You mean h to gh right?
You should try the Netherlands. Dialects galore.1%homeless wrote:There are tons of dialects in England.
Does it really have to be one or the other exclusively? Perhaps both pronunciations were present, in the ancient world. Like "either" and "either". Maybe Greek speakers didn't even tend to notice the difference between the two. Just a speculation.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.
I'd say it's a 3rd (or iota) class present, making the zeta from dy. Smyth sec.508 gives other examples.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?
This is IIRC explained by the use of reduplication. Similarly to *TITK- (TEK > TEK + TEK > TI + TEK > TI + TK > TITK > TIKT)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?
This maybe correct if we assume that both "s" and "sh" keep the present sounds and do not change. What happens if they change and (most probably) "sh" becomes "s" and we forget how "sh" sounded? That happened with gamma and beta, and to say now that gamma was "g" is totally wrong.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.
No.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".
Please, let me disagree one more time in this thread and ask you not to do this. We don't have sufficient data as to how English sounded in those days, and your try will be an insult to those poets. You'll probably speak "p" with modern English aspiration, though we don't know if they did have such and to what degree. To their ears your "p" will sound either as "p"+"h" or soft "b". Further they won't be able to hear your (modern English) "i" and will mistake as (theirs) "e". Next your "e" sounds too much simmilar to (a very short) "a" and makes things more difficult. (Someone may ask, which "a"? English has so many lol) Your "r" will be rolling or not? "c" is "k" or "s"? "K" with aspiration or without? (in other words will he hear a "k" or "g"?) What kind of "e'? And last which "d"? Stick in your modern Enlgish promunciation. Any other attempt is fruitless.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.
This depends on your definition of "sufficient." If by sufficient you mean perfect, then you're right. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. I don't see how it's controversial to try to use the best information we have, not in the expectation that it's perfect, but that it's better than nothing.ThomasGR wrote:]We don't have sufficient data as to how English sounded in those days,
Trying to get closer to a poet's original words, however imperfectly, is an insult?! This makes no sense to me at all.and your try will be an insult to those poets.
No, it isn't. And I will continue to pronounce [face=spionic](/Hfaistoj[/face] hehhp'haistos, and to recommend that pronunciation to people curious about ancient pronunciation, not because I think it reflects perfectly how Homer said it, but because there's plenty of good evidence that it's a heck of a lot closer than, say, ifestos.Any other attempt is fruitless.
I don't dismiss the linguistic science and any attempt to reconstruct sounds, but the attempt to put this pronunciations in practice and trying to read whole sentences knowing at the same time that probably it is wrong from beginning. Simple, we don't have data to do this, and saying we may make this and that assumption and agree that "ζ" is "ζδ" is totally wrong. Especially if the same scholars also say that neighbor sounds have also a saying how a consonant should be spoken and a "ζ" is not always such. To what amountt his influence affects the sound? We will simple never know.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.
This is simply untrue. There's all sorts of data, some of it referred to earlier in this thread. Granted, it's not ideal fieldwork data, but we can't just dismiss it.ThomasGR wrote: Simple, we don't have data to do this,
On the contrary. For the period of Greek I study (Homer and the archaic poets) "[face=spionic]z[/face]" as "z" is totally wrong, and I know this with at least as much confidence as I know that "[face=spionic]ci/foj[/face]" is sword.and saying we may make this and that assumption and agree that "?" is "??" is totally wrong.
Yes, but imperfectly. I learned Erasmian pronunciation first (dz), and it's taking a little time to overcome that.Bert wrote:William, has your pronunciation changed along with your opinion how Zeta should be pronounced?
This is for pure technical reasons impossible to do. All the scripts that we use today are re-written countless times, and every time they were refined and improve according to the tastes and phonology of those centuries, e.g how they spoke and wrote in their time. Especially if you happen to use all the acute and daseia signs etc. that are an invention of alexandrian "barbarian" grammarians, who in some cases probably didn't speak good Greek themselves. Therefore, how Homer did speak is impossible to find out, since no written text exist from his days, the few we have are some centuries later, and the versions we use today are even more later.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.
Oy. I have read this article before, and it is truly wretched. The author several times make fun of ideas without argumentation, and only shows himself ignorant of modern linguistcs.ThomasGR wrote:http://www.bsw.org/?l=72081&a=Art06.html
This is wishful thinking. Plenty of languages would have no difficulty with this. Just because it sounds comical to the author means nothing.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’.
Absurd. Such comparisons are the basis of all linguistics. Greek is not exempt.Greek pronunciation cannot be determined by what is possible or acceptable in other languages.
Again absurd. Plenty of languages don't have stress accent (Japanese, say).Since accent as stress is integral to all speech, its existence in Greek must be as old as the language itself.
More nonsense. As any speaker of a tone language can tell you (many dialects of Chinese, other Sino-tibetan languages, etc.)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,
Only after A.D.i.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]!
This is completely false. Several slavic and baltic languages had and still have pitch accent.(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.
Because ancient Greek meter is based on duration. But of course the author of this paper discards vowel length... because Modern Greek doesn't have it.(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?
I trust the author has never read Pindar.(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.
I do not use Erasmic. I use the work of Palmer, Allen, etc., as the basis for my pronunciation.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?
Well, I'm still working on Homer, Hesiod, and the archaic poets. I'll worry about the Koine - for which the modern Greek pronunciations make a good deal more sense - when I get to that point.Do you than adopt another pronunciation when reading Plato, another when reading the Bible and even another one when reading the Church Fathers?
Actually Latin has a 'z' in it's earliest alphabet, as well as a K, but it was dropped and then later adopted again from Greek.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.
Macedonia doesn't count! He says he is born in Macedonia. I've read this before. This is where I was first introduced to issues of philology in Greece and realized that I was a barbarian ...and that most of Europe agree more with each other (in terms of Greek philology) than with Greece for some reason.Here's a modern Greek talking...
Yay, XSAMPA!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 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 haveAncient 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).
I was always curious when I saw the name Cyrus appears everywhere in Greek primers, what Persian name was like that, that is, sounded like Greek. Now I see.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 (!).
It depends very much on the person who hears this word for the first time and how he is able to render the sounds, if he was a young person or an older one (who perhaps is a little deaf, btw). If we follow the example “Astyages for Ishtumegu”, it could sound like Zyages, or another example is (written in Greek) Ζυάγχης (almost Zuangkhes), or Zuanses, or even place an eta before and make it Ezyges. One thing we may be sure, it has to end in –es or –os and must not have too many consonants followed one the other. We have also the case of the Chinese name Kong Tzu that is rendered as Confucius. This continues in the Latin tradition where we have Avicenna, for (the Persian name) Abu Ali Husain ebn Abdallah Ebn-e Sina. It does not necessarily need to sound close to the original nameIn your sense of Greek, can you shed me a light how the name of master Zhuangtsu should be transliterated in Greek, especially ancient?
the last paragraph is a bit weird though: it implies that dionysius thrax says that zeta is a fricative (because he called it a hemiphonon or something), but in the 2nd paragraph it quotes dionysius thrax saying that zeta is sigma + delta. back to the last paragraph, the author's inference that dionysius thrax said that zeta is a fricative because:http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harr ... etapro.htm
The above link that is mentioned says that after the fourth century BC zeta is pronounce as “z”.