Pronunciation of vowels

[Mitch]

Hi everyone, this is my first question here

As I mentioned in my intro post on the Open Board, I recently completed an initial readthrough of the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (CGCG) and am now beginning a second more thorough reading of the book. My first question concerns the pronunciation of certain vowels in the classical Greek period and has to do with what seems to me are differences between what CGCG says on page 7 and what AtticGreek.org (AG) says on http://atticgreek.org/pronunc/pronunc_guide.html.

First, concerning epsilon (ε):

• CGCG says to pronounce ε like IPA [e] and gives two approximations for how this sounds: (1) like the first “a” in the English word “fatal” and (2) like the "e-acute " in the French word “clé”
  
  
  
• AG however says ε should be pronounced like “e” in the English word “pet” which is IPA [ε:].

But hey these are two very different sounds, eh? (Yes, I’m Canadian LOL.) Why the difference between CGCG and AG and which is correct? I’m thinking that CGCG must be correct because AG (and also CGCG) say to pronounce eta (η) like the “e-circumflex” in the Frence word “tête” but I believe(speaking as a non-Quebecer) that’s just the same as the “e” in the English word “pet.” In other words it seems to me that AG pronounces both ε and η as IPA [ε:] while CGCG pronounces ε and η differently (which helps in parsing and memorization).

And second, concerning omicron (ο):

• CGCG says to pronounce ο as IPA [o] e.g. like in the English word “go” or like the first “o” in “notorious” or like in the German word “Motiv”.
  
  
  
• AG however says to pronounce ο like in the German word “Gott” which would be IPA [ɔ]. But concerning omega (ω) CGCG says to pronounce ω as IPA [ɔ:] e.g. like in the English word “more” or the second “o” in “notorious”. AG however says to pronounce ω like the “aw” in the English word “saw” which is also IPA [ɔ:]. So once again it seems to me that CGCG must be correct because AG seems to be saying that both ο and ω should be pronounced as IPA [ɔ]/[ɔ:] while CGCG pronounces ο and ω differently (which again helps in parsing and memorization).

So why the differences? Are CGCG and AG dealing with pronunciation during different historical periods? I know from reading Randall Buth’s paper at https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/koine-greek-pronunciation/ that later during the Hellenistic period certain vowels and vowel combinations became similar in pronunciation. But as I work through CGCG I’ve been usingt their recommended pronunciation as I read the examples out loud to myself and in order to cement properly in my mind the different endings and memorize vocabulary. And I think maybe that some of the examples of historical sound changes they describe in chapter 1 (e.g. ablaut patterns and contraction and so on) actually make more sense if one follows their recommended pronunciation for vowels.

Anyways, I’d very much appreciate if anyone here can help clear up why the differences between CGCG and AG on how to pronounce vowels in classical Greek.

Thank you!

[mwh]

Hi Mitch.
The crucial difference is between short vowels (such as ε and o) and long ones (such as η and ω). That’s built-in to the prosody of the language and is all-important in verse. So long as that difference is respected (it applies to α and ι and υ as well, not alphabetically distinguished) I don’t myself much care exactly how they’re pronounced, which in any case varied according to time and place.

[Mitch]

Thanks, yes I understand from reading chapter 1 of CGCG that ancient Greek pronunciation evolved over time and that it’s important to distinguish between short and long vowels. But I’d still like answers to my questions

[mwh]

Well OK then: Prima facie I’d expect CGCG to be more reliable than that AG site, but I would certainly NOT recommend pronouncing epsilon (short e) “like the first ‘a’ in the English word ‘fatal’" nor omicron (short o) “like in the English word ‘go’.” That would be to invite disaster.

[jeidsath]

The AG recommendations seem to come directly from Allen’s Vox Graeca, and are in fact mostly the summary recommendations at the end of that book. CGCG mostly takes their information from Allen, as far as I can tell from the bibliography, but disagree with him on ε, and instead classify it as close-mid, which Allen specifically argues against in the text (pg. 63 and references).

The first vowel in tête is long, and the vowel in pet is not. It’s also a bit more open? Allen says so anyway, and that seems reasonable from some of the pronunciations on forvo.com. [Funny story, I have a Belgian friend who visited Montreal, and everyone would switch to English when they heard his accent.]

CGCG’s vowel chart suggests that they think ω is ever so slightly more fronted than ο, while Allen’s suggests that ο is ever so slightly more fronted that ω. Maybe one or the other of them has an argument for this, but I don’t know it.

I recommend looking over Allen Vox Graeca, Threatte’s Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, and Sturtevant’s Pronunciation of Attic Greek (comparing both 1st and 2nd editions), for an idea of how wild and wooly it gets, if nothing else.

The vowel length is the thing to get right, as mwh says, though the people who actually do get it right are few and far between.

[Villanelle]

Are Luke Ranieri’s videos on Classical Greek pronunciations which he goes through in great detail in a recent 2 hour video good from a pronunciation perspective in terms of the discussion here?

Cheers.

[Mitch]

@jeidsath

OK it looks like CGCG takes its vowel pronounciations from Threatte not from Allen. On page XXVIII of Threatte vol.1 there’s a list of phonetic equivalents that provides IPA equivalents for ε η ο ω and related diphthongs and it appears to correspond to the table of vowels on page 7 of CGCG.

I’d attach a screensnip from Threatte but I can’t figure out how to attach an image to a post here

[jeidsath]

You have to hotlink for images. I used to recommend imgur for this until their policy changed. Someday I’ll get around to implementing local image hosting.

[Mitch]

No problem. Anyways I’ll try reading thru what Threatte says about these vowels though I suspect much of what he says will go over my head. But I’ve decided I’m going to continue following CGCG’s pronunciation scheme as it seems to be based on more recent scholarship (Threatte) as opposed to Sturtevant, Allen et al.

Thanks again for pointing me towards these resources!

[jeidsath]

Threatte’s IPA system in the introduction isn’t meant to be a guide to vowel quality. He had to pick a convention for talking about how the vowels changes over time, and that is what he uses. He’s more concerned with the evolution of the graphical system for representing that evolving language. Allen’s 3rd edition of Vox Graeca (1984) footnotes him frequently. Horrocks is newer than either of them though, and does a lot of IPA’ing.

[Mitch]

Really?! Interesting then that CGCG follows what Theratte has there. Will check out Allen 3rd and Horrocks if I can get access to them. Thanks!

[persequor]

Re: Pronunciation of Vowels

Mitch, while I commend your enthusiasm and interest in scholarly reference works, I would suggest a much easier path to learning and mastering the vowel sounds of Greek. In learning any skill, it is better to work smarter, not harder. (Not that some effort is not part of the picture, mind you)

Learning the vowels in context of actual Greek usage, in a communicative way, will cement in your brain the appropriate sounds and distinctions between sounds far better than reading about them.

There are now a number of helpful video courses and some sources of audio files that will help with this. If your interest is more in classical Greek, the video course “Alpha with Angela”, though aimed at learners of Koine and the New Testament in Greek, will help you get started, as it uses a modified Erasmian accent. This fits the classical period well and also works as an upper register accent for Koine. It is an immersive course that is easy for even a beginner to use, and is absolutely free of charge. There are also Luke Rainieri’s Lucian pronunciation materials (video course), and Randall Buth’s materials. Or, you can get audio and video of Modern Greek pronunciation of the entire Greek Bible.

After having worked with Ancient Greek for over 50 years now, I can tell you that such a communicative approach will produce better results in the long run than a strictly grammar/translation/analytical approach does. At least, it does, if mastering Greek and being able to read the ancients with comprehension and enjoyment without constantly consulting grammars and lexicons is your goal. While I only started moving away from the traditional approaches about 14 years ago, I am much more at home in Greek now than I would have been had I not tried a different approach. Now, when I listen to recordings of the Greek Bible, even without looking at the written form, I normally can understand what is being said and even anticipate what is likely to be said next. I am also working toward reading Hellenistic authors outside the Greek Bible (currently am reading Lucian of Samosata’s Dialogues of the Gods), as well as some Plato (extracts from the Apology, and hopefully this year a second go at the Symposium). There are also some recordings on Librivox of classical Greek authors, all free of charge.

Over the years, I’ve worked with eight languages, and I can assure you that the basics of language learning and acquisition are the same for all of them. There are universal principles that apply here. Learning to speak, learning to hear and understand, both are needed to become a good reader and, if you want, a good writer, no matter the language, whether ancient or modern. That is just how language learning works. Now, I don’t suggest that you would be able to converse fluently on any and all topics after such a course (or two or three). But you will be on the right path to preparing to be a good reader and to appreciate your authors.

It should also be noted that grammar is not left out or put aside when pursuing these videos I‘ve suggested. In fact, even from the first lessons, some grammar basics are taught. But they are taught in a conversational context, not explicitly. It is not necessary to memorize paradigms and parsings to learn grammar on the beginning level. When you were an infant learning to speak your native language, your parents did not read to you from a grammar book. You began to learn grammar intuitively as you learned to speak and understand others speak. By the time you entered school, you already had a pretty good understanding of the basics of grammar before you ever had a lesson on it in class. This experience can, to some extent, be reproduced in learning ancient languages. The teacher and the learner just need to modify their expectations and assumptions a bit, and be willing to make mistakes and learn from them.

Mitch, I wish you all the best in your language study, whether or not you accept my premises. But, I hope you will consider carefully these thoughts, as they are backed up not only by personal experience and results, but also by those of students and teachers around the world.

[Mitch]

Thanks but I have a dual interest here i.e. to be able to read ancient Greek (including Koine)of course, but also to understand as much as I can about the language as I find it fascinating. I should point out that my background is in Physics so I’ve always be interested in understanding the principles behind things. And being also fascinated by the evovling usage of language (not just Greek) I find looking up words in my Cambridge Greek Lexicon to be enjoyable and illuminating, not a tedium. So basically, I’m quite happy with the way I’m pursuing learning Greek.

But thanks anyways as I’m sure your advice is probably best for 99% of people are struggling to learn ancient Greek. It’s just that my motivations place me among the oddballs

[jeidsath]

Interesting then that CGCG follows what Theratte has there.

It is interesting. I wonder if it might be a somewhat independent attempt to arrive at an IPA formalization.

Also, if you’re an American like me, you may wish to note that we often pronounce the first vowel in “fatal” (or “may”) as a diphthong. So I say [eɪ] instead of [e], same vowel as in “hey”. CGCG’s close-mid [e] versus Allen’s open-mid [ε] isn’t going to make much of a difference to anyone, but diphthongizing the vowel to [eɪ] will make poetry very difficult (impossible).

[MattK]

Many good points made already, but I’ll add the following.

Some of the confusion comes from Allen’s terminology and changes in standard British English pronunciation. When he says that ε should be pronounced like in English ‘pet’ he does not mean the /ε/ sound that most speakers use today. In Received Pronunciation ‘pet’ was pronounced with an /e/. On p. 63-4 (3rd edition) Allen says that the sound he had in mind was not ‘of a specially close quality’ (French ‘gai’ is the example he uses), but the evidence he gives for a distinction is not strong. In any case, it’s definitely not an /ε/.

This is clear if you look at his vowel chart on p.62, which is effectively almost the same as the CGCG’s on page 8. In both charts η is clearly more open than ει and ε. Allen says ε is also more open than ει, whereas the CGCG accepts only a tiny difference.

Anyway, in terms of pronunciation, they would agree that:

ει = /e:/ (the CGCG’s choice of ‘made’ to illustrate this is inexplicable, particularly as the vowel is the same sound as in ‘eight’, which they use to illustrate the earlier diphthong pronunciation of ει!)

η = /ε:/

But for ε the CGCG is happy with /e/ (again, as others have said, ignore the ‘fatal’ suggestion, as it is not a simple vowel sound in standard varieties of English), whereas Allen would urge a more intermediate sound, as laid out on his p.89.

If you’re interested, on changes in standard British pronunciation in recent decades I recommend Geoff Lindsey’s YouTube channel and his book ‘English after RP’.

[jeidsath]

I disagree with characterization of Allen. The mid-close vowel is /e/ and he makes a strong statement – which we can disagree with of course – that it’s more open than that. And later he says not quite so open as modern Greek ε. He’s talking about /ε/ or something close it. The pronunciation of “pet” hasn’t really changed that much since the 60s. And French gai is /gε/ per the first pronunciation in Wikipedia.

[Curius]

Hello Joel,

I cannot of course say anything about the right pronunciation of pet but, being french, may have some idea about that of gai.

The french Wiktionnaire gives: "\ɡe\ ou \ɡɛ" here:

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/gai

but I must say that I never heard it pronounced \ɡɛ\ but rather as clé or été, i.e. with a [e].

[jeidsath]

You are correct. In fact, it looks like he is giving gai as an example of the closed version that he disagrees with. Apparently thinking of it as /ge/? So the point remains: Allen is suggesting something more open than /e/, closer to /ε/, but not so open as modern Greek ε.

[katalogon]

And later he says not quite so open as modern Greek ε.

I don’t get that from Allen page 63. Here is how I read it.

1. He provides an approximate (“rather like”) English word, pet, short mid front.

2. He justifies this (lower-mid) approximation by emphasizing that he does not believe that a specially close variant is appropriate. There is no English example of a specially close variant, so he uses gai in French. (A poor choice since gai has, in theory, both a close and open variant. He would have done better to use été. In any case, it is obvious that he meant the close variant of gai.)

3. He then amplifies this justification by noting that modern Greek ε is “if anything” rather more open than the e in English pet.

He does not say that modern Greek ε is rather more open than ancient Greek ε.

What I think is happening is that Allen, writing for an English audience, feels that the best thing to do is use English words; if not available, then to go with French or German. He is implying that it might not be unreasonable to expect the audience to have some knowledge of French or German. However, he does not feel that modern Greek can be used since it is highly unlikely that his English readers have ever studied modern Greek.

I think he really wants to say that modern Greek ε can be taken to be a good approximation of ancient Greek ε, but he can’t because that would be of limited usefulness to his English audience.


I think we can address Curius’s query on ε by comparing modern Greek phonology to French phonology.

Look at the modern Greek vowel chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek_phonology

Modern Greek short ε and ο are “true-mid”, that is they fall betwen the two boundary lines of low-mid (baleine in French) and high-mid (été in French).

Compare the vowel chart for French:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_phonology

Note that the e and ε on the left side of the French chart fall on the boundary lines. But the modern Greek ε is only slightly above the lower boundary line. so the French low-mid (baleine) is a reasonable approximation.

We can also try to come up with a good French approximation for the omicron. In the modern Greek vowel chart the omicron falls at the mid-point between the lower and upper boundary lines. So we cannot use the French high-mid (Paule) or the French low-mid (Paul), which fall on the boundary lines.

The solution, I believe, is to look at the nasalized vowel in a French word such as ton. You will see this nasalized vowel in the right half of the French vowel chart exactly half-way between the lower and upper boundary lines.

So start with the “on” of ton, remove the nasalization, but keep the lip rounding, aperture and tongue position unchanged. You then have a nice approximation of the modern Greek omicron.

[jeidsath]

Yes, I think that may be a better understanding of what Allen is saying.

Yet looking at Wikipedia again, I see that modern Greek ε is mid, neither close-mid (“fatal” nor open-mid “pet”). And contra-Allen, listening on Forvo, words like θεός sure don’t sound more open than “pet” to me.

And again, Allen can’t be rescued by claiming that “pet” used to be pronounced /pet/ instead of current /pεt/. For example, look up and listen to Bert Firman’s 1928 “My Pet” on Youtube. English “pet” in 1928 was a close-mid /ε/, just like today.

So maybe we have to throw away Allen’s examples entirely here, and conclude that his arguments point to a mid value for ancient ε, the same as the mid ε in modern Greek, which is more closed than “pet” and more open than “fatal”.