Jefferson Cicero wrote: I would have bet on Phoenician because at least it was alphabetical.
Victor wrote:Jefferson Cicero wrote: I would have bet on Phoenician because at least it was alphabetical.
Your argument seems to be that since the Romans studied Greek, a parallel phenomenon almost certainly occurred with the Greeks, and they likewise studied some foreign language with a longer history than their own. Wouldn't it be more logical to gather what evidence there is in the first place for any second-language study among the Greeks before permitting yourself to theorise about what that second language might have been?
Jefferson Cicero wrote:Actually, I wasn't assuming any such thing. Perhaps my question was misleading in the way that it was worded so that one might assume that I thought a parallel case existed, but then you can't always think of everything when you ask a question.
Victor wrote:Jefferson Cicero wrote:Actually, I wasn't assuming any such thing. Perhaps my question was misleading in the way that it was worded so that one might assume that I thought a parallel case existed, but then you can't always think of everything when you ask a question.
Well a certain single-mindedness was evident in the thread title for a start: "What was Latin for the Greeks?" You did qualify this at the end of your first post by asking "Was the study of a foreign language part of Greek education?" but then at the end of your next post you began again on the original tack, discussing Persian and Phoenician as theoretical second languages, without offering any evidence that either language was actually studied by the Greeks.
I'm sorry if you feel unfairly criticised for your approach, but the question that preoccupies you can only be answered by the discovery of supporting evidence, not by speculation as to what would be "logical" or what it would be fair to "bet on".
Classical scholarship and Ancient History have been bedevilled over the years by speculation on all sorts of matters. Rigorous scholarship surely starts with being rigorous with ourselves, acknowledging the limits of what is currently known, and working from there towards insights which, if small, will at least have a sure foundation.
Scribo wrote:If you look at manuals of "modern" Greek from the 10's and 20's you'll see very little ancient there. Classically educated Europeans were keen to speak Greek and Greeks in the diaspora were presenting as Classicised a version of Greek as they could get away with. There's a lot of interesting intellectual history here actually. Suffice to say when these people went to Greece they couldn't actually speak with actual Greeks lol.
Jefferson Cicero wrote:Speaking of the issue of Classically educated Europeans wanting to speak Greek and Greeks presenting as classicised a version of Greek as the could get away with, how about that problem the Greeks had during the war of independence, when they had to decide whether to present themselves to west Europeans as classical Greeks or as Byzantine Romans? Were they going to have a Roman restoration or a Greek republic? Now that's an identity crisis I would never wish on anyone.
Jefferson Cicero wrote:As should have been obvious, the title was meant to be purely whimsical, as are many titles of many posts by many posters on this forum. I would have thought you could have figured that out. After all, this is an informal forum, not a journal of scholarly research, and in any case I am no scholar and thus I am very unlikely to pollute the scholarly world with nonsense. Therefore I don't need that lecture. I'm not sure why you even wish to argue about it, as I have better things to do, and any more posts of this nature from you will be ignored.
Scribo wrote:Tsakonion, living Doric, has...η pronounced like ε (contra modern Greek ι)...
Paul Derouda wrote:Is the Tsakonian - Doric connection firmly established? I'm not skeptical, just asking, since I don't know anything about this. I remember I've read about this before from an extremely unreliable source (probably a tourist guide to the Peloponnese or Wikipedia or both), and they said it's just a theory among others.
Qimmik wrote:In the case of Norwegian, the idea was to make it less like Danish. Norway was under the Danish crown until 1814, and Iceland until 1944, and there was a certain amount of resentment of the Danes in both cases. As a result of Norway's long history of Danish rule, the standard varieties of Norwegian are heavily influenced by Danish, except that (1) the spelling is somewhat more consistent with Norwegian pronounciation, and (2) Norwegian is intelligible, which Danish is not.
Paul Derouda wrote:But the idea is, I think, that the Scandinavian languages are not really so clearly defined, but rather form a spectrum of mutually intelligible languages that extends roughly from North to South. They say that some Southern dialects of Swedish are more like Norwegian or Danish, though I couldn't tell.
Jefferson Cicero wrote:I have wondered about that as well, why make the language of such a small minority mandatory? So it was that fact that the Swedes were the ruling class for a long time. I suspected that but had no way of knowing for sure.
Jefferson Cicero wrote:Miguel,
Just by happenstance, I am listening to a podcast series called 'History of Byzantium', and episode 41, which I just got around to listening to last night, is entitled 'Who Is A Byzantine'. It gives some detail that will help you understand how the whole Classical Greek-Byzantine Roman identity issue came into existence in the first place, and so it sheds some light on the identity issue the Greeks had when they were fighting for independence and establishing the modern republic.
In short, although of course the Greeks had a cultural, ethnic and linguistic sense of themselves from the beginning, there was no political identity at all, and certainly no national identity in the modern, nationalist sense that demands an ethnically based nation state. After they became part of the Roman empire, eventually the empire gave them a new sense of Roman identity that developed throughout the empire and among all the peoples in the empire. The idea of nationalism and ethnically based nation states developed in Europe much later, after the empire was gone. So when the Greeks fought for and gained independence from the Turks, they had to create a modern national identity from scratch.
And then, after all that effort at national identity making, they imported a German king of all things, and then, to top that off, they imported a Danish king, all of which seems rather contradictory to the whole national identity making exercise.
Anyway, the podcast is here: http://www.thetvcritic.org/historypodca ... ve&cat=all
Users browsing this forum: Qimmik and 5 guests