You mean h to gh right?
1%homeless wrote:There are tons of dialects in England.
You should try the Netherlands. Dialects galore.
annis wrote:Since I last replied to this thread I have changed my mind, and I now favor the zd and only zd interpretation for zeta.
Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration.
benissimus wrote:For example, the word [face=SPIonic]e#zomai[/face], root "sed-", I assumed an S had been added between the stem and the personal endings (for some reason...). This is the only example I can think of at the moment (I am a newbie as you know)... perhaps there is another explanation for this word?
For example, the word [face=SPIonic]e)/zomai[/face], root "sed-", I assumed an S had been added between the stem and the personal endings (for some reason...). This is the only example I can think of at the moment (I am a newbie as you know)... perhaps there is another explanation for this word?
Bert wrote:If 500 years from now people notice that 'impossible' was often misspelled as 'imposhible', they would have a good indication that the double S probably was pronounced as sh.
We can see that in the misspelling of tough as touff or tuff.
We also have a good indication from the spelling that tough was probably pronounced differently in the past than it is now.
ThomasGR wrote:It-s true that "s" before voiced consonants becomes (iat least n most cases) also voiced, and in some cases the previous or following consonant is ommited, but please do not pronounce it "zd" or "dz". It's an insult to the ears. Be sufficient speaking it "z".
I can, with effort, read Chaucer in Middle English. If I want his verses to scan, however, I have to do all sorts of things my native English doesn't do. For example, "pierced" will have two syllables. If I don't make these concessions to the changes of just under a millennium, the verse is ruined.
ThomasGR wrote:]We don't have sufficient data as to how English sounded in those days,
and your try will be an insult to those poets.
Any other attempt is fruitless.
annis wrote:I don't understand why you're dismissing the use of all the scholarship that has gone into this question, even if you're not interested in using a reconstructed pronunciation yourself.
ThomasGR wrote: Simple, we don't have data to do this,
and saying we may make this and that assumption and agree that "?" is "??" is totally wrong.
Bert wrote:William, has your pronunciation changed along with your opinion how Zeta should be pronounced?
I happen to know that both Bert and Benissimus are reading Homer, so I can either recommend a pronunciation that is known incorrect, or one that is possibly correct. I'm going to recommend the possibly correct version.
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, 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’.
Greek pronunciation cannot be determined by what is possible or acceptable in other languages.
Since accent as stress is integral to all speech, its existence in Greek must be as old as the language itself.
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,
When the Greeks in time came to use the monographs [face=spionic]Q, F, X[/face] in place of the digraphs, the Romans had no equivalents for these letters except for [face=spionic]F[/face], hence Latin F is usually transcribed with [face=spionic]F[/face]!
(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.
(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?
(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.
ThomasGR wrote:And last I wonder if the Erasmic promunciation is of the 5th centuries, then why do you read Homer who lived some centuries prior using the Erasmic pronucniation?
Do you than adopt another pronunciation when reading Plato, another when reading the Bible and even another one when reading the Church Fathers?
ThomasGR wrote:Well, this is exactly the way how Greeks pronounce "z", and it does not sound like "dz" or "zd".
Originally, Latin didn't have "z" in its alphabet and was later adopted from the Greek one, sometimes in the second or first century BC, together with K, X and Y, which were used only for words loaned from Greek.
Here's a modern Greek talking...
yadfothgildloc wrote:So, is eta pronouced (xsampa) /e/ or /E:/? I was taught /e/ (and that it should be differentiated from epsilon-iota (/Ei/), but that page says it's a long epsilon.
However, at some time in the 4th century BCE the change to the modern Greek pronunciation of z as [z] was already taking place. Aristotle (Metaphysics, 993a) writes that whereas some people would analyze z into s+d, others consider it as a separate sound which does not consist of already recognized elements. At the same time there starts to be some confusion between z and s in Greek inscriptions (e.g., anabazmous instead of anabasmous, 329 BCE).
Further evidence for a later continuous (fricative) pronunciation of z ([z]) comes from ancient Greek grammarians (e.g., Dionysius Thrax), who 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 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 (of which zeta is a member) are fricatives, and those other consonants that can be pronounced continuously, without the need for a following vowel. This agrees with a pronunciation of z as [z].
Ancient Persian names that contain the consonants [zd] are transliterated in Greek through z. For example, in Plato we have Oromazes (Ωρομάζης) for Persian Auramazda; and in Xenophon we find Artaozos (Αρτάοζος; in Herodotus: Artavazos) for Artavazda. The Hebrew name Ašdod, we find it in Herodotus as Azotos (Άζωτος).
ThomasGR wrote:Ancient Greeks were never keen to render the sounds of foreign words correctly, but rather to improve them and make more easier for a Greek to pronounce, in other words to “hellenise”. Therefore this evidence does not count. According to that tradition we have
Phraortes for (Persian) Kshatrita (not even close),
Cyaxares for Uwakshatra (!),
Astyages for Ishtumegu (!),
Cyrus for Kurush,
Cambyses for Kambujiya,
Darius for Darayavahush,
Xerxes for Xshayarsha,
Artaxerxes for Artaxshassa
Arses for Arsha
Hystaspis for Vishtaspa (!).
In your sense of Greek, can you shed me a light how the name of master Zhuangtsu should be transliterated in Greek, especially ancient?
The above link that is mentioned says that after the fourth century BC zeta is pronounce as “z”.
Users browsing this forum: C. S. Bartholomew, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 37 guests