The music that accompanies my video was composed by my brother Timos Zachariou. He is a music teacher and performing artist. His music is not available on the Internet or in CD format. Thank you for your interest. -PZ
Very informative Philemon Zachariou. I've been studying your language for about five years now and am still amazed at its wonderful versatility. Thank you.
Thank you Dr. Zachariou, for such an informative presentation on the development of the Greek language. I also find it very promising that 111 viewers found it interesting enough to comment on the subject! My interest in it never ceases. Best Regards
Your observation is very much appreciated. The history of Greek is as fascinating as the language itself, I should say. But thanks for pitching in! -PZ
Reread the last part of the video: "We may not know exactly how the Athenians of the classical period sounded, but we do know that Neohellenic, the direct descendant of Attic Greek, preserves the Eucleidian alphabet, orthography, and historical Greek sounds. The same is true of the Greek of the New Testament." That is the gist of the video.
I found your videos in the last few days and you're doing a great job. For anyone who reads this modern greek scholars agree that Greek language has underwent 5 phases (Greek languages is now under it's 5th phase).
Mycenian Greek developed during 1900-1500 BCE. Before that the langauge was quite different and actually that early proto-Hellenic language gave birth to Greek, Phrygian, Armenian and Thraco-Dacian. Going back even further to 2500 BCE there was the first wave of Indo-Europeans of the Centum branch arriving in the Balkans (with the Anatolian group separating very early on). The earliest Linear B tablets found are from around 1450 BCE, they show morphological and syntatical forms still preserving certain Proto-Indo-European structures.
Hey Philemon, I can't less but thank and congratulate you for the best video I have ever watched. The management of the pictures, letters and words is awesome. The historic background is also enlightening. The linguistic information is amazingly rich and useful. And everything wrapped in Hellenic music. This the most pedagogic class I have ever attended, I am invited to study in depth this wonderful language that not conveys so much culture but also stays in most Western languages. Thanks again, and blessings of the Lord.
Thank you for the wonderful video... it was so informative! There is no way I would have known such important facts like the ones you've told here!!! (from a Korean passerby)
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking video. I'd be interested to know how other theories of the development of Modern Standard Greek deal with the data you present. I'm not sure I'm convinced by your analysis of 'spurious diphthongs'. It seems entirely possible that a fronted 'n' sound could be absorbed and leave its 'frontness' behind as an 'i' off-glide. LIkewise, the 's' sound in some positions lost its forward articulation and just became an 'h' and then disappeared, but it could leave a trace in the lengthening of the previous vowel. Is there any evidence to prove a graphic explanation over a (dialectal or diachronic) phonetic one? Also, the Greek alphabet always seems to have had an uneasy relationship with vowels: all the vowels originally had short and long counterparts, but as far as I'm aware Greek never showed the length distinction in 'a, i, y'. It could be that some users, just as they decomposed 'ps, ks' into p + s and k + s, did not use their alphabet to show vowel length (as English doesn't systematically show stress and Chinese doesn't indicate tone, though both are crucial to the system). Has anyone investigated these 'anomalous' inscriptions to see if they are showing some other distinction, such as pitch, etc.? The treatment of initial 'h-' and 'w-' in official classical Homeric orthography seems to be a bit flaky... could it be that the system in classical times was just open to more 'flexibility' than we are used to today (like English in the early modern period)? Anyway, thanks for sparking my interest.
Dear Paul, I am delighted and impressed by your comments, which speak of a strong linguistic background. But please do not credit me with a theory on the development of the Greek pronunciation, as I could never have imagined the evidence. Unfortunately, limited space here prevents a full account of my findings, which are discussed in Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek (Vol. I).
I think you misunderstood me. The gist of this video is that classical greek sounded more or less like modern greek. This is what I was referring to as not being accepted by the experts.
Dr. Zachariou, sorry for the probably strange language, I don't speak English well and use an online translator. I really enjoyed watching your video, the topic interests me very much. I spent a lot of time thinking why in Greece they don’t use Erasmus reading for ancient Greek, why only in Greece. Today, all over the world, the default reading for Ancient Greek is Erasmus. In your video, you say that in classical times the Attic dialect in Athens already in colloquial speech ει, οι, η, υ sounded like ί, and ω like o. I have two questions for you. Please tell me, if already in the Attic dialect there was no difference in the duration of vowels, and some diphthongs and vowels in colloquial speech sounded absolutely the same, like ί, then why were ει, οι, η, υ preserved in writing, and why were they even introduced into writing, what rules were used to write ει or οι, or η, or υ, or ί in words, who developed these rules? Second question. You spoke in great detail about the studies of ancient inscriptions, about the errors in them, and that based on these studies one can draw conclusions about the probable pronunciation at that time, that this pronunciation was similar to “itatism” even then. Such well-founded conclusions destroy all ideas about the so-called “restored” pronunciation, as well as Erasmus, as well as all ideas about correct pronunciation, accepted by scientists around the world almost since the Renaissance. Surely these studies are available. Why then, despite convincing evidence, does Erasmus’ pronunciation remain unshakable all over the world and no one abandons it?
Hello, Dietfried, You did well with the translation into English. Greeks have always pronounced Ancient Greek using the phonemic sounds they have used in their daily speech. The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the manner of Neohellenic (“Modern” Greek) had been accepted prior to and through Byzantine times as a matter of incontestable fact. Objections to it were first raised by Renaissance scholars, chiefly Erasmus, who noted its incongruity with the pronunciation of Latin, the then academic language of Europe. As you may know, Constantinople fell in 1453 and Greece came under Turkish rule. This means that at the time of Erasmus, Greece had no national voice to defend her own language. So while the country of Greece was under Turkish rule, the Greek language eventually came under the rule of prominent European scholars, such as Erasmus. Now you know the roots of the problem, a problem that did not exist prior to Erasmus’ day. You have two questions. Responding to your questions satisfactorily would take more than just a paragraph or two, but I will try to respond as concisely as possible and still try to make sense to you. Regarding your first question: Following the end of the Persian wars in Greece around the mid-5th century BC, the Athenians saw the need to fix their writing system. In 403 BC, Athens adopted the 24-letter Ionic alphabet, an alphabet their kinsmen, the Ionians, had perfected. Until then, Old Attic E stood for [e] and [i], sounds, and O stood for [o] and [u] sounds. (See the video “Greek Pronunciation 1 (Historical Development)” at 12:10-13:45.) At the same time, a number of consonants took a more definitive form. (Mind you, these are the same 24 alphabet symbols used in Greece since 403 BC.) At this point, I would also recommend that you view the video “Greek Pronunciation 11 (1,000 Words),” which shows that many Greek words used today were spelled and understood the same way in New Testament times and in Attic Greek. Grammatical rules regarding the use of ει, η, ι, οι, etc. (e.g., verb ending -εις = 2nd person singular; noun ending -οι = nominative plural, masculine; -ῃ dative singular feminine; -οις dative plural, etc., etc.) are not modern inventions but are traced all the way to Classical Attic, officially from 403 BC on. Your second question: Erasmian, slowly but surely, is going out of fashion. Seminaries here in the United States, for example, are well aware today that the Erasmian pronunciation is artificial and incorrect. Even old die-hards would admit this. My belief is that Erasmian will eventually be replaced by the historical Greek pronunciation (HGP), which consists of the Classical Greek phonemic sounds that have stood the test of time and are preserved in Neohellenic today. This saying, of course, may cause many a brow to be raised, but that is something expected of those who are not fully informed or those who remain unwilling to change for whatever reason. So, Erasmian is not really unshakable, to use your term, although that may have seemed to be the case up until a decade or two ago. Personally, I have had encouraging reports of individuals and institutions that have switched from Erasmian to the Neohellenic pronunciation or are using the Neohellenic pronunciation concurrently with Erasmian. I hope this helps. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Dr. Zachariou, Thank you very much for your detailed and very interesting answer! The so-called Reuchlin reading of ancient Greek really dominates in seminaries, not only in the USA. But there are no questions about this; the texts read in them usually do not go beyond the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, and their pronunciation is already better known. In secular education and scientific circles, on the contrary, Erasmian (relatively Erasmian, there are more modern variants) reading still dominates. When questioning about pronunciation based on the Greek tradition, its opponents usually cite the following arguments. Why retain redundant letters and letter combinations in spelling if they initially represented different sounds and then mixed into one? Or why introduce new different designations for the same sound if they were pronounced the same way, for example, why η meaning the sound ει, if ει already existed? Examples are given from the same Mycenaean, for example Ἥρα, which was written there as e-ra, etc. The same described sounds of animals, sheep, dogs. The argument of spelling is also given - how to distinguish words with such pronunciation (like ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς for example), according to the Greek tradition, an abundance of homonyms arises and you will have to remember the spelling of many words, in the absence of spelling rules. How do you know which letter, or diphthong, denoting the sound - ι, to write in a word and why exactly in this way, in the same way you need to write it, and if they come in a row in a word. It is impossible to read ancient Greek poetry with Byzantine pronunciation, observing the rhythm, only in prose, which means that the ancient poets certainly did not speak like that. And the argument is Historical Phonetics, which as a science has existed for a long time, its achievements in the field of ancient Greek do not coincide with the Greek tradition. I do not claim, I am not a specialist in the field of linguistics and philology of ancient Greek, I cannot refer to studies or specific articles by prominent scientists in this field, I have listed the arguments given in the course of disputes in various forums by supporters of reading according to Erasmus. I would be very interested to know your opinion on these arguments, whether anything can be countered to them. I looked on TH-cam and other resources for many options for reading ancient texts on Erasmus. It always looks forced and slow, unnatural, or the speakers completely ignore the duration of vowels, stress, etc. IOANNIS STRATAKIS is probably the best thing I’ve ever heard, th-cam.com/video/wN5ltc7pK-U/w-d-xo.html, but even in his performance I can’t imagine how people could talk like that in classical ancient times. Sorry for asking so many questions, but I have no one to ask except you.
Hello again, Dietfried, I recommend that you oder the Kindle version of my book from Amazon for $2.99. Here is the link: www.amazon.com/Reading-Pronouncing-Biblical-Greek-Pronunciation-ebook/dp/B08BT6NKQR/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= This will likely help you with the many questions you have. To satisfy all such questions regarding Erasmian, Reuchlinian, Modern Greek, and a host of other issues will take, I am afraid, many lengthy paragraphs such as the ones we have already exchanged. I am not sure whether you can read English, but if you can manage, this may be a good part of the solution. I am sure there are also technological ways to have the book translated. Thank you for your patience. -PZ
This is certainly a thought provoking video. I have heard other Greeks arguing the same point, but never anyone who seemed (as far as I could tell) to have as much knowledge about the subject as you. I personally was taught that in Hellenistic times Common Greek's η was pronounced _ay_, and υ was pronounced _ew_ (sounding like the sound between ι and ου). I can pick up almost any book on the Greek language in classical times and find something that suggests (or outright says) that η was pronounced just like ε, and a particular grammar book I have even says θ sounded like τ in Classical Greek (not to be confused with Koine Greek). Is this stance (that the Greek letters have been pronounced the same since Euclides) the official stance of Greece (as in, everyone from Greece learns and teaches this), or do not all Greeks agree in the linguistic circle? Also, why is there such a huge difference in thought concerning ancient Greek pronunciation? Just curious what you might say.
DynAggelos My response is that the answer is found in the first four chapters of my book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek, Vol. I: Historical Evidence of Authentic Sounds. (Do not think that I am promoting sales! It is just that it does take time to show the evidence step by step.) Most non-Greek authors of works on the development of the Greek language, brilliant as they are, have followed their predecessors. Much of what is claimed in their works does not comport with the evidentiary track of the development of the historical Greek sounds from 600 BC on (the beginning of the inscriptional period) on the basis of spelling errors due to the interchangeability of letters that stand for the same sound. So, friend, do take time to study that evidence, if you would, and then try to form an opinion. (Of course, if you do not know Greek, you’ll be likely to depend on someone else's opinion.) At any rate, I trust your curiosity is science-driven.
"I loved this video. I am very happy to know that I made the right decision in adopting the modern (historical) pronunciation to study Koine Greek. I intend to teach my young son using this pronunciation. Could you recommend teaching materials for Koine Greek aimed at children that use the modern pronunciation?"
I added a tone of comedy into it which is evident so don t you cry over it, but then what I speak is serious. You seriously need to comprehend that letters evolved as a simplification of previous syllabic which used for simplicity often same letters for close sounds. In Greek B and V was always close, at least since the dawn of the 1st millenium BC. If B was ever totally distinct from V then V would have to be represented by a letter which simply DOES NOT EXIST (and no Y was never used as a V).
The points you are raising cannot be discussed at length in a video of this nature nor in this limited TH-cam mode of discourse. Your persistence, however, leads me to encourage you to examine my book. Take time to carefully examine the evidence presented in it, then share it with others, including some of the experts you referred to earlier. Then we can engage in meaningful dialogue at length. Thank you.
Thanks for posting this video-- very interesting and thought provoking.. I've always been aware that the Erasmian pronunciation is artificial, but I do have one question that I wonder about. How would Greeks of the 1st Century CE distinguish a word like YMEIS ("you" plural) from HMEIS ("we")? Under the 5 vowel system currently used by Greek speakers, both would be pronounced as IMIS....
Luis Hurtado Good question, Luis. As you know, English has many words that are spelled differently yet sound alike: feet, feat; bare, bear; aisle, isle; complement, compliment; etc. These are homophones. How do we distinguish between, say, bare and bear? Simple: from the context. YMEIΣ and HMEIΣ are homophones. Now, say: Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΜΕΘ’ ΗΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΥΜΩΝ (O Kirios meth’ imon ke imon.) Any Greek would understand you.
In that context, I agree that common sense would indicate that someone is obviously not repeating the same pronoun twice. However.... the English examples you gave are words that are very different in meaning from one another, and thus the context will almost always make it obvious; in fact the only examples I can easily think of where it wouldn't be clear are puns where someone is trying to confuse the two words deliberately for purposes of humor. In the case of HMEIS/YMEIS we are talking about two closely related words; both are plural pronouns, and unless both are used in the same sentence so as to make it obvious you mean "we and you (all)", it seems to me that it would be extremely confusing. I don't think the analogy to bare/bear/bear in English holds up as a good analogy. Perhaps the case of "thou" in English dying off leaving us with only "you" for both singular and plural in English is a little more comparable, but even then, every dialect of English except for standard written English has created a new pronoun or pronoun phrase to compensate for this deficiency, e.g. "y'all", "you guys", "you people", "yuns", "you-ens", et al. Likewise Modern Greek has "εμεις" and "εσεις" respectively... I have a lot of trouble imagining such a fine (but important) distinction sounding exactly alike to the ear, and remaining that way for centuries until sometime more recently Greek speakers realize it's better to use "εμεις" and "εσεις" for clarity. I'm not saying this makes the Erasmian pronunciation correct, but it seems to me that there had to be some kind of difference to the ear even if it isn't the case that "Υ" was formerly an "i" sound with the lips rounded (like a French "u"). Don't you think? Also, I find it kind of interesting that "εμεις" would be chosen as a substitute for "ημεις" just as Pontic Greek does for so many words. To me, "εσεις" appears to be constructed on the logic of sound of "es" being associated with the second person, but why would "ημεις" become "εμεις" and not simply stay "ημεις"?
Luis Hurtado Having no intention of substituting the good professor, it is impossible to confuse ημείς with υμείς because of the way the language is inflected. Even if all personal pronouns sounded exactly alike one would still be able to communicate himself perfectly well, and indeed one rarely uses personal pronouns except for emphasis.
Athena Vibrating If the pronoun is the subject of the sentence yes, you would most likely omit the pronoun in the first place since the verb indicates the person (I speak Spanish fluently, so this is obvious to me, and it's why I didn't bring it up), but in the example given by Dr. Zachariou, if you omit one of the pronouns, then to the ear it's not obvious if someone meant "ye" or "we". Just because a verb doesn't require the personal pronoun doesn't mean there aren't many, many other instances where one is saying "to us/you", "for us/you", "from us/you", etc. where you can't just omit the pronoun. So that is far from "impossible" as you say.
Well, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, Dr. Zachariou. I will consider reading your book in the future, though I have to honestly say that I am leaving this conversation more skeptical than when I started. I use the modern pronunciation for NT Greek anyway, since it's obviously much more natural than the Erasmian. Anyway, take care and thanks for uploading the video. VERY interesting-- regardless of whether I completely agree or not.
Dear Dr. Zachariou, You know that we in Italy use the Erasmian pronounce of ancient Greek. Your explanations are fascinating but don't tackle some problems: how do you explain the famous ὁ δ' ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει (Cratin.45) and κελεύει βῆ λέγειν (Ar.Fr.648)? And how do you explain the perfect homeric metrical system, in which the difference between long and short wovels is essential? For example ὦ πάτερ / ἡμέτε / ρε Κρονί/ δη, ὕπα/ τε κρει/ όντων (Od. I, 45). Thank You very much.
Dear Mr. Del Ponte, I appreciate your comments and questions. What Erasmians probably consider as the strongest evidence in support of the pronunciation of η as ε are the two fragmentary lines you are referring to by Kratinos and Aristophanes where βηβη and βη respectively represent the bleating of sheep: Ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει. -Kratinos Θύειν με μέλλει καὶ κελεύει βῆ λέγειν. -Aristophanes First, the vowel H(η) cannot belong to Kratinos (520-423 BC) and hardly to Aristophanes (450-386 BC). In Kratinos’ case the vowel H had not yet been introduced to the Attic script, and in Aristophanes’ case H had not yet been introduced officially. Kratinos, accustomed to the old Attic use of E both for [e] and [i] sounds, would have written ΒΕΒΕ (βεβε), not ΒΗΒΗ (βηβη), and Aristophanes ΒΕ(βε) not ΒΗ(βη). Thus it cannot be deduced from these fragmentary lines that Attic H can be interpreted as E[e]. Cries of animals cannot be relied upon as a guide to the pronunciation of language sounds. For if a sheep goes bεε in Greek but baa in English (and I am not sure about Italian), one might as well adduce that the same kind of animal, be it a sheep, a dog, a cow, or a lion, must make a different sound in every country where a different language is spoken! Let me clarify further even at the risk of repeating myself. After the Persian wars, the Athenian came to realize that their pronunciation was much different from the Homeric sounds. At the same time, their old Attic script was inadequate in representing long and short syllables in metered verse-mind you, in metered verse, not in regular speech. So, around 450 BC they began to borrow the Ionian symbols H(η) and Ω(ω) as compensatory symbols in verse. Soon, however, Η and Ω began to creep into prose as well. According to Plato (Πλάτων), that is when the Athenians began to spell a word, such as ημέρα, also ιμέρα or είμέρα, since these three symbols represented the same sound. The confusion that resulted from the interchange of ι, ε, and η did not depart even when Athens ratified the Ionic alphabet (403 BC) as the new Attic alphabet, which included H and Ω as regular alphabet letters. I trust the foregoing addresses the first part of your question regarding βῆ βῆ vs. βε βε. As for your other question regarding ὦ πάτερ / ἡμέτε / ρε Κρονί/ δη, ὕπα/ τε κρει/ όντων (Od. I, 45), I am not clear as to what it is that you are asking. Are you saying that the Erasmian pronunciation of Homeric poetry helps interpret the Homeric dactylic hexameter, whereas the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP) does not? In any case, you are correct in saying that the use of long/short syllables in poetry is essential, as long as you bear in mind that we are talking about versification, not regular Attic speech. Ἔρρωσο. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou I would like to add that the sheep in ancient Greek as you know, was called actually "ὄϊς" and the word "προβατον" (from προβαίνω) could mean many different animals who are moving as a herd and have leading animal (horse, ox, sheep etc.) Also another thought of mine, because we have here a script from a comedy, i remembered a modern Greek comedy film from the late '50s , where the actor completes a song about a cat instead of using "νιάου, νιάου, νιάου" with "γαβ, γαβ, γαβ" (Θανάσης Βέγγος). So the reason of using that sound could actually be to make the spectators laugh.
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. And, again, thank you so much for your work. As you’ve probably figured out, I’m baptized Orthodox through the Greek Orthodox Tradition, so I’ve been exposed to a bit of Greek in Greece and through the Church. I’ve never heard a native Greek speaker or a Divine Liturgy service in Greek pronounce OI as English speakers would “oil”, yet I’ve come across more than a bit of this in books by learned folks. Your videos that include very compelling historical examples along with pronunciation are gold for me. I’m certainly more inspired than I’ve ever been now. Many thanks to you for this.
Hello, Harlembrown, this is an overdue response, but I still want to say that the pronunciation you were exposed to in Greece is the way one ought to pronounce NT Greek. You are in the right path, my friend. -PZ
You have to realise that the Erasmian accent unlike the Koini-Modern Greek which is a living-language accent evolved out of Classical Greek accent is a FABRICATED accent. More interestingly it was fabricated by Erasmus, a Dutch guy who was knowledgeable in Latin but not so much in Greek. Erasmus started this approach as an experimentation on reconstructing the ancient accent. His experimentation was then employed in the west more as a political statement rather than anything else.
Where can I find a clear audio/video guide on pronouncing NT Greek letters? Does there exist a NT Greek dictionary with pronunciation, like there exists an English pronouncing dictionary?
Friend, unlike English dictionaries, which provide the pronunciation of every single word both for native speakers and learners of English, Greek dictionaries do not provide the pronunciation of words. The reason is that the pronunciation of Greek letters and spelling is consistent. Once you have learned the sound Greek letters and digraphs represent, you can read any printed Greek text. Go to GREEK PRONUNCIATION 2 (Phonetics) to learn the sounds of letters and digraphs: th-cam.com/video/LAxzL1BE3Go/w-d-xo.html&lc=z12bi5uadvupelp2t23vybhp3x20srvgw04
Thank you for the reply. Please consider the following: Spanish is also very consistent and easy to pronounce, but people who have never heard a substantial number of words/sentences uttered by Spanish/Latin American native speakers speak intelligibly but with a thick accent. Pronunciation in language is closer to singing than to thinking. Hence, while I do understand your point, I would still be glad to find a way to hear native Greek speakers pronounce words and sentences from the NT.
Try the link th-cam.com/users/edit?o=U&video_id=wJZ-DI0I_lQ This is GREEK PRONUNCIATION 3 (1 Epistle of John). This link, along with the link I provided you (above), will introduce you to the pronunciation of NT Greek letters, digraphs, words, phrases, and running text. -PZ
Since I can't reply to it manually, indulge me as I quote it here: GPlinthon wrote: "Similarly if ´P´ was too close to ´F´ as you point then poor soldiers would write the name of Filippos as Pilippos but they were writing it as Bilippos PRECISELY because B was sounding ALREADY like a V " -> Except that Herodotus distinguishes between Phrygian and Bryges. Macedonian seemed to have a tendency to speak with B. "(and similar examples we have in the 4th century BC not only in Macedonia but in most other parts of Greece as well - and not just Dorians but Aeolians-Boetians too)." -> There were different dialects, and alphabets back then, as our host helpfully mentioned.
Yes, I also believe that's why the Macedonians pronounced Φίλλιπος as "Βιλλιπος". It only makes sense if Φ and B were already fricatives by that time and could be confused with each other!
+Steven Torrey - Digamma was used in Attic prior to the classical period. Thereafter it was substituted by B (as in "van") or by fricativized Y (as in αυλος avlos). [There are many other such related details that could not be included in this "short" video due to time and content constraints. Such details are covered in Vol. I of my books.] -PZ
Fascinating. Why no discussion of the (F) digamma (vau)? One of those fascinating sounds from Homeric Greek that got lost. So the Greek word for wine would be οἶνος, ου, ὁ ... but with a digamma so Fοἶνος, ου, ὁ. Of course, Latin wine = vinum with the 'v' preserving the sound of the digamma. (Interesting that Hebrew for wine יָ֫יִן (ya yin) sounds so close to Greek οἶνος and Latin vin.) So finally, how did the Latins learn their language to preserve the v = digamma in vinim that had been lost in the Greek?
In Ancient Greek, digamma ϝ sounded like the “v” in “victor.” By the 6th c. BC, digamma was substituted by Y in words spelled with AY, EY, and later HY in which Y was pronounced like digamma ϝ. Thus AY, EY, HY = av, ev, iv, but before voiceless sounds = af, ef, if, where “f ” = “voiceless v.” So ΑϝΛΟΣ “flute” became ΑΥΛΟΣ [avlos], not [aulos], just as ΠΑΥΛΟΣ is [pavlos], not [paulos]. ϝ simply gave way to another symbol, thanks to inscriptional errors. For it is such errors that tell us what symbol was interchangeable with what symbol, and therefore what symbol represented what sound. My video does not discuss digamma because digamma was beyond the video’s scope. -PZ
Not at all Kostas. The video simply shows (with lots of examples) how the Erasmian accent fails to take into account the historic evolution of the Greek accents (including foremost the Attic dialect which the Erasmian accent aimed at). It did not claim anything on the link to modern Greek. However, the result of all latest research CLEARLY states that accents in the 5th BC century were much closer to the Koini (thus essentially to the modern Greek one) than the Erasmian.
Our modern undertsanding of ancient Greek is not based on Erasmian. It is based on compairative linguistics, ancient sources and etc. For one Ancient Greek hade a tonal pitch accent, modern greek do not. phi, theta and chi where prouncounced as asperiated stops rather than fricatives of today( that is sounds like f for an examples) vita was beta ghamma was gamma and etc. There where more vowels and diphthongs and etc. Greek has changed it's prounounciation in a radical manner.
tiktaktik tamtamtam Well, there's no v in Latin, it is possible there was no v in Greek. They both come from a common point of linguistic origin. To be fair, onomatopoeia isn't good evidence, but it does present a difficulty to resolve.
I am curious to hear any suggestion of yours to explain why ancient Greek would have been the one and only language in the world where sheep bleating would not have been rendered by the combination of a voiced bilabial (either m or b) plus an open or near-open front vowel. Or perhaps did they breed an extinct species?
Commonly accepted by the international scientific community (linguists, philologists, classicists). That is, the only people who are in a position to know these things.
Συγχαρητήρια για την δουλειά σας και τις ερευνες σας !! Yπαρχουν νομίζω και αλλα πρόβληματα με αυτη την φράση του Κρατίνου, πέρα από αυτά που γράφετε: (Δεν ξερω αν τα αναφέρεται και εσεις , δεν εχω δει ολα σας τα βιντεο, και θα ήθελα την γνώμη σας αν τα βρίσκετε σωστα.) Πρώτον ότι δείχνει την προφορά μόνο για δυο γράμματα το "η" και το "β" . Για όλα τα υπόλοιπα γράμματα που η ερασμιακή προφορά λέει ότι προφέρονται αλλιώς δεν μας προσφέρει κάτι... Υπάρχει και το ενδεχόμενο να προσφερόταν σε κάποιες λέξεις ,ως "V" και σε άλλες ως "b" Αυτό είναι κάτι πολύ συνηθισμένο. Για παράδειγμα το γραμμα C στα ιταλικά, στην λέξη "cane" προφέρεται "Κ" ενώ στην λέξη "ciao" προφέρεται "TS". Αν πούμε ότι το Βητα προσφερόταν μόνο ως "b", τοτε αυτό σημαίνει οτι για τον ηχο "V" δεν είχαν κανένα γραμμα... Δηλαδή δεν ειχαν τον ήχο V... Ειναι δυνατόν, εναν τόσο συνηθισμένο ήχο, που υπάρχει στις περισσότερες γλώσσες να μην τον είχαν οι Έλληνες;;; Και αν πραγματικά δεν είχαν καθόλου τον ήχο "V", πώς εξαφανίστηκε ο ήχος "b" και έγινε "V" σε όλες τις λέξεις ;;; Δεν είναι λίγο παράδοξο και αφύσικο;; Απο εκεί που δεν υπάρχει καθόλου, μετά να εμφανίζεται σε ολες τις λεξεις ;; Επιπλέον, και το νόημα αυτής της φράσης είναι παράδοξο. Γιατί περιγράφει σαν συνηθισμένο, κάτι που κατα την γνώμη μου δεν γίνεται ποτέ: Ποσο συχνα βλέπουμε ηλιθιους να κάνουν σαν πρόβατα ενώ βαδιζουν;;; Εγώ δεν έχω δει ποτέ πάντως... Το άλλο θέμα είναι το πότε άρχισαν οι αλλαγές. Μας λένε ότι έγιναν κατα την ελληνιστική περιοδο. Όμως στην ελληνιστική και ρωμαϊκή περίοδο η ελληνική γλώσσα είχε εξαπλωθεί σε μια τεράστια γεωγραφική περιοχή. Αν οι αλλαγές έγιναν τότε , θα έπρεπε να υπάρχουν μεγάλες διαφορές από περιοχη σε περιοχή. Η ελληνική γλώσσα θα έπρεπε να παρουσιαζει μεγαλη ανομοιογένεια . Στην βυζαντινή και νεότερη περιοδο ομως δεν φαίνεται κατι τέτοιο. Αρα οι αλλαγές μάλλον πρέπει να έγιναν πριν την εξάπλωση του Ελληνισμου στον κοσμο, δηλαδη πριν τον Μ. Αλέξανδρο... Τοτε που η γλώσσα ηταν περιορισμενη γεωραφικα στην Ελλαδα. Στην συνέχεια με τον Αλέξανδρο διαδίδεται στον κόσμο μια γλώσσα που ήδη παρουσιαζει τις αλλαγές αυτές, γιαυτό και ειναι οι ίδιες.
Hello, Many such questions and issues are covered in my book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publishers, Aug. 10, 2021). To respond to your questions in detail would require much space here. If you write me at NTGreek@att.net, I will mail you a complimentary copy (within the Continental States). Please mention this memo in your email to me. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for responding. Unfortunately I have not seen your email. I posted a comment to this thread with my email address. But unfortunately TH-cam likes to delete comments with email addresses and links. But if you would be so kind as to resend the email, I would greatly appreciate it. -Stephen
ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ , για τις γνώσεις, γνώμες, απόψεις αλλά και τον προβληματισμό που που μου προσφέρατε Κύριε Ζαχαρίου αλλά και όλοι οι υπόλοιποι. Να παραμείνω λίγο στον προβληματισμό (χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει οτι τον αποδέχομαι) και να καταθέσω τα εξής: Συχνά τελευταία συναντά κάποιος αιτιάσεις που λίγο ως πολυ διατυπώνουν αυτά που οι Kostas1983 και Eopyk αναφέρουν. (Μην παρεξηγηθώ, δεν πέρνω θέση). Εν πολλοίς όλα καταλήγουν στην επίκληση αυτών που ο κύριος Ζαχαρίου αναφέρει σαν authority/iew (κυρίως του W. Sidney Allen). Ποιά είναι η γνώμη σας επ'αυτού τελικά. Υπάρχει κάποιο πλεονεκτικό/ά επιχείρημα/τα υπέρ της μίας ή της άλλης άποψης; I don't know if I must transcribe the above in English too...
John T. SemerDear Mr. Semer, You mentioned W. Sidney Allen. In my book, Historical Evidence (Vol. I), I refer to some of the weaknesses of Allen’s views regarding certain Greek sounds. Examples: (1) He advises speakers of English against trying to produce or even hear the distinction between π τ κ and φ θ χ, and recommends pronouncing φ θ χ as fricatives “in the Byzantine manner” (Vox Graeca, 1968, p. 12)-subtly steering away from saying “Modern Greek”! (2) Allen says that the doubling of πφ, τθ, κχ = [pph, tth, kkh] results into an unaspirated stop followed by an aspirated stop, hence πφ, τθ, κχ = [pph, tth, kkh], and offers the vague explanation that “the proof only refers to the time at which the doubling took place, and in many cases this must have been long before the 5 c. B.C.” (p. 19). However, Greek does not support stop+stop-and-aspirated sounds such as p+p-h, t+t-h, or k+k-h, hence Alen’s “proof” has no basis. (3) In one of his arguments, Allen claims that φθ and κθ as p-h+t-h and k-h+t-h is actually normal among modern languages and cites Armenian for prayer as [aγothkh] (p. 25). No native speaker of Armenian, however, would say [aγothkh], but [aγotk]. These and and other such examples show Allen’s limited grasp of Greek phonology. -PZ
Philemon Zachariou Thank you Dr. Zachariou, indeed my many thanks.I must say to you and all the rest, it puzzles me, confuses me and make me sad seeing that these views are considered "mainstream"and even adopted by many of our own people. Your explanation is a relief.
Similarly if ´P´ was too close to ´F´ as you point then poor soldiers would write the name of Filippos as Pilippos but they were writing it as Bilippos PRECISELY because B was sounding ALREADY like a V (and similar examples we have in the 4th century BC not only in Macedonia but in most other parts of Greece as well - and not just Dorians but Aeolians-Boetians too). Do I need to state that YOUR opinion today, positioning the Attic accent as ´judge of Greek accent´ DOES NOT MATTER?
Scott Sanett Friend, the distinction between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς lies in the context. If, by way of saying “good-bye” to you and your company, I were to say, Ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, you would understand that I was not saying “God be with us” but “God be with you.” The context would make that clear. -PZ
How do you explain direct attestation like this of the distinction between υ and ι in the 11th century: Ἐμοὶ πατρὶς, βέλτιστε, τραχὺ χωρίον, ὅπου περ ἀνδρῶν καὶ βοῶν ἶσαι φρένες, οἳ τὸ κρύον λέγουσιν ἀφρόνως κρίον, καὶ τὸ ξύλον λέγουσιν ἀγροίκως ξίλον Dear friend, my fatherland is a rugged village, Where the minds of men and oxen are equal They, ignorant ones, say krion instead of kryon. They, provincials, say xilon instead of xylon. You cannot say this is about spellings because he is talking about peasants speaking, not writing.
Εμείς οι Έλληνες δεν μπορούμε με τίποτα να καταπιούμε το πόσο πολύ άλλαξε η γλώσσα μας και κάνουμε ό,τι μπορούμε να συνεχίσουμε να μιλάμε τα αρχαία μας με μοντέρνα ελληνική προφορά και να τα κατακρεουργούμε
Εμείς οι Ελληνες είμαστε ΟΙ ΜΟΝΟΙ ΑΡΜΟΔΙΟΙ να αλλάξουμε και να εκσυγχρονίσουμε, την Ελληνική γλώσσα και προφορά. Ετσι ηταν και στην πρώτη σκοτεινή περίοδο της ιστορίας μας,(Ελληνικός μεσαίων) ετσι ειναι και στη δεύτερη σκοτεινή περιοδο ,απ' την οποία ελπίζω να βγούμε σύντομα. Και επειδή είμαστε "στα κάτω μας" εδώ και κάτι αιώνες ,αυτό ακριβώς εκμεταλλεύονται οι διάφοροι αλλόγλωσσοι καλοθελητές,και όχι μόνο όσον αφορά το γλωσσικό. Χρειάζεται εμπιστοσύνη και επιμονή, και κυβερνήσεις που να ευνοούν την Ελληνική παιδεία.
Mr Zachariou I find this video very intresting but there are many things I have to say. The one I think is most obvious is about your claim that all υι, οι, ει, η and υ were all pronounced like ι by the time the NT was written. If that is the case then why do Romans write Ērēnē and sometimes Irēnē and not Irini, since in Greek it's Ειρήνη. More evidence like this and the fact that the Greeks themselves represented η as E (and evenas A in the Mycenaean period with Linear B), should be enough to conclude that the sound was a long e sound. There is also much proof that υ, υι and οι was pronounced differently until at least the 11th century AD.
Hello, Eugenia. I appreciate your comments. Your many-sided questions/remarks cover much ground to the point that of necessity I will say that to fully address them, I would have to refer you to my published book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publsishers, Eugene, OR - Aug. 10, 2001). I will attempt, however, to hint at a few points here, so that you can hopefully be assured that there are answers that can satisfy at least part of your inquiry. Unfortunately, many scholars rely on Latin for the pronunciation of Attic Greek and even Hellenistic Greek. The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the manner of Neohellenic had been accepted prior to and through Byzantine times as a matter of incontestable fact. Objections to it were first raised by Renaissance scholars, chiefly Erasmus, who noted its incongruity with the pronunciation of Latin, the then academic language of Europe. It must be borne in mind that by Erasmus’ time Latin had long metamorphosed into several European languages; therefore, Latin’s questionable pronunciation in Erasmus’ time could not be relied upon as a guide for the pronunciation of Attic Greek. Shown below are some of the types of concerns one would encounter in converting Greek letters into Latin and vice versa. Let's take the conversion of η. 1. Latin adopted the Chalcidic Greek alphabet (7th c. BC), but its letters were not necessarily assigned one by one the phonetic value of Greek counterparts. This accounts in part for earlier and later variations in the Latin transliteration of Greek. 2. Latin transliteration both of η and ε as e does not mean that η and ε are the same sound any more than the i in Virgilius and the e in Vergilius. Because Latin already used Chalcidic H, which was familiar to Romans as h, it could not invent a special symbol for the H(η) vowel which Attic adopted, the more so as this symbol shifted among the Greeks themselves. Latin continued to adhere to the old familiar use of E, which prior to mid-5th c. BC stood for Attic [e] and [i] sounds. Thus ζωή is rendered zoe and ἀγάπη agape, where e leads to the mispronunciation of η as [e]-or even to diphthongized “long” ay [eɪ]! 3. Latin transcribed initial E(ε) as E (Ephesus, Europe), but “aspirated E” (whether Ε = ε or E = η) as HE ( Ἕλληνες > HEllenes, Ἡρόδοτος > HErodotus). Bear in mind also that prior to 403 BC (pre-Eucleidean grammar), Attic still used the symbol E both for [e] and [i] sounds. It is no wonder therefore that Latin sees Ειρήνη now as Erene, now as Irene. Latin stone cutters were at times likely to transliterate Greek E [i] as E [e] based on visual, rather than acoustic, resemblance. It wasn't until the post-Eucleidian grammar went into effect that Greek could finally make a visual distinction between E [i] and E [e]. For example, ΠΕΡΙΚΛΕΣ vs. post-Eucleidean ΠΕΡΙΚΛΗΣ, where the -ΗΣ ending reveals that the E of the last syllable was not the same as the E of the first syllable. Remember, too, that Plato's testimony in Cratylus 418e, where Plato says, νῦν δὲ ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ ἰῶτα ἢ εἶ ἢ ἦτα μεταστρέφουσιν, corroborates the equation ι = ει = η in Attic Greek toward the end of the 5th century BC. As for H being a long sound, that holds true in the sense of metered verse, where long/short syllables mattered. But here we are not talking about regular speech, only poetry. Many view, e.g., η and ω as long sounds, and ε and o as short sounds in regular speech. But, again, quantity is part of versification, not daily speech. The Athenians first borrowed H and Ω as compensatory marks in verse, where these symbols were used on accented, and therefore lengthened, syllables. You see, Eugenia, I may go on without stopping, trying to summarize much detail. I wish you had a copy of my book. That would perhaps stir additional questions, but at least it would help you with many of the question you may now have. I hope the foregoing helps. Best regards. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you very much for your detailed aswer, I 'll try to find your book and read it and I also hope that my questions are answered.
You will find that οι, υ, ει, ι, υι are dealt with in a manner the majority of people, including scholars like Sidney Allen, are not familiar with. As for my book, write me at NTGreek@att.net. I will gladly send you a copy at no cost to you as long as you are within the continental USA. -PZ
Where do you live? You may want to get the e-Book version through Amazon for very little. If so, try this link: www.amazon.com/Reading-Pronouncing-Biblical-Greek-Pronunciation-ebook/dp/B08BT6NKQR -PZ
Attic accent was already known in antiquity as THE EXCEPTION and not the rule among all Greek accents. No matter if in Roman times, Greeks and other Greek-learning Romans raised the by-then non-existing Attic accent (OR WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF IT) as the ´Greek-by-excellence´ (and I have no problem with it - though Homeric Greek is much more suitable for that title....), Attic never really influenced the accent with which Greeks spoke the Greek language. Get it? Now let me put my rock on your cave
I just start and have been so scared because started time ago with the Alphabet and again got scared, now your lessons are miracle for me . Thank you 🫶🕊️
Προφανώς δεν κατάλαβες ορθώς τι λέει η άνωθεν παρουσίαση. Διότι λέει το αντίθετο. Οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες ΔΕΝ προφέρανε την ελληνική γλώσσα όπως ισχυρίστηκε ο Έρασμος. Η δουλειά του Εράσμου είναι μια αποτυχημένη προσπάθεια αποκατάστασης της αρχαίας αττικής προφοράς, αυτός όντας Ολλανδός λόγιος ειδικός στα Λατινικά αλλά ελάχιστα γνώστης της αρχαίας ελληνικής. Η Ερασμιακή προφορά προωθήθηκε κυρίως για πολιτικούς λόγους και όχι για επιστημονικούς-ιστορικούς.
And guess what? Attic in the 5th century was already in CONVENTIONAL orthography... i.e. writing words under convention and not how they were really spelled. We have people of similar classes, similar education writing same words radically differently. Greek writing did evolve but mostly through the Ionian (not Attic as previously suggested) and much under Dorian accent influence. Not accidental that for all the 1000s of ships of Athens no other Greek ever spelled sea as Thalatta!
Right, that is why it all ends back to Erasmian. You talk to an amateur of linguistics but dont you ever dare you think you can say anything to a man that reads DIRECTLY from ancient texts in his native language. There is a problem in what you say : THERE IS NO ANCIENT GREEK. There is the GREEK language and the various DIALECTS that evolved in DIFFERENT ERAS out of which we can barely trace only few and this through literate texts of generally ultra educated people.
The music that accompanies my video was composed by my brother Timos Zachariou. He is a music teacher and performing artist. His music is not available on the Internet or in CD format.
Thank you for your interest. -PZ
Very informative Philemon Zachariou. I've been studying your language for about five years now and am still amazed at its wonderful versatility.
Thank you.
Your impression is well expressed, my friend. Well done! -PZ.
Thank you Dr. Zachariou, for such an informative presentation on the development of the Greek language. I also find it very promising that 111 viewers found it interesting enough to comment on the subject! My interest in it never ceases. Best Regards
Your observation is very much appreciated. The history of Greek is as fascinating as the language itself, I should say. But thanks for pitching in! -PZ
Reread the last part of the video: "We may not know exactly how the Athenians of the classical period sounded, but we do know that Neohellenic, the direct descendant of Attic Greek, preserves the Eucleidian alphabet, orthography, and historical Greek sounds. The same is true of the Greek of the New Testament." That is the gist of the video.
I found your videos in the last few days and you're doing a great job. For anyone who reads this modern greek scholars agree that Greek language has underwent 5 phases (Greek languages is now under it's 5th phase).
Mycenian Greek developed during 1900-1500 BCE. Before that the langauge was quite different and actually that early proto-Hellenic language gave birth to Greek, Phrygian, Armenian and Thraco-Dacian. Going back even further to 2500 BCE there was the first wave of Indo-Europeans of the Centum branch arriving in the Balkans (with the Anatolian group separating very early on). The earliest Linear B tablets found are from around 1450 BCE, they show morphological and syntatical forms still preserving certain Proto-Indo-European structures.
Very enlightening. Thanks you very much, Dr. Zachariou. Now I can read my Greek New Testament the way you do.
Thank you for the kind words, Eiler Miraflor. -PZ
Thank you for a well produced contribution Philemon Zachariou.
Thank you, too, Paul.
Hey Philemon, I can't less but thank and congratulate you for the best video I have ever watched.
The management of the pictures, letters and words is awesome.
The historic background is also enlightening.
The linguistic information is amazingly rich and useful.
And everything wrapped in Hellenic music.
This the most pedagogic class I have ever attended, I am invited to study in depth this wonderful language that not conveys so much culture but also stays in most Western languages.
Thanks again, and blessings of the Lord.
Encouraging words from a searching mind. You will impact many. Thank you, and remain blessed! -PZ
Thank you for the wonderful video... it was so informative! There is no way I would have known such important facts like the ones you've told here!!! (from a Korean passerby)
Old Attic spelling 14:13 looks practically Latin on the ostracon. So that's where we get our letters from
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking video.
I'd be interested to know how other theories of the development of Modern Standard Greek deal with the data you present.
I'm not sure I'm convinced by your analysis of 'spurious diphthongs'. It seems entirely possible that a fronted 'n' sound could be absorbed and leave its 'frontness' behind as an 'i' off-glide. LIkewise, the 's' sound in some positions lost its forward articulation and just became an 'h' and then disappeared, but it could leave a trace in the lengthening of the previous vowel. Is there any evidence to prove a graphic explanation over a (dialectal or diachronic) phonetic one?
Also, the Greek alphabet always seems to have had an uneasy relationship with vowels: all the vowels originally had short and long counterparts, but as far as I'm aware Greek never showed the length distinction in 'a, i, y'. It could be that some users, just as they decomposed 'ps, ks' into p + s and k + s, did not use their alphabet to show vowel length (as English doesn't systematically show stress and Chinese doesn't indicate tone, though both are crucial to the system). Has anyone investigated these 'anomalous' inscriptions to see if they are showing some other distinction, such as pitch, etc.?
The treatment of initial 'h-' and 'w-' in official classical Homeric orthography seems to be a bit flaky... could it be that the system in classical times was just open to more 'flexibility' than we are used to today (like English in the early modern period)?
Anyway, thanks for sparking my interest.
Dear Paul, I am delighted and impressed by your comments, which speak of a strong linguistic background. But please do not credit me with a theory on the development of the Greek pronunciation, as I could never have imagined the evidence. Unfortunately, limited space here prevents a full account of my findings, which are discussed in Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek (Vol. I).
completely outstanding!
Thank you kindly. You are absolutely right that the video is relevant to modern Greek.
Please pass it on. -PZ
I think you misunderstood me. The gist of this video is that classical greek sounded more or less like modern greek. This is what I was referring to as not being accepted by the experts.
Very nicely done and most informative!
Dr. Zachariou, sorry for the probably strange language, I don't speak English well and use an online translator. I really enjoyed watching your video, the topic interests me very much. I spent a lot of time thinking why in Greece they don’t use Erasmus reading for ancient Greek, why only in Greece. Today, all over the world, the default reading for Ancient Greek is Erasmus. In your video, you say that in classical times the Attic dialect in Athens already in colloquial speech ει, οι, η, υ sounded like ί, and ω like o. I have two questions for you. Please tell me, if already in the Attic dialect there was no difference in the duration of vowels, and some diphthongs and vowels in colloquial speech sounded absolutely the same, like ί, then why were ει, οι, η, υ preserved in writing, and why were they even introduced into writing, what rules were used to write ει or οι, or η, or υ, or ί in words, who developed these rules?
Second question. You spoke in great detail about the studies of ancient inscriptions, about the errors in them, and that based on these studies one can draw conclusions about the probable pronunciation at that time, that this pronunciation was similar to “itatism” even then. Such well-founded conclusions destroy all ideas about the so-called “restored” pronunciation, as well as Erasmus, as well as all ideas about correct pronunciation, accepted by scientists around the world almost since the Renaissance. Surely these studies are available. Why then, despite convincing evidence, does Erasmus’ pronunciation remain unshakable all over the world and no one abandons it?
Hello, Dietfried, You did well with the translation into English. Greeks have always pronounced Ancient Greek using the phonemic sounds they have used in their daily speech. The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the manner of Neohellenic (“Modern” Greek) had been accepted prior to and through Byzantine times as a matter of incontestable fact. Objections to it were first raised by Renaissance scholars, chiefly Erasmus, who noted its incongruity with the pronunciation of Latin, the then academic language of Europe. As you may know, Constantinople fell in 1453 and Greece came under Turkish rule. This means that at the time of Erasmus, Greece had no national voice to defend her own language. So while the country of Greece was under Turkish rule, the Greek language eventually came under the rule of prominent European scholars, such as Erasmus. Now you know the roots of the problem, a problem that did not exist prior to Erasmus’ day. You have two questions. Responding to your questions satisfactorily would take more than just a paragraph or two, but I will try to respond as concisely as possible and still try to make sense to you. Regarding your first question: Following the end of the Persian wars in Greece around the mid-5th century BC, the Athenians saw the need to fix their writing system. In 403 BC, Athens adopted the 24-letter Ionic alphabet, an alphabet their kinsmen, the Ionians, had perfected. Until then, Old Attic E stood for [e] and [i], sounds, and O stood for [o] and [u] sounds. (See the video “Greek Pronunciation 1 (Historical Development)” at 12:10-13:45.) At the same time, a number of consonants took a more definitive form. (Mind you, these are the same 24 alphabet symbols used in Greece since 403 BC.) At this point, I would also recommend that you view the video “Greek Pronunciation 11 (1,000 Words),” which shows that many Greek words used today were spelled and understood the same way in New Testament times and in Attic Greek. Grammatical rules regarding the use of ει, η, ι, οι, etc. (e.g., verb ending -εις = 2nd person singular; noun ending -οι = nominative plural, masculine; -ῃ dative singular feminine; -οις dative plural, etc., etc.) are not modern inventions but are traced all the way to Classical Attic, officially from 403 BC on. Your second question: Erasmian, slowly but surely, is going out of fashion. Seminaries here in the United States, for example, are well aware today that the Erasmian pronunciation is artificial and incorrect. Even old die-hards would admit this. My belief is that Erasmian will eventually be replaced by the historical Greek pronunciation (HGP), which consists of the Classical Greek phonemic sounds that have stood the test of time and are preserved in Neohellenic today. This saying, of course, may cause many a brow to be raised, but that is something expected of those who are not fully informed or those who remain unwilling to change for whatever reason. So, Erasmian is not really unshakable, to use your term, although that may have seemed to be the case up until a decade or two ago. Personally, I have had encouraging reports of individuals and institutions that have switched from Erasmian to the Neohellenic pronunciation or are using the Neohellenic pronunciation concurrently with Erasmian. I hope this helps. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Dr. Zachariou, Thank you very much for your detailed and very interesting answer! The so-called Reuchlin reading of ancient Greek really dominates in seminaries, not only in the USA. But there are no questions about this; the texts read in them usually do not go beyond the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, and their pronunciation is already better known. In secular education and scientific circles, on the contrary, Erasmian (relatively Erasmian, there are more modern variants) reading still dominates. When questioning about pronunciation based on the Greek tradition, its opponents usually cite the following arguments. Why retain redundant letters and letter combinations in spelling if they initially represented different sounds and then mixed into one? Or why introduce new different designations for the same sound if they were pronounced the same way, for example, why η meaning the sound ει, if ει already existed? Examples are given from the same Mycenaean, for example Ἥρα, which was written there as e-ra, etc. The same described sounds of animals, sheep, dogs. The argument of spelling is also given - how to distinguish words with such pronunciation (like ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς for example), according to the Greek tradition, an abundance of homonyms arises and you will have to remember the spelling of many words, in the absence of spelling rules. How do you know which letter, or diphthong, denoting the sound - ι, to write in a word and why exactly in this way, in the same way you need to write it, and if they come in a row in a word. It is impossible to read ancient Greek poetry with Byzantine pronunciation, observing the rhythm, only in prose, which means that the ancient poets certainly did not speak like that. And the argument is Historical Phonetics, which as a science has existed for a long time, its achievements in the field of ancient Greek do not coincide with the Greek tradition. I do not claim, I am not a specialist in the field of linguistics and philology of ancient Greek, I cannot refer to studies or specific articles by prominent scientists in this field, I have listed the arguments given in the course of disputes in various forums by supporters of reading according to Erasmus. I would be very interested to know your opinion on these arguments, whether anything can be countered to them.
I looked on TH-cam and other resources for many options for reading ancient texts on Erasmus. It always looks forced and slow, unnatural, or the speakers completely ignore the duration of vowels, stress, etc. IOANNIS STRATAKIS is probably the best thing I’ve ever heard, th-cam.com/video/wN5ltc7pK-U/w-d-xo.html, but even in his performance I can’t imagine how people could talk like that in classical ancient times. Sorry for asking so many questions, but I have no one to ask except you.
Hello again, Dietfried, I recommend that you oder the Kindle version of my book from Amazon for $2.99. Here is the link: www.amazon.com/Reading-Pronouncing-Biblical-Greek-Pronunciation-ebook/dp/B08BT6NKQR/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
This will likely help you with the many questions you have. To satisfy all such questions regarding Erasmian, Reuchlinian, Modern Greek, and a host of other issues will take, I am afraid, many lengthy paragraphs such as the ones we have already exchanged. I am not sure whether you can read English, but if you can manage, this may be a good part of the solution. I am sure there are also technological ways to have the book translated. Thank you for your patience. -PZ
This is certainly a thought provoking video. I have heard other Greeks arguing the same point, but never anyone who seemed (as far as I could tell) to have as much knowledge about the subject as you. I personally was taught that in Hellenistic times Common Greek's η was pronounced _ay_, and υ was pronounced _ew_ (sounding like the sound between ι and ου). I can pick up almost any book on the Greek language in classical times and find something that suggests (or outright says) that η was pronounced just like ε, and a particular grammar book I have even says θ sounded like τ in Classical Greek (not to be confused with Koine Greek).
Is this stance (that the Greek letters have been pronounced the same since Euclides) the official stance of Greece (as in, everyone from Greece learns and teaches this), or do not all Greeks agree in the linguistic circle? Also, why is there such a huge difference in thought concerning ancient Greek pronunciation? Just curious what you might say.
DynAggelos My response is that the answer is found in the first four chapters of my book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek, Vol. I: Historical Evidence of Authentic Sounds. (Do not think that I am promoting sales! It is just that it does take time to show the evidence step by step.) Most non-Greek authors of works on the development of the Greek language, brilliant as they are, have followed their predecessors. Much of what is claimed in their works does not comport with the evidentiary track of the development of the historical Greek sounds from 600 BC on (the beginning of the inscriptional period) on the basis of spelling errors due to the interchangeability of letters that stand for the same sound. So, friend, do take time to study that evidence, if you would, and then try to form an opinion. (Of course, if you do not know Greek, you’ll be likely to depend on someone else's opinion.) At any rate, I trust your curiosity is science-driven.
Very nice musics by the way. Would you be able to tell me where I can get those beautiful musics?
poly, poly kale~ mousike. I like this melancholic mood. Very good choie, like for me. Greetings from Malkov!!!
"I loved this video. I am very happy to know that I made the right decision in adopting the modern (historical) pronunciation to study Koine Greek. I intend to teach my young son using this pronunciation. Could you recommend teaching materials for Koine Greek aimed at children that use the modern pronunciation?"
Hello, Maia, I am impressed by your resolve to teach Greek to your little boy. A superb decision! I am responding to you via e-mail. Thank you. -PZ
erasmian pronunciation is wrong,it is for speakers of germanic languages to feel familiar with the greek
Applying the modern Greek pronunciation to Ancient text like this Philemon guy is even more wrong
I added a tone of comedy into it which is evident so don t you cry over it, but then what I speak is serious.
You seriously need to comprehend that letters evolved as a simplification of previous syllabic which used for simplicity often same letters for close sounds. In Greek B and V was always close, at least since the dawn of the 1st millenium BC. If B was ever totally distinct from V then V would have to be represented by a letter which simply DOES NOT EXIST (and no Y was never used as a V).
The points you are raising cannot be discussed at length in a video of this nature nor in this limited TH-cam mode of discourse. Your persistence, however, leads me to encourage you to examine my book. Take time to carefully examine the evidence presented in it, then share it with others, including some of the experts you referred to earlier. Then we can engage in meaningful dialogue at length. Thank you.
This is an excellent explanation in video form. Many thankis!
Damon Ploumis Thank you!
Thank you so much for posting these videos...I have learned so much from them...Thank You!
JONATHAN KISER Thank you for your kind words.
Thanks for posting this video-- very interesting and thought provoking.. I've always been aware that the Erasmian pronunciation is artificial, but I do have one question that I wonder about. How would Greeks of the 1st Century CE distinguish a word like YMEIS ("you" plural) from HMEIS ("we")? Under the 5 vowel system currently used by Greek speakers, both would be pronounced as IMIS....
Luis Hurtado Good question, Luis. As you know, English has many words that are spelled differently yet sound alike: feet, feat; bare, bear; aisle, isle; complement, compliment; etc. These are homophones. How do we distinguish between, say, bare and bear? Simple: from the context. YMEIΣ and HMEIΣ are homophones. Now, say: Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΜΕΘ’ ΗΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΥΜΩΝ (O Kirios meth’ imon ke imon.) Any Greek would understand you.
In that context, I agree that common sense would indicate that someone is obviously not repeating the same pronoun twice.
However.... the English examples you gave are words that are very different in meaning from one another, and thus the context will almost always make it obvious; in fact the only examples I can easily think of where it wouldn't be clear are puns where someone is trying to confuse the two words deliberately for purposes of humor.
In the case of HMEIS/YMEIS we are talking about two closely related words; both are plural pronouns, and unless both are used in the same sentence so as to make it obvious you mean "we and you (all)", it seems to me that it would be extremely confusing. I don't think the analogy to bare/bear/bear in English holds up as a good analogy. Perhaps the case of "thou" in English dying off leaving us with only "you" for both singular and plural in English is a little more comparable, but even then, every dialect of English except for standard written English has created a new pronoun or pronoun phrase to compensate for this deficiency, e.g. "y'all", "you guys", "you people", "yuns", "you-ens", et al. Likewise Modern Greek has "εμεις" and "εσεις" respectively...
I have a lot of trouble imagining such a fine (but important) distinction sounding exactly alike to the ear, and remaining that way for centuries until sometime more recently Greek speakers realize it's better to use "εμεις" and "εσεις" for clarity. I'm not saying this makes the Erasmian pronunciation correct, but it seems to me that there had to be some kind of difference to the ear even if it isn't the case that "Υ" was formerly an "i" sound with the lips rounded (like a French "u"). Don't you think?
Also, I find it kind of interesting that "εμεις" would be chosen as a substitute for "ημεις" just as Pontic Greek does for so many words. To me, "εσεις" appears to be constructed on the logic of sound of "es" being associated with the second person, but why would "ημεις" become "εμεις" and not simply stay "ημεις"?
Luis Hurtado
Having no intention of substituting the good professor, it is impossible to confuse ημείς with υμείς because of the way the language is inflected. Even if all personal pronouns sounded exactly alike one would still be able to communicate himself perfectly well, and indeed one rarely uses personal pronouns except for emphasis.
Athena Vibrating
If the pronoun is the subject of the sentence yes, you would most likely omit the pronoun in the first place since the verb indicates the person (I speak Spanish fluently, so this is obvious to me, and it's why I didn't bring it up), but in the example given by Dr. Zachariou, if you omit one of the pronouns, then to the ear it's not obvious if someone meant "ye" or "we". Just because a verb doesn't require the personal pronoun doesn't mean there aren't many, many other instances where one is saying "to us/you", "for us/you", "from us/you", etc. where you can't just omit the pronoun. So that is far from "impossible" as you say.
Well, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, Dr. Zachariou. I will consider reading your book in the future, though I have to honestly say that I am leaving this conversation more skeptical than when I started. I use the modern pronunciation for NT Greek anyway, since it's obviously much more natural than the Erasmian.
Anyway, take care and thanks for uploading the video. VERY interesting-- regardless of whether I completely agree or not.
Dear Dr. Zachariou, You know that we in Italy use the Erasmian pronounce of ancient Greek. Your explanations are fascinating but don't tackle some problems: how do you explain the famous ὁ δ' ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει (Cratin.45) and κελεύει βῆ λέγειν (Ar.Fr.648)? And how do you explain the perfect homeric metrical system, in which the difference between long and short wovels is essential? For example ὦ πάτερ / ἡμέτε / ρε Κρονί/ δη, ὕπα/ τε κρει/ όντων (Od. I, 45). Thank You very much.
Dear Mr. Del Ponte, I appreciate your comments and questions.
What Erasmians probably consider as the strongest evidence in support of the pronunciation of η as ε are the two fragmentary lines you are referring to by Kratinos and Aristophanes where βηβη and βη respectively represent the bleating of sheep:
Ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὥσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει. -Kratinos
Θύειν με μέλλει καὶ κελεύει βῆ λέγειν. -Aristophanes
First, the vowel H(η) cannot belong to Kratinos (520-423 BC) and hardly to Aristophanes (450-386 BC). In Kratinos’ case the vowel H had not yet been introduced to the Attic script, and in Aristophanes’ case H had not yet been introduced officially. Kratinos, accustomed to the old Attic use of E both for [e] and [i] sounds, would have written ΒΕΒΕ (βεβε), not ΒΗΒΗ (βηβη), and Aristophanes ΒΕ(βε) not ΒΗ(βη). Thus it cannot be deduced from these fragmentary lines that Attic H can be interpreted as E[e].
Cries of animals cannot be relied upon as a guide to the pronunciation of language sounds. For if a sheep goes bεε in Greek but baa in English (and I am not sure about Italian), one might as well adduce that the same kind of animal, be it a sheep, a dog, a cow, or a lion, must make a different sound in every country where a different language is spoken!
Let me clarify further even at the risk of repeating myself. After the Persian wars, the Athenian came to realize that their pronunciation was much different from the Homeric sounds. At the same time, their old Attic script was inadequate in representing long and short syllables in metered verse-mind you, in metered verse, not in regular speech. So, around 450 BC they began to borrow the Ionian symbols H(η) and Ω(ω) as compensatory symbols in verse. Soon, however, Η and Ω began to creep into prose as well. According to Plato (Πλάτων), that is when the Athenians began to spell a word, such as ημέρα, also ιμέρα or είμέρα, since these three symbols represented the same sound. The confusion that resulted from the interchange of ι, ε, and η did not depart even when Athens ratified the Ionic alphabet (403 BC) as the new Attic alphabet, which included H and Ω as regular alphabet letters.
I trust the foregoing addresses the first part of your question regarding βῆ βῆ vs. βε βε. As for your other question regarding ὦ πάτερ / ἡμέτε / ρε Κρονί/ δη, ὕπα/ τε κρει/ όντων (Od. I, 45), I am not clear as to what it is that you are asking. Are you saying that the Erasmian pronunciation of Homeric poetry helps interpret the Homeric dactylic hexameter, whereas the Historical Greek Pronunciation (HGP) does not? In any case, you are correct in saying that the use of long/short syllables in poetry is essential, as long as you bear in mind that we are talking about versification, not regular Attic speech. Ἔρρωσο. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou I would like to add that the sheep in ancient Greek as you know, was called actually "ὄϊς" and the word "προβατον" (from προβαίνω) could mean many different animals who are moving as a herd and have leading animal (horse, ox, sheep etc.)
Also another thought of mine, because we have here a script from a comedy, i remembered a modern Greek comedy film from the late '50s , where the actor completes a song about a cat instead of using "νιάου, νιάου, νιάου" with "γαβ, γαβ, γαβ" (Θανάσης Βέγγος). So the reason of using that sound could actually be to make the spectators laugh.
Good point! -PZ
Ἐπουρανίου σοφίας λόγοι, κύριε Φράνκλιν. Εὐχαριστῶ.
I am SO grateful for this video. It confirms my suspicions. And this will help me all the more as I finally start my Intro to Biblical Greek course. 🥰
Hello, dear Ken Panagiotis, I am glad that you found this video helpful. I wish you success in your academic pursuits, especially in Greek. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. And, again, thank you so much for your work.
As you’ve probably figured out, I’m baptized Orthodox through the Greek Orthodox Tradition, so I’ve been exposed to a bit of Greek in Greece and through the Church.
I’ve never heard a native Greek speaker or a Divine Liturgy service in Greek pronounce OI as English speakers would “oil”, yet I’ve come across more than a bit of this in books by learned folks. Your videos that include very compelling historical examples along with pronunciation are gold for me. I’m certainly more inspired than I’ve ever been now. Many thanks to you for this.
Hello, Harlembrown, this is an overdue response, but I still want to say that the pronunciation you were exposed to in Greece is the way one ought to pronounce NT Greek. You are in the right path, my friend. -PZ
You have to realise that the Erasmian accent unlike the Koini-Modern Greek which is a living-language accent evolved out of Classical Greek accent is a FABRICATED accent. More interestingly it was fabricated by Erasmus, a Dutch guy who was knowledgeable in Latin but not so much in Greek. Erasmus started this approach as an experimentation on reconstructing the ancient accent. His experimentation was then employed in the west more as a political statement rather than anything else.
Where can I find a clear audio/video guide on pronouncing NT Greek letters? Does there exist a NT Greek dictionary with pronunciation, like there exists an English pronouncing dictionary?
Friend, unlike English dictionaries, which provide the pronunciation of every single word both for native speakers and learners of English, Greek dictionaries do not provide the pronunciation of words. The reason is that the pronunciation of Greek letters and spelling is consistent. Once you have learned the sound Greek letters and digraphs represent, you can read any printed Greek text.
Go to GREEK PRONUNCIATION 2 (Phonetics) to learn the sounds of letters and digraphs: th-cam.com/video/LAxzL1BE3Go/w-d-xo.html&lc=z12bi5uadvupelp2t23vybhp3x20srvgw04
Thank you for the reply. Please consider the following: Spanish is also very consistent and easy to pronounce, but people who have never heard a substantial number of words/sentences uttered by Spanish/Latin American native speakers speak intelligibly but with a thick accent. Pronunciation in language is closer to singing than to thinking. Hence, while I do understand your point, I would still be glad to find a way to hear native Greek speakers pronounce words and sentences from the NT.
Try the link th-cam.com/users/edit?o=U&video_id=wJZ-DI0I_lQ
This is GREEK PRONUNCIATION 3 (1 Epistle of John). This link, along with the link I provided you (above), will introduce you to the pronunciation of NT Greek letters, digraphs, words, phrases, and running text. -PZ
Since I can't reply to it manually, indulge me as I quote it here:
GPlinthon wrote:
"Similarly if ´P´ was too close to ´F´ as you point then poor soldiers would write the name of Filippos as Pilippos but they were writing it as Bilippos PRECISELY because B was sounding ALREADY like a V "
-> Except that Herodotus distinguishes between Phrygian and Bryges. Macedonian seemed to have a tendency to speak with B.
"(and similar examples we have in the 4th century BC not only in Macedonia but in most other parts of Greece as well - and not just Dorians but Aeolians-Boetians too)."
-> There were different dialects, and alphabets back then, as our host helpfully mentioned.
No, It is because φ was not f, but aspirated p
Yes, I also believe that's why the Macedonians pronounced Φίλλιπος as "Βιλλιπος". It only makes sense if Φ and B were already fricatives by that time and could be confused with each other!
@@iberius9937 They weren't already fricatives, at least not in Athens. φ was an aspirated P.
Interesting. But why did yu not mention digamma which was pronounced like the Hebrew vav?
+Steven Torrey - Digamma was used in Attic prior to the classical period. Thereafter it was substituted by B (as in "van") or by fricativized Y (as in αυλος avlos). [There are many other such related details that could not be included in this "short" video due to time and content constraints. Such details are covered in Vol. I of my books.] -PZ
Fascinating. Why no discussion of the (F) digamma (vau)? One of those fascinating sounds from Homeric Greek that got lost. So the Greek word for wine would be οἶνος, ου, ὁ ... but with a digamma so Fοἶνος, ου, ὁ. Of course, Latin wine = vinum with the 'v' preserving the sound of the digamma. (Interesting that Hebrew for wine יָ֫יִן (ya yin) sounds so close to Greek οἶνος and Latin vin.) So finally, how did the Latins learn their language to preserve the v = digamma in vinim that had been lost in the Greek?
In Ancient Greek, digamma ϝ sounded like the “v” in “victor.” By the 6th c. BC, digamma was substituted by Y in words spelled with AY, EY, and later HY in which Y was pronounced like digamma ϝ. Thus AY, EY, HY = av, ev, iv, but before voiceless sounds = af, ef, if, where “f ” = “voiceless v.” So ΑϝΛΟΣ “flute” became ΑΥΛΟΣ [avlos], not [aulos], just as ΠΑΥΛΟΣ is [pavlos], not [paulos]. ϝ simply gave way to another symbol, thanks to inscriptional errors. For it is such errors that tell us what symbol was interchangeable with what symbol, and therefore what symbol represented what sound. My video does not discuss digamma because digamma was beyond the video’s scope. -PZ
Steven that has always amazed me too.
Thanks
I am glad you saw this video. -PZ
Not at all Kostas. The video simply shows (with lots of examples) how the Erasmian accent fails to take into account the historic evolution of the Greek accents (including foremost the Attic dialect which the Erasmian accent aimed at). It did not claim anything on the link to modern Greek.
However, the result of all latest research CLEARLY states that accents in the 5th BC century were much closer to the Koini (thus essentially to the modern Greek one) than the Erasmian.
Enlightening in most respects. However, your model for the Greek migrations into the Greek peninsula is not quite correct.
Our modern undertsanding of ancient Greek is not based on Erasmian. It is based on compairative linguistics, ancient sources and etc. For one Ancient Greek hade a tonal pitch accent, modern greek do not. phi, theta and chi where prouncounced as asperiated stops rather than fricatives of today( that is sounds like f for an examples) vita was beta ghamma was gamma and etc. There where more vowels and diphthongs and etc. Greek has changed it's prounounciation in a radical manner.
No sheep has ever gone "vi vi". Period.
what about the v sound,no v in ancient greek?
This is not my point.
tiktaktik tamtamtam
Well, there's no v in Latin, it is possible there was no v in Greek. They both come from a common point of linguistic origin. To be fair, onomatopoeia isn't good evidence, but it does present a difficulty to resolve.
I am curious to hear any suggestion of yours to explain why ancient Greek would have been the one and only language in the world where sheep bleating would not have been rendered by the combination of a voiced bilabial (either m or b) plus an open or near-open front vowel. Or perhaps did they breed an extinct species?
xyloplax A belated comment, but my friend know that V is one of the consonant sounds of Latin phonology.
Commonly accepted by the international scientific community (linguists, philologists, classicists). That is, the only people who are in a position to know these things.
Συγχαρητήρια για την δουλειά σας και τις ερευνες σας !!
Yπαρχουν νομίζω και αλλα πρόβληματα με αυτη την φράση του Κρατίνου, πέρα από αυτά που γράφετε:
(Δεν ξερω αν τα αναφέρεται και εσεις , δεν εχω δει ολα σας τα βιντεο, και θα ήθελα την γνώμη σας αν τα βρίσκετε σωστα.)
Πρώτον ότι δείχνει την προφορά μόνο για δυο γράμματα το "η" και το "β" .
Για όλα τα υπόλοιπα γράμματα που η ερασμιακή προφορά λέει ότι προφέρονται αλλιώς δεν μας προσφέρει κάτι...
Υπάρχει και το ενδεχόμενο να προσφερόταν σε κάποιες λέξεις ,ως "V" και σε άλλες ως "b"
Αυτό είναι κάτι πολύ συνηθισμένο.
Για παράδειγμα το γραμμα C στα ιταλικά, στην λέξη "cane" προφέρεται "Κ" ενώ στην λέξη "ciao" προφέρεται "TS".
Αν πούμε ότι το Βητα προσφερόταν μόνο ως "b", τοτε αυτό σημαίνει οτι για τον ηχο "V" δεν είχαν κανένα γραμμα...
Δηλαδή δεν ειχαν τον ήχο V...
Ειναι δυνατόν, εναν τόσο συνηθισμένο ήχο, που υπάρχει στις περισσότερες γλώσσες να μην τον είχαν οι Έλληνες;;;
Και αν πραγματικά δεν είχαν καθόλου τον ήχο "V",
πώς εξαφανίστηκε ο ήχος "b" και έγινε "V" σε όλες τις λέξεις ;;;
Δεν είναι λίγο παράδοξο και αφύσικο;;
Απο εκεί που δεν υπάρχει καθόλου, μετά να εμφανίζεται σε ολες τις λεξεις ;;
Επιπλέον, και το νόημα αυτής της φράσης είναι παράδοξο. Γιατί περιγράφει σαν συνηθισμένο, κάτι που κατα την γνώμη μου δεν γίνεται ποτέ:
Ποσο συχνα βλέπουμε ηλιθιους να κάνουν σαν πρόβατα ενώ βαδιζουν;;;
Εγώ δεν έχω δει ποτέ πάντως...
Το άλλο θέμα είναι το πότε άρχισαν οι αλλαγές.
Μας λένε ότι έγιναν κατα την ελληνιστική περιοδο.
Όμως στην ελληνιστική και ρωμαϊκή περίοδο η ελληνική γλώσσα είχε εξαπλωθεί σε μια τεράστια γεωγραφική περιοχή.
Αν οι αλλαγές έγιναν τότε , θα έπρεπε να υπάρχουν μεγάλες διαφορές από περιοχη σε περιοχή.
Η ελληνική γλώσσα θα έπρεπε να παρουσιαζει μεγαλη ανομοιογένεια .
Στην βυζαντινή και νεότερη περιοδο ομως δεν φαίνεται κατι τέτοιο.
Αρα οι αλλαγές μάλλον πρέπει να έγιναν πριν την εξάπλωση του Ελληνισμου στον κοσμο, δηλαδη πριν τον Μ. Αλέξανδρο... Τοτε που η γλώσσα ηταν περιορισμενη γεωραφικα στην Ελλαδα.
Στην συνέχεια με τον Αλέξανδρο διαδίδεται στον κόσμο μια γλώσσα που ήδη παρουσιαζει τις αλλαγές αυτές, γιαυτό και ειναι οι ίδιες.
Hello,
Many such questions and issues are covered in my book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publishers, Aug. 10, 2021). To respond to your questions in detail would require much space here. If you write me at NTGreek@att.net, I will mail you a complimentary copy (within the Continental States). Please mention this memo in your email to me. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou
Nαι, θα το πάρω το βιβλίο σας.
Είναι πολύ ενδιαφέρον.
Συγχαρητήρια κύριε Zαχαρίου!!
Dr. Zachariou, would you be interested in coming on my TH-cam channel for an interview?
Thank you for your kind invitation, my friend. I hope you received my response via an e-mail I sent you. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you for responding. Unfortunately I have not seen your email. I posted a comment to this thread with my email address. But unfortunately TH-cam likes to delete comments with email addresses and links. But if you would be so kind as to resend the email, I would greatly appreciate it. -Stephen
ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ,
για τις γνώσεις, γνώμες, απόψεις αλλά και τον προβληματισμό
που που μου προσφέρατε Κύριε Ζαχαρίου αλλά και όλοι οι υπόλοιποι.
Να παραμείνω λίγο στον προβληματισμό (χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει
οτι τον αποδέχομαι) και να καταθέσω τα εξής:
Συχνά τελευταία συναντά κάποιος αιτιάσεις που λίγο ως πολυ
διατυπώνουν αυτά που οι Kostas1983 και Eopyk αναφέρουν.
(Μην παρεξηγηθώ, δεν πέρνω θέση). Εν πολλοίς όλα καταλήγουν
στην επίκληση αυτών που ο κύριος Ζαχαρίου αναφέρει σαν
authority/iew (κυρίως του W. Sidney Allen).
Ποιά είναι η γνώμη σας επ'αυτού τελικά. Υπάρχει κάποιο
πλεονεκτικό/ά επιχείρημα/τα υπέρ της μίας ή της άλλης άποψης;
I don't know if I must transcribe the above in English too...
John T. SemerDear Mr. Semer,
You mentioned W. Sidney Allen. In my book, Historical Evidence (Vol. I), I refer to some of the weaknesses of Allen’s views regarding certain Greek sounds. Examples: (1) He advises speakers of English against trying to produce or even hear the distinction between π τ κ and φ θ χ, and recommends pronouncing φ θ χ as fricatives “in the Byzantine manner” (Vox Graeca, 1968, p. 12)-subtly steering away from saying “Modern Greek”! (2) Allen says that the doubling of πφ, τθ, κχ = [pph, tth, kkh] results into an unaspirated stop followed by an aspirated stop, hence πφ, τθ, κχ = [pph, tth, kkh], and offers the vague explanation that “the proof only refers to the time at which the doubling took place, and in many cases this must have been long before the 5 c. B.C.” (p. 19). However, Greek does not support stop+stop-and-aspirated sounds such as p+p-h, t+t-h, or k+k-h, hence Alen’s “proof” has no basis. (3) In one of his arguments, Allen claims that φθ and κθ as p-h+t-h and k-h+t-h is actually normal among modern languages and cites Armenian for prayer as [aγothkh] (p. 25). No native speaker of Armenian, however, would say [aγothkh], but [aγotk]. These and and other such examples show Allen’s limited grasp of Greek phonology. -PZ
Philemon Zachariou Thank you Dr. Zachariou, indeed my many thanks.I must say to you and all the rest, it puzzles me, confuses me and make me sad seeing that these views
are considered "mainstream"and even adopted by many of our own people. Your explanation is a relief.
Similarly if ´P´ was too close to ´F´ as you point then poor soldiers would write the name of Filippos as Pilippos but they were writing it as Bilippos PRECISELY because B was sounding ALREADY like a V (and similar examples we have in the 4th century BC not only in Macedonia but in most other parts of Greece as well - and not just Dorians but Aeolians-Boetians too).
Do I need to state that YOUR opinion today, positioning the Attic accent as ´judge of Greek accent´ DOES NOT MATTER?
What about the distinction between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς?
Scott Sanett Friend, the distinction between ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς lies in the context. If, by way of saying “good-bye” to you and your company, I were to say, Ὁ Θεὸς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, you would understand that I was not saying “God be with us” but “God be with you.” The context would make that clear. -PZ
ἡμεῖς = "we" and ὑμεῖς = "you" (pl.). These two are pronounced alike. -PZ
Friend, rely on evidence, not on authority.
How do you explain direct attestation like this of the distinction between υ and ι in the 11th century:
Ἐμοὶ πατρὶς, βέλτιστε, τραχὺ χωρίον,
ὅπου περ ἀνδρῶν καὶ βοῶν ἶσαι φρένες,
οἳ τὸ κρύον λέγουσιν ἀφρόνως κρίον,
καὶ τὸ ξύλον λέγουσιν ἀγροίκως ξίλον
Dear friend, my fatherland is a rugged village,
Where the minds of men and oxen are equal
They, ignorant ones, say krion instead of kryon.
They, provincials, say xilon instead of xylon.
You cannot say this is about spellings because he is talking about peasants speaking, not writing.
Who said this? And what does it prove? We have ample evidence from writings much before the 11th century that ι and υ were interchangeable. -PZ
Εμείς οι Έλληνες δεν μπορούμε με τίποτα να καταπιούμε το πόσο πολύ άλλαξε η γλώσσα μας και κάνουμε ό,τι μπορούμε να συνεχίσουμε να μιλάμε τα αρχαία μας με μοντέρνα ελληνική προφορά και να τα κατακρεουργούμε
Φίλε, μή φοβἀσαι. Πολλοί (μη πληροφορημένοι) Έλληνες θα συμφωνούσαν μαζί σου. -ΦΖ
Εμείς οι Ελληνες είμαστε ΟΙ ΜΟΝΟΙ ΑΡΜΟΔΙΟΙ να αλλάξουμε και να εκσυγχρονίσουμε, την Ελληνική γλώσσα και προφορά.
Ετσι ηταν και στην πρώτη σκοτεινή περίοδο της ιστορίας μας,(Ελληνικός μεσαίων)
ετσι ειναι και στη δεύτερη σκοτεινή περιοδο ,απ' την οποία ελπίζω να βγούμε σύντομα.
Και επειδή είμαστε "στα κάτω μας" εδώ και κάτι αιώνες ,αυτό ακριβώς εκμεταλλεύονται οι διάφοροι αλλόγλωσσοι καλοθελητές,και όχι μόνο όσον αφορά το γλωσσικό.
Χρειάζεται εμπιστοσύνη και επιμονή, και κυβερνήσεις που να ευνοούν την Ελληνική παιδεία.
That is exactly what's going on. It is frankly embarrassing to see. I applaud you for seeing through this.
παντος fantasticos
αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα, κτισθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν ὁ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν.
Mr Zachariou I find this video very intresting but there are many things I have to say. The one I think is most obvious is about your claim that all υι, οι, ει, η and υ were all pronounced like ι by the time the NT was written.
If that is the case then why do Romans write Ērēnē and sometimes Irēnē and not Irini, since in Greek it's Ειρήνη. More evidence like this and the fact that the Greeks themselves represented η as E (and evenas A in the Mycenaean period with Linear B), should be enough to conclude that the sound was a long e sound.
There is also much proof that υ, υι and οι was pronounced differently until at least the 11th century AD.
Hello, Eugenia. I appreciate your comments. Your many-sided questions/remarks cover much ground to the point that of necessity I will say that to fully address them, I would have to refer you to my published book, Reading and Pronouncing Biblical Greek: Historical Pronunciation versus Erasmian (Wipf & Stock Publsishers, Eugene, OR - Aug. 10, 2001). I will attempt, however, to hint at a few points here, so that you can hopefully be assured that there are answers that can satisfy at least part of your inquiry. Unfortunately, many scholars rely on Latin for the pronunciation of Attic Greek and even Hellenistic Greek. The pronunciation of Ancient Greek in the manner of Neohellenic had been accepted prior to and through Byzantine times as a matter of incontestable fact. Objections to it were first raised by Renaissance scholars, chiefly Erasmus, who noted its incongruity with the pronunciation of Latin, the then academic language of Europe. It must be borne in mind that by Erasmus’ time Latin had long metamorphosed into several European languages; therefore, Latin’s questionable pronunciation in Erasmus’ time could not be relied upon as a guide for the pronunciation of Attic Greek. Shown below are some of the types of concerns one would encounter in converting Greek letters into Latin and vice versa. Let's take the conversion of η. 1. Latin adopted the Chalcidic Greek alphabet (7th c. BC), but its letters were not necessarily assigned one by one the phonetic value of Greek counterparts. This accounts in part for earlier and later variations in the Latin transliteration of Greek. 2. Latin transliteration both of η and ε as e does not mean that η and ε are the same sound any more than the i in Virgilius and the e in Vergilius. Because Latin already used Chalcidic H, which was familiar to Romans as h, it could not invent a special symbol for the H(η) vowel which Attic adopted, the more so as this symbol shifted among the Greeks themselves. Latin continued to adhere to the old familiar use of E, which prior to mid-5th c. BC stood for Attic [e] and [i] sounds. Thus ζωή is rendered zoe and ἀγάπη agape, where e leads to the mispronunciation of η as [e]-or even to diphthongized “long” ay [eɪ]! 3. Latin transcribed initial E(ε) as E (Ephesus, Europe), but “aspirated E” (whether Ε = ε or E = η) as HE ( Ἕλληνες > HEllenes, Ἡρόδοτος > HErodotus). Bear in mind also that prior to 403 BC (pre-Eucleidean grammar), Attic still used the symbol E both for [e] and [i] sounds. It is no wonder therefore that Latin sees Ειρήνη now as Erene, now as Irene. Latin stone cutters were at times likely to transliterate Greek E [i] as E [e] based on visual, rather than acoustic, resemblance. It wasn't until the post-Eucleidian grammar went into effect that Greek could finally make a visual distinction between E [i] and E [e]. For example, ΠΕΡΙΚΛΕΣ vs. post-Eucleidean ΠΕΡΙΚΛΗΣ, where the -ΗΣ ending reveals that the E of the last syllable was not the same as the E of the first syllable. Remember, too, that Plato's testimony in Cratylus 418e, where Plato says, νῦν δὲ ἀντὶ μὲν τοῦ ἰῶτα ἢ εἶ ἢ ἦτα μεταστρέφουσιν, corroborates the equation ι = ει = η in Attic Greek toward the end of the 5th century BC. As for H being a long sound, that holds true in the sense of metered verse, where long/short syllables mattered. But here we are not talking about regular speech, only poetry. Many view, e.g., η and ω as long sounds, and ε and o as short sounds in regular speech. But, again, quantity is part of versification, not daily speech. The Athenians first borrowed H and Ω as compensatory marks in verse, where these symbols were used on accented, and therefore lengthened, syllables. You see, Eugenia, I may go on without stopping, trying to summarize much detail. I wish you had a copy of my book. That would perhaps stir additional questions, but at least it would help you with many of the question you may now have. I hope the foregoing helps. Best regards. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Thank you very much for your detailed aswer, I 'll try to find your book and read it and I also hope that my questions are answered.
You will find that οι, υ, ει, ι, υι are dealt with in a manner the majority of people, including scholars like Sidney Allen, are not familiar with. As for my book, write me at NTGreek@att.net. I will gladly send you a copy at no cost to you as long as you are within the continental USA. -PZ
@@PhilemonZachariou Sadly I do not live within North America, thank's for the offer though!
Where do you live? You may want to get the e-Book version through Amazon for very little. If so, try this link:
www.amazon.com/Reading-Pronouncing-Biblical-Greek-Pronunciation-ebook/dp/B08BT6NKQR
-PZ
Attic accent was already known in antiquity as THE EXCEPTION and not the rule among all Greek accents. No matter if in Roman times, Greeks and other Greek-learning Romans raised the by-then non-existing Attic accent (OR WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF IT) as the ´Greek-by-excellence´ (and I have no problem with it - though Homeric Greek is much more suitable for that title....), Attic never really influenced the accent with which Greeks spoke the Greek language.
Get it? Now let me put my rock on your cave
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Thank you for the heart-felt feedback! -PZ
I just start and have been so scared because started time ago with the Alphabet and again got scared, now your lessons are miracle for me .
Thank you 🫶🕊️
That's delightful news! -PZ
Δυστυχώς έχω και εγώ συναντήσει διάφορα θύματα που πιστεύουν στην ορθότητα της Ερασμιακής...
Προφανώς δεν κατάλαβες ορθώς τι λέει η άνωθεν παρουσίαση. Διότι λέει το αντίθετο.
Οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες ΔΕΝ προφέρανε την ελληνική γλώσσα όπως ισχυρίστηκε ο Έρασμος. Η δουλειά του Εράσμου είναι μια αποτυχημένη προσπάθεια αποκατάστασης της αρχαίας αττικής προφοράς, αυτός όντας Ολλανδός λόγιος ειδικός στα Λατινικά αλλά ελάχιστα γνώστης της αρχαίας ελληνικής.
Η Ερασμιακή προφορά προωθήθηκε κυρίως για πολιτικούς λόγους και όχι για επιστημονικούς-ιστορικούς.
And guess what?
Attic in the 5th century was already in CONVENTIONAL orthography... i.e. writing words under convention and not how they were really spelled. We have people of similar classes, similar education writing same words radically differently.
Greek writing did evolve but mostly through the Ionian (not Attic as previously suggested) and much under Dorian accent influence. Not accidental that for all the 1000s of ships of Athens no other Greek ever spelled sea as Thalatta!
Right, that is why it all ends back to Erasmian. You talk to an amateur of linguistics but dont you ever dare you think you can say anything to a man that reads DIRECTLY from ancient texts in his native language.
There is a problem in what you say : THERE IS NO ANCIENT GREEK. There is the GREEK language and the various DIALECTS that evolved in DIFFERENT ERAS out of which we can barely trace only few and this through literate texts of generally ultra educated people.
Jesus is Lord Jesus is God
Blessings on you, Andres. -PZ