[This perhaps should be an Agora matter, but I’ve posted it here due to its more academic nature.]
While I was posting on the Agora, I came across the need to use a few words that are found in English but not in Greek dictionaries, the principal culprit being Ebola. Since I don’t really have any knowledge in Greek/Latin equivalency or of the length of either of the vowels in the word, I had it declined as *Ἔβωλς, *Ἔβωλος, ἡ (after ἅλς) when I posted on the Agora. I did this because most nouns apparently belong to the third declension in Latin, so I had invented a declensional pattern in the third in Greek when I used a dative plural form *Ἔβωλσιν, causing quite a bit of (overcome with the article) confusion for another Textkit user.
My friend, who is not on Textkit, told me after the fact that it’s a bad idea to decline it after ἅλς because it’s the only example of a noun ending in -λς. I therefore ask the Textkit community if there’s any uniform rule in declining nouns not actually found in Greek, or if the noun should be left undeclined with an article.
You could look at the Modern Greek wikipedia article on Ebola to see how they do it. Thucydides describes Ebola here, but doesn’t really have a word for it:
As just a way to answer a small part of your question, let me share an anecdote. Every year I chat in Ancient Greek with one Carl Conrad about baseball.
He is a huge fan of the St. Louis Cardinals, I root for the Rockies.
Why did Carl decide to transliterate the Cardinals in this way? I don’t know, but I like it. Note that the similarities between the English and Greek endings are based on the plural, which is of course how the word is usually used. Maybe he did it so the endings of both teams would match. There were lots of other options which he did not chose.
The point, the extent that I have a point, is that this is more of an art one feels than a science one analyzes. I for my part chose not to decline τὸ Ἐβόλα at all, because it felt right at the time, but I also like what you did.
There is another angle we could try. That is to translate the meaning into Ancient Greek. Apparently it was named after a river vaguely near an outbreak. In the local language Ebola means Black River.
So we could call it ὁ τοῦ μέλανος ποταμοῦ νόσος.
The advantage of sticking with ἐβολα is that anyone new to the thread will know at once what we are taking about.
There isn’t a right answer to questions like this IMO.
I think Markos’ solution is the best one, not to decline it at all. David’s is fine in principle too (but νοσος is feminine). But isn’t it kind of sick to be using the Ebola horror as an opportunity to practice writing ancient Greek? The Ukraine discussion going hot and heavy on the Agora forum is interesting (though frightening) because Ukrainians on both sides are contributing to it, and in decent Greek. But Ebola?
Thanks for the correction about the gender of νοσος.
As for the discussion itself, it may not be obvious because my Greek is so bad but the focus of the thread is how to prevent more people dying.
I can see your point, and I admit that it is a valid one. Perhaps I have been crass in trivializing the gravity of the situation by discussion minor grammatical issues of the name of the bacteria wrecking havoc in West Africa. For that, I’ll use this opportunity to deliver an open apology to the public.
One more remark that might sound trivial: Ebola is a virus, not a bacterium. The difference is important, because bacterial infections can be typically treated simply by giving antibiotics, while there is no effective specific treatment for the Ebola virus. Of course, in rich countries people with Ebola would be given supportive non-specific care in hospital, which would probably drastically improve their chances, but in poor countries there’s not much that can be done except prevent the disease from spreading. (But I think these measures are very effective, when correctly applied. Nigeria was able to stop Ebola.)
That can be done too, but I don’t think it’s typically done. we generally have separate names for the outbreak in English, such as the Bubonic Plague, or the Spanish Flu.
In any event, I don’t think Classical Greece had an understanding of micro-organisms, so it may just be unfair to force the language to recognize something absent during the time it was spoken as a native tongue.
Ebola in English means the disease not the virus itself. And it is in that sense we have been using it in the thread - at least so far.
Well we could start a thread discussing a problem that the Ancient Greeks face and role-play ancient Greeks. As a way of learning Ancient Greek that would be just as effective. However, judging by the threads that have actually been started, people seem to prefer discussions based on reality.
Even the weather thread has the problem you describe. Ancient Greeks did not have thermometers and so only ever had the vaguest idea of the temperature. When we want to say what the specific temperature is where we live we have tried to write what we think Ancient Greeks would have written had they had thermometers. I think that is an exercise that helps you think more deeply about the language and so has value in itself.
