguese was also too at one time, but sought refuge to reform some of it's phonology to resemble french intonation, hence in medieval times.»»

When was that time? Can you give any examples and explain when did this reform take place? What changes were made to resemble french intonation? I can give you a few texts in Medieval Portuguese where you can have an idea of the phonology (people already "ate" vowels and did nazalise vowels contrary to what many people say).

Notice that in northern Portugal "om" (on) is still used instead of "ão" and the phonology is very similar to the one in the medieval texts.

XIII Century:
D. Afonso X, o Sábio.

http://www.historiaviva.org/cantigas/079.shtml
http://www.historiaviva.org/cantigas/100.shtml
http://www.historiaviva.org/cantigas/294.shtml


XIV century:
http://www.usc.es/~ilgas/bretanna.html
http://www.jayrus.art.br/Apostilas/LiteraturaPortuguesa/IdadeMedia/Fernao_Lopes.htm
JR   Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:51 am GMT
Gringo   Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:42 am GMT
“French influence during the eighteenth century changed the Portuguese spoken in the homeland, making it different from the Portuguese spoken in the colonies.”

Thank you for the link JR. I am sorry to say this but it is just nonsense. The French influence was in literature e.g. with Voltaire (XVIII century) Victor Hugo and Honoré de Balzac (in the XIX century) not in the language phonology or spelling. At this time some French vocabulary entered in the Portuguese language like abat-jour (quebra-luz) baton (batom) but we also have words from other languages e.g . Dutch: dijk (dique) English: football ( futebol) African: banana Chinese: chá. Many French words also entered in Brazil so I can not see why people make so much confusion with this.

This is sort of thing that, like a virus, is spreading but has no truth in it. It is like saying that in medieval Portuguese all the vowels were pronounced and that Brazilians speak like Camões did in the XVI century, so they speak the “original” Portuguese language. But there were more french immigrants in Brazil than Napoleon troops in Portugal.

You can find that there is no difference in the writing, and it would be a lot more logic to say the Spaniards spoken language changed, as they had a French king, than the Portuguese language LOL.


Writers of the XVII century:
http://alfarrabio.di.uminho.pt/vercial/barroca.htm

Writers of the XVIII century:
http://alfarrabio.di.uminho.pt/vercial/neoclass.htm
Aldo   Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:20 am GMT
Gringo, Castilian spanish phonology didn't differ from that of Old-spanish.

corazon (latin american spanish, "corason") >-s- written:z
coraçon (old spanish, "coratson") >-ts- usually written:ç
corazon (modern castilian, "corathon") >-th- written:z

fuerza(modern castilian, "fuertha") >-th- written:z
forza(italian, "fortsa") >-ts- usually written:z
fuerça(old spanish, "fuertsa") >-ts- usually written:ç
fuerza(latin-american spanish, "fuersa or fuerssa") >-s- written:z

http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/santiago/osppron.html

Actually old-spanish was similar to that of italian in the phonology sense and some words...because of strong ties, poetry, conquering etc.

example;

honor (modern spanish)
onore (italian)
honore (old-spanish)
Gringo   Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:12 am GMT
Aldo
««Gringo, Castilian spanish phonology didn't differ from that of Old-spanish.»»

I was not saying that it differ. Only that it was more logic to say that the Spanish phonology changed, because of French influence, than Portuguese. No one says this kind of nonsense about the other European countries invaded by Napoleon. Iberian languages have a phonology very much of their own.

««Actually old-spanish was similar to that of italian in the phonology sense and some words...because of strong ties, poetry, conquering etc. »»

I would say Leonese instead. Spanish has a simple phonology. Portuguese/Galician is more complicated for historical reasons (nothing to do with the French!), only because of this you can compare Spanish to Italian and find it similar (not considering what all Romance languages share). All Romance languages have strong ties with each other anyway.

««conquering etc.»»
The etc is the less explained part isn't it?
The strong ties have anything to do with Numancia? The Romans did not move to Iberia they explored the land and the people and closed schools.

http://www.numantinos.com/index_numancia_esp.htm

As far as I know most of the Peninsula never liked the Roman control.
greg   Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:01 pm GMT
Aldo : « Castilian spanish phonology didn't differ from that of Old-spanish ».

C'est une blague ?

Le phonème [t_s] est-til toujours présent en castillan moderne ? En tout cas on trouvait [t_s] en ancien castillan : AC <março>, AC <mançana> etc.

Pareil pour [d_z] : AC <pozo>, AC <erizo> etc .

Et aussi [S] : AC <mexilla>, AC <caxa> etc.

Et enfin [Z] : AC <mugier>, AC <ojo> etc.
Frontera   Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:03 pm GMT
I would think that there would be a strong link between Spanish and Italian for reasons already stated. But also because of the Spanish control over southern Italy.
Taso   Tue May 02, 2006 8:09 pm GMT
Although Greek has borrowed numerous foreign loan words over the centuries, primarily from Slavic (kodospina - housewife) and Turkish (tufeki -rifle) by Brennus Mon Apr 10

Just a correction:It isn't kodospina but oikodespoina of greek origing<οικοδεσποινα from οικος ekos or oikos in the so called Εrasmic pronounciation-house and δεσποτης, despotis -master ,so the exact translation is master of the house. Compare with economy,ecology -οικονομια οικολογια

Word tufeki is indeed of Turkish origin <tiufek>
Taso   Wed May 03, 2006 9:54 am GMT
Hi Brennus.

The word is gospodin for male and gospoza for female both in Bulgarian and Russian <I speak Bulgarian and i can understand a bit of Russian>

Their primary meaning is Mr,Mrs and their secondary is master and housekeeper.

There is no word kodospina in Greek only oikodespina<explanation given above> I don't say that there aren't slavic words in the Greek language but this is not the case.

Words ecology and economy are as you mentioned artificialy created ,like other: Eg stethoscope term introduced by Laennec in 1817 ,uraemia 1840 by
Piorry.

The word spiti is used more often than oikia.
But here are some words used in daily basis:
Oikogeneia<family> ,katoikia <home> ,katoikos<inhabitant>
These words are not artificially created and derived from the ancient greek.

Sometimes there are two words used for one meaning:
Oikos and spiti for home as Brennus said , leukos and aspros for home <aspros derives from the Latin asper-rough> ,ihthys and opsarion for fish
<word opsarion appeared if remember correctly late in the 1 century BC>
BOB   Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:07 pm GMT
Your pronounciation of biblical greek is wrong!