I’m Greek. I’ve studied Classics and Linguistics in Greece. All you say and argue is fine; nevertheless: You CANNOT read and “feel” classical poetry correctly using the modern Greek pronunciation, since: 1. There is no prosody in modern Greek, no short and long vowels, no “light and heavy” syllables due to the phonemes they contain (only due to their stress), which define the sort of any metrical foot in classical poetry . 2. Modern phonology is quite different from classical, eg in classical times Attic ε and ει had exactly the same quality (not quantity, since they had different length/morae), thus “parechesis” is in action in a verse containing them; yet in modern Greek ε = [e] and ει = [i]; also ε and η in classical phonology are quite homologous, as being vowels of the [e] quality, thus again “parechesis” is employed; 3. the same holds for κ,γ,χ and π,β,φ, all being stop/plosive consonants in Attic, with different attributes and relations to each other than in modern Greek, where some are voiced or voiceless fricatives (no “parechesis” can be felt) . This list could be easily prolonged; I suppose the point is made clear. There is no Classicist who argues in favor of the modern Greek pronunciation for poetry, at least, like Homer and attic poetry, because these are better understood, felt and studied using the reconstructed phonology, or less using the Erasmian, and least using the Modern Greek one. For attic and Ionian prose there is no major advantages in using reconstructed phonology, but some minor ones are still in place (the reader still has a better sense and feeling of the language). The second major problem with the Modern Greek pronunciation is the accentuation; we pronounce only 5 vowels of one mora (shirt), but we teach about short and long vowels etc., and we really pronounce no diphthong at all in all Ancient Greek diphthongs; thus the difference between ᾶ/ά, ῆ/ή is totally absent. I teach my pupils ancient Greek always using the Modern Greek pronunciation, since this is the practice in Greece; I never read or study Ancient Greek using this pronunciation; of course I know many things on the history, development and dialectal differentiation of the Greek language, and I can exploit this knowledge in favor of my reading and understanding Ancient Greek texts (Archaic, classical, Hellenistic or Medieval).
there are more than 2 ways though. the "restored classical" pronunciation should be broken up in 3 different ones: koine, classical (all the classical dialects had different pronunciations) and archaic (this one would also be broken up in dialects)
So if the distinction of long vowels and diphthongs is essential for proper rhythm, and such distinction was lost in the late Hellenstic period, then wouldn't that mean that Greek speakers during the Byzantine period were incapable of reading poetry with proper rhythm?
Surely they must have been able to recite poetry (for hundreds of years) while respecting the rhythm, despite their pronunciation; since vowel length is subordinate to the meter in Greek hexameter. Besides, the scansion rules are flexible and allow vowels to lengthen or shorten whenever necessary. For example, synizesis contracts εω into one long syllable in Iliad 1.1 (Πηληϊάδεω) and into one short syllable in Iliad 1.15 (χρυσέῳ). And correption can shorten vowels and diphthongs before a vowel, as in Iliad 1.14, where the pre-vocalic ου of ἑκηβόλου is shortened. All things considered, I don’t see why Byzantine pronunciation should be considered inherently improper for poetry, since the meter and rhythm aren't necessarily broken by it. And to say that it isn’t “beautiful” is a subjective judgement, since some people (like myself) may consider it to be beautiful in its own right. Ideally, it should be a matter of personal preference, in my opinion.
abbadonnergal I agree that for hundreds of years some people could still recite poetry while respecting the rhythm because they kept the pronunciation, but slowly, during the Byzantine era, that changed. As for flexibility, it is one of the wonderful aspects of the Homeric language, because he uses whatever is appropriate for each hexameter (Achilles is also written with one l for example).
@Konos P - That may be the case for some regions and social strata (since the Hellenestic world was quite large and diverse). However, some long vowels (η in particular) were still distinct in the Roman period among educated, conservative speakers (especially in Athens). The process of itacism was gradual and was likely widespread enough to be deemed "complete" during the Byzantine era (by the 2nd, 3rd & 4th centuries A.D.). *See Allen's Vox Graeca, pg. 78; Horrocks' Greek, pg. 163; Caragounis' Development of Greek, pg. 350; Buth's Ἡ Κοινὴ Προφορά, pg. 222; Campbell's Advances in the Study of Greek, pg. 200
This is a historically correct account of the language. It has not changed from byzantine Greek essentially. And it seems you are the only one that acknowledges this on you tube
Hey, Deka Glossai, thanks to inspiration from you and others, i started learning Ancient Greek a year ago, and then, thanks solely to your advice in this video, three months ago i switched to modern Greek, and have been taking three lessons a week with a Greek, planning to return to Ancient Greek when i have attained some fluency in Modern. Thanks so much for your video, it's really made my family crazy (that i spend my spare time learning Greek, haha)!
I think you’re right. I independently came to the same conclusion and Then found your videos. You make a very convincing and skilled argument. Much appreciated!
Thank you for this video. I've been studing Thai and living in Thailand for 5 years and I've gotten to a level where I can make myself understood and understand what happens around me---not perfectly, but acceptably okay. One of the features of the Thai language is that it has five tones and a clear distinction between short and long vowels. It is VERY important to hear and pronounce Thai vowels and tones accurately if communication is to occur. So I pay a lot of attention to this now. I started learning Ancient Greek a few weeks ago and in a lot of introductory materials the authors mention pitch accent and vowel length, described as rising, falling and short-long, with explanations as to which vowels are long, which are short, and what should accent marks sound like. I was imagining something between Swedish, a modern European language with pitch accent and Finnish, a language with a clear distinction between short and long vowels. In any case, something quite different from what Modern Greek sounds like. HOWEVER, I have yet to find a single sample of reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation that follows these rules consistently, if at all. Most readers presenting something purporting to be an accurate model of Ancient Greek are very inconsistent. They would occasionally ignore the length of the vowels or have an inconsistent application of the pitch accent. The reader would pronounce, say, the acute accent sometimes with the pitch going up, sometimes down, sometimes he/she would ignore it; or read the vowel η sometimes long, sometimes short, etc.--- the kind of mistakes a beginning student of Chinese/Thai would make. It was all very confusing and I was kind of losing hope, until I found your video. I found your arguments very convincing and I will use Modern Greek as the model. One thing that you don't mention, which I think explains why mastering spoken Modern Greek boosted your reading of Ancient Greek is that the written word is just a representation of language, which is essentially spoken. When you read, you necessarily sound out the words in your head with a specific rhythm, intonation, emotion, etc. Without the spoken aspect "language" isn't language, but a terse code you decipher instead of reading. Linguists noticed this long ago and institutions like the Foreign Service Institute emphasise a strong spoken foundation with pattern drilling and repetition aloud and only then they'd move to the written part of their courses. Anyway, I'm digressing. Thanks again for this video.
Simply put, a text read in erasmian pronunciation, sounds like a two stroke gas engine with the exhaust broken. I don't think that the language of the people who valued harmony so much, would sound like that.
Purely a matter of taste. I think the Erasmian pronunciation sounds great when done properly. And I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that ancient Greek "valued harmony".
@@devinreese7704 Mentioned by name (also that of the Greek grammarian from Samos who wrote more about them) in a Latin grammar (of antiquity). I don't have the text before me, but in general Latin grammarians made naturally many references to the Greek language in their treatises. Others name 3, 4, 5... I'm not sure if there were one giving even 7 accents. To me the accents' names made sense when I found the passage; one could clearly understand what the guy was describing only by their names and easily apply them (even if not written nowadays, if ever)
@@devinreese7704 Of course it was different. You can not only see that through transcriptions of words or names among languages or writing errors, but they are even described in ancient treatises. Modern Greeks (luckily with some exceptions) ignore these texts, automatically believing that the ancients pronounced as we do now, while the ancients spoke first and not we. For me as a Greek this is stupidity of tragic dimensions (as one can even read in the comment section of my channel) and I'll try to change it...
Πολύ ενδιαφέρον «δέκα γλώσσαι». Σίγουρα θα έχεις υπόψιν ότι μπορεί κανείς να πλησιάσει το ζήτημα της προφοράς και μέσα από τη μελέτη των ελληνικών διαλέκτων που επιβιώνουν. Τυχαίνει να έχω καταγωγή από Έλληνες του Πόντου και από μικρό παιδί είμαι συνηθισμένος να ακούω ποντιακά. Στα ποντιακά όντως συναντά κανείς την προφορά του «η» πολύ κοντά στο «ε». Η γιαγιά μου έλεγε Γιάννε αντί Γιάννη. Καθώς και άλλα στοιχεία από την Κοινή που σε άλλες ελληνικές διαλέκτους και στη δημοτική χάθηκαν. Η γιαγιά μου ο παππούς μου ακόμη και η μάνα μου έλεγαν «κι έ(ι)θελα» (δεν ήθελα) «ουκ εθέλω». Δηλαδή η άρνηση «ουκ», δε χάθηκε σ΄ αυτή τη μορφή νέων ελληνικών. Έχεις ακούσει πως προφέρουν οι Κύπριοι τη λέξη θάλασσα, ή την λέξη πολλά; Τα δύο σίγμα και τα δύο λάμδα ακούγονται ξεκάθαρα και δίνουν έντονο χρώμα στη προφορά. Το ποιο εντυπωσιακό για μένα είναι εκεί που λες ότι ο ίδιος ο Έρασμος μάλλον δεν χρησιμοποιούσε την ερασμιακή προφορά! Μου φαίνεται πολύ λογικό διότι ο ποιο εύκολος τρόπος, για τους περισσότερους ευρωπαίους μελετητές των αρχαίων κειμένων εκείνης της εποχής ήταν να συναντούν και να μαθαίνουν τα ελληνικά από τους Ρωμιούς μετανάστες και φυγάδες της Ελλάδας και της Μικράς Ασίας που εγκατέλειπαν την Οθωμανική αυτοκρατορία πηγαίνοντας προς τα δυτικά παίρνοντας μαζί τους ίσως πολύτιμα χειρόγραφα βιβλία. Τώρα μπορώ να δικαιολογήσω και την δουλειά που έκανε ο Έρασμος με την ερασμιακή προφορά. Ήταν μάλλον μια μελέτη να προσεγγίσει το ζήτημα της προφοράς παρά μια πρόταση για πρακτική χρήση. Φαίνεται ότι ο τρόπος που προσέγγισες εσύ τα ελληνικά, εννοώ μέσα από την εκμάθηση πρώτα των νέων ελληνικών, μοιάζει μ΄ αυτό που συνέβαινε στους πρώτους μελετητές στη δυτική Ευρώπη κατά τον 15ο και 16ο αιώνα, στην περίοδο που ξεκίνησε ΄να αναπτύσσεται αυτό το ενδιαφέρον για την ελληνική γραμματεία. Προφανώς αυτή η προσέγγιση δεν σημαίνει ότι η νέα προφορά της δημοτικής είναι κοντύτερα απ΄ ότι η ερασμιακή, αλλά έχει το πολύ σημαντικό πλεονέκτημα ζωντάνιας και αναιρεί με συνέπεια και στην πράξη τον χαρακτηρισμό της «νεκρής γλώσσας» για τα ελληνικά.
Τα περισσοτερα απ αυτα που γραφεις ειναι ενδιαφεροντα και συμφωνω. Ομως οι ποντιοι γραφουν στα αληθεια έθελα και προφερουν οντως"ethela". Δεν γραφουν ηθελα και προφερουν "ethela". Η συζητηση γινεται για το αν θα ηταν "σωστοτερο" κι οι ξενοι αντι να βλεπουν ηθελον και να λενε "ethelon", να βλεπουν ηθελον και να λενε "ithelon" !
στα ποντιακα το ¨ηθελα" ειναι "εθελνα" και οχι "εθελα". "Εθενλα να λεγω σε ντο χαπαρ' κι ε'εις ασα ρωμαίκα αμα επ'εκει επουσμανεψα και τιδεν 'κι ειπα σε, . Εφοεθα γιαμ χωλιασκεσε".
Hmmm. Not particularly convincing. What about the change from aspirated to fricative, with φ, θ and χ, for example? This occurred around the 2nd century AD. We know that both Greeks and Romans thus pronounced Φοιβος "p'hoyboss", not "foyboss".
This actually confused me a bit. From what I understand, modern "classical restored pronunciation" is not erasmian pronunciation, which as I understand it, was never actually used by natives of any period. The pronunciation promoted by W. Sydney Allen in his "Vox Graeca" describes a rather different pronunciation. Well, I suppose much of the vowel system is the same, but many of the consonants are markedly different. This is the pronunciation used in Assimil's Le Grec Sans Peine. In summary, I was under the impression that Erasmian was considered a restored pronunciation, but is no longer considered so in the late 20th century onward.
deka glossai Its pretty different, imo. The main differences between Erasmian and restored pronunciation are: 1. φ, θ, χ, are aspirates, not fricatives. 2. ζ is /zd/, not /dz/. 3. ει and ου are spurious diphthongs, whose true pronunciation is long close-mid front vowel and long close-mid back vowel, respectively. 4. The iota subscript is pronounced. 5. Double consonants are pronounced. 6. There was a pitch accent, not stress. (There may be more differences) Anyway, Ioannis Stratakis (Podium Arts channel) has recordings with the restored pronunciation and it sounds just beautiful.
deka glossai "Minor points"? Is the pitch accent really a minor point? This alone is a major difference. The accent had a *huge* role in ancient Greek. The poetry was designed to fit a pitch accent system. And does it really matter how different they are? The point of the restored pronunciation was to create a pron. as accurate as possible, not to sound different and exotic to one's ears compared to the Erasmian that was designed to make ancient Greek easier for students.
I think it's important to at least recognize that they are indeed different... i.e. erasmian != restored classical. While they are much more similar than Modern Greek, and Erasmus is truly the "father" of classically restored pronunciation, the differences are enough that they really are two separate things.
Good reasoning mostly, practical-except if we can take it back to Proto-Indo-European quite reliably why are you saying that reconstruction from textual evidence is not accurate? Erasmus is not the only source.
@@miklosnemeth8566 I Teach then English and the vast majority of them find Ancient Greek one of their most difficult lessons, given the huge differences between Ancient and Modern Greek syntax .
@@teacherdude I see, this is especially interesting, I had a Serbian friend at the university, and he picked Russian as second language, while most of us picked English, German or French, and it was very easy for him, he was really a lazy guy, so definitely he wanted to learn a language the easy way. On the other hand, in my high school years the most dreaded subject was Hungarian Grammar and Literature for most of us, it didn't help that Hungarian was our mother language.
Some nice points about MG. What do you think of a “restored koine” (see Randall Buth) which sounds a lot like modern greek? I did primary research in roman period epigraphy and documentary texts in Palestine and I also have some video blogs in which I discuss grammatical questions IN KOINE GREEK with a restored pronunciation ( www.kainediatheke.com ). Would appreciate feedback. Modern Greeks can understand me when I speak Koine with this pronunciation.
Great to see you back again Deka as I previously enjoyed some of the older videos and found them inspirational. However I have not been able to access them for language learning tips.
Thank you! I've taken down my older videos and am focusing on producing better content of higher quality. I promise that I will be revisiting many of the ideas of my older videos!
Eg. Pronouncing the name Zeus in modern Greek is downright horrible (Zefs), compared to saying it in Ancient Greek which is more closer to Classical Latin's pronunciation of the word Deus (Déyus). And this shows how a reconstructed version of the ancient language is needed. Now I'm not with the Erasmian version, thats more of a patched-up version of Ancient Greek, but a well studied modern reconstruction would be needed in our heavily informed/technologically advanced age.
There's a free digital copy online of Telemachus Timayenis' 1877 treatise on why Modern Greek pronunciation should be used for Ancient Greek (link to downloadable PDF: ia801406.us.archive.org/16/items/moderngreekitspr00timarich/moderngreekitspr00timarich.pdf). A lot of it is out-of-date. But it's still a good, quick read.
We dont even need to go there. If it were the same, why would they have a consonantal H in classical inscriptions. Why was Perikles written with a epsilon long in the -es? not -is? and why would they use a rough breathing? When did they stop using it? How about the tonoi? Everyone just doesnt pronounce them, or pronounces them as a uno-stress like in modern. We additionally have tons of evidence that languages shange over time. Before the eucliedian alphabet, the genitive was written -o omikron long on ostraka. Just look at them. So weve plenty of evidence from these areas, and questions.
tos coba I read Shakespeare using period pronunciation. While it is technically not necessary, it does enhance one’s understanding of certain puns. The very character of some of the poems changes when you read it using the pronunciation that he himself used. This is particularly true for sonnet 15. The rhythm is also better because some words no longer rhyme in our time but did rhyme in Shakespeare’s time.
I am curious to hear your experience on this: As you move through the phonological development of Greek, at what point, and how, specifically, does the intelligibility break down? For instance, as vowel length ceases to be relevant, the subjunctive ceases to make sense. Itacism erases certain conjugation distinctions after the Koine period, and the monophthongization of diphthongs makes things tricky. The optative is audible until around the 10th Century A.D., afterwards iotacism deletes it. How late a pronunciation is still comprehensible when speaking Ancient Greek? What specific ambiguities arise over the development towards Modern Greek? Finally, can Ancient Greek seriously be spoken comprehensibly using a modern/byzantine phonology?
It is not a question of intelligibility. Even in the modern Greek dialects there is such a variety of pronunciations which are in different degrees understood by a standard modern Greek speaker. You can imagine how things could be in the ancient times without modern mass media. In my opinion the variety of the vowels spoken throughout the Greek realm, under the presence of the Attic dialect, lead to the "vowel collapse" where Koine was an intermediate stage. Attic dialect was influential because it had been considered as "perfect" by educated people, implying that the other ways of speaking Greek had imperfections. I guess the imperfections were the norm and lead to modern Greek. As long as the vowels could not help the use of the same expressions as those of the older generations, new expressions were created by the same grammar, which eventually lead to innovative grammar rules. Think of the way subjunctive in Greek has evolved. The endings became indistinguishable from the indicative so "ἵνα" clauses were employed which became the modern subjunctive with the particle "να". There are many Greek grammar evolution stories like that, about some classical ways of expression falling into disuse, while some others of late antiquity become overused. Afterwards almost nobody cared about spoken language, as in the medieval times the Koine of the church stylized by Atticism were the official language. The exact steps of the evolution are subject to research. Now for your final question, there are philologists who are trained to write down ancient Greek by dictation from a modern Greek pronunciation of the text. I also wonder how effective they are in "real time" speech.
I don't know know what his point of view is, but I would argue its a different case. And latin deserves being learning in its classical form. The thing about the new latin is that it's been adopted to fit the needs of a church, and its not native to any country (the vatican doesn't count, even if it calls itself a country hahaha)
Excellent point, and I guess You are talking about the Ecclesiastical Pronunciation. The problem with that is that the audio/video resources even from Italian channels are far more abundant than the Ecclesiastical Pronunciation. I guess the same is the case with Modern Greek pronunciation of Ancient Greek texts, it simply haven't got popularity, all popular Ancient Greek TH-cam channels speak restored pronunciation.
The main problem I see with using modern pronunciation is the loss of vowel length. in languages with contrastive vowel length, like Ancient Greek and Latin, said vowel length is extremely crucial to the poetry and rhythm to the language, and if that's gone, most of the character is too. At least, that's my perspective.
Do you say that vowel length has been lost with Modern Green pronunciation? There are a number of modern languages where vowel length is crucial: Hungarian, Egyptian Arabic, Finnish. On the other hand, a number of other languages can do fine without them, so I don't know any Indo-European language that has vowel length preserved. Very interesting. The Hungarian dialect, for example spoken in Moldavia possibly because of the heavy influence of Rumanian lost double consonants and vowel length. Really interesting.
First of all, Erasmus wrote his work on Ancient Greek pronunciation *after* he learned Greek using Modern pronunciation, which means that his knowledge of Modern helped to reconstruct the Ancient, which, in my opinion, would give Erasmus more credibility rather than not even learning to speak it - or not even learning Greek altogether. You need some kind of basis for reconstruction and there weren't really many separate languages that spawned from Ancient Greek. This is common for every reconstruction process. For some reason he blows by this and doesn't think it's worth noting, which is a bit funny. No mention is made about how the reconstructed pronunciation has been refined over time with the advent of better understanding of phonological change, which wasn't around in Erasmus's time and is a little bit important. Also there's a lot of conflating with Erasmus's reconstruction and the reconstruction which is used today. "By using the Modern Greek pronunciation, we send an important message to students, namely that the Greek language and Greek literature comprise a continuous tradition stretching back from Homer to the modern day. There has never been a time when literature of value was not produced in Greek." No one's "sending a message" by making kids use a certain pronunciation, only that you're trying to push your views onto others. Kids probably shouldn't be forced to choose one over the other, but what you're proposing isn't much better than what's being done now. "Using the Attic system of pronunciation prioritizes an elite dialect of the language and closes off this entire tradition to students, depriving them of the most important research for learning Ancient Greek, namely the connection to Modern Greek." This is huge leap. You could argue that teaching the Modern system prioritizes an elite dialect and closes off an "entire tradition" of literature before the 10th century. "Modern Greek is by far the most excessible version of Greek and connecting Ancient Greek to the Modern Greek language, culture, and people only enhances and deepens students' knowledge." Why? How is that different from learning Ancient Greek with Erasmus's pronunciation? Are people who learn Erasmian pronunciation inherently missing out on something important by virtue of not using Modern pronunciation? "It is indeed possible to learn Ancient Greek without reference to the modern language, but fluent speakers of Modern Greek have a huge advantage when learning to read Ancient Greek." And you can say the same about an Anglophone learning Old English, you could say the same about a Frenchman learning Old French, you could say the same about an Italian learning Latin, etc. etc "And it is my experience that learning Modern Greek directly correlates to increased reading fluency in Ancient Greek." From your perspective, but not everyone learns in the same way. "It is important to remember that the restored classical pronunciation is an artificial, philological reconstruction and was likely never used in this exact form by any one speaker." >was likely never used in this exact form by any one speaker Okay, but then he goes on to say that Greek had many varieties, but it's *still* unlikely that anyone anywhere could have possiblely used a reconstruction which has been thoroughly refined since Erasmus, even though Greek was used widely not only in the classical world but also as a trade language for centuries afterwards?: "Greek is a tradition that spans many centuries and many different dialects. And language changes very quickly. Therefore, it makes no sense to pronounce Homer, Ionic, Aeolic, Koine, and Byzantine Greek with the same restored classical pronunciation." Except Modern is fine if used in the same way, right? "In short, restored classical pronunciation obscures the connections between the various stages of Greek, which Modern Greek highlights the remarkable continuity and resilience of the Greek language and puts students in close connection with the living, breathing Greek language and nation." The fact that Ancient Greek is still studied in schools today should be what highlights the remarkable continuity and resilience of the Greek language. Almost nothing of what he said can't also be applied the other way around.
@@lefterismagkoutas4430 This idiot's nation is about to take your islands... And also we are dominant the mediterrian sea at the moment so you can go fck yourself loser
From a learner's perspective, a pronunciation where you clearly hear from it how the words are written, is always the most practical. That means that a classical pronunciation is the only valid method for the pronunciation of classical Greek. If you want to speak modern Greek with somebody, you can easily shift to modern pronunciation. The same holds for Latin and Hebrew of course. But you must take the effort to lean sound foreign to Americans, and that may be a very tough thing to do, since it looks like the English language tend to destroy the natural ability to learn new language sounds at even a young age. But this ability can be regained with some self-administered logopaedic therapy.
I think, if Modern Greek Pronunciation is predictable and consistent as for the written text (unlike English, where you have to learn the pronunciation of each and every word), just like German and French, then it's ok from a learner's perspective. Of course one letter = one phoneme concept would be ideal, but there are very few language that follow that rule, I think Finnish is the only one I can regard totally consistent, and periodically the Finnish Academy adjust the spelling to match the spoken language perfectly, amazing.
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I've watched a lot of his content, for years now. I think he's very intelligent and well-spoken, but his renditions of Greek sound far too robotic and artificial, as does everyone's. This is less his fault than it being due to the fact that reconstructed pronunciations are artificial by definition. They never sound natural. Language REQUIRES listening to grasp accurately, which is why I have no doubt that if Socrates or Plato could travel to our time and hear their ancient Attic phonology reconstructed, they would probably be very confused. So my question is, why should we bother with reconstructed pronunciations at all? We're lucky enough that Greek has survived to this day and has a natural, functioning, melodic phonology. Why not simply use it?
deka glossai πολλά συγχαρητήρια για το βίντεο. Χωρίς να είμαι ειδικός, είχα πάντοτε την αίσθηση ότι εκτός από το επιστημονικό υπήρξε και ιδεολογικό υπόβαθρο που οδήγησε στην επικράτηση της Ερασμιακής προφοράς στη Δύση. Μπορείς να υποδείξεις πηγές ή βιβλία για τις αντιρρήσεις των λογίων στην εργασία του Εράσμου; Ευχαριστώ!
Oh my god... Although I liked the video, it is very ironic that you prefer the modern Greek pronunciation while saying the title of Erasmus' book in *Classical* Latin and not Ecclesiastical... If you prefer the mod. Greek pronunc., the same should apply for Latin :)
I have to admit that even though I prefer the mod. Greek pronunciation and the ecclesiastical, the classical pronunciation which I learned is so deeply lodged in my head that I revert to it almost unintentionally. Gotta work on that.
deka glossai I still don't understand though if you support the modern Greek pronunciation in teaching or if you support that the modern Greek pronunciation was present in Classical times or both... Also, λαλεῖς δέκα γλώττας;
Walking into a Greek Orthodox church and listening to their pronunciation opened my eyes to the benefits of reading ancient Greek the way contemporary, native Greek speakers pronounce it today. After having become accustomed to the modern pronunciation and applying it to the Koine Greek (properly pronounced kee-NEE, not Koy-NAY) of the New Testament, I stumbled upon a very sobering realization: MOST modern American and British theologians (and even professors of Koine Greek) are NOT pronouncing the Greek of the New Testament accurately! By relying on the so-called "reconstructed"/Erasmian pronunciation, they are disregarding the only authentically extant pronunciation available, i.e., the modern Greek pronunciation. How in the world can those of us who grew up speaking English in America have the nerve to challenge native Greek speakers, attempting to circumvent their accurate pronunciation with an alternative "ancient" pronunciation which is NOT actually verifiable and, quite honestly, often sounds like an americanized/anglicized version of Greek? I happen to be a native speaker of Spanish; I can assure you that my pronunciation of Spanish, modern or ancient, is much more accurate than that of a non-native speaker of Spanish who is insisting on reconstructing Old Spanish (that which evolved from Latin after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and was spoken prior to the 16th century) via an unverifiable method that ends up converting the Old Spanish/Castilian language into a bizarrely distorted tongue which modern Spanish speakers would find laughable because of the infusion of a modern English pronunciation which would NEVER be employed by a native speaker of Spanish. The same applies to Greek, modern and ancient. Why rely on a so-called reconstructed version of Greek that is merely an estimate, a guess, an exercise by Erasmus? I would much rather side with native Greek speakers in the Orthodox Church who choose to read Koine Greek with a modern Greek pronunciation. IT is much more consistently and genuinely...ummm...Greek! Finally, I suggest completely avoiding all TH-cam videos by American/British/Western "teachers"; instead, select (and trust) those Greek (modern or ancient) language instruction videos uploaded by native Greek speakers. The username is usually a good indicator, a litmus test for a reliable, accurate pronunciation.
The new modern Greek pronunciation is completely different from the ancient one. Besides Erasmus there was an ancient Greek (Διονύσιος αλικαρνασσεύσ) who has written about the pronunciation they had and it is the same as the Erasmus pronunciation, you can watch this video to hear the correct ancient Greek pronunciation (a Greek speaks in the video with the correct pronunciation of Διονύσιος αλικαρνασσεύσ) also modern greek is not nice at all compared to ancient greek pronunciation th-cam.com/video/RNlzQ6Trr3Q/w-d-xo.html&feature=shares
Great video. This was my experience as well. My ability in Koine Greek skyrocketed when I learned Modern Greek because I was able to connect it to a living use of the language. Modern Greek is to Ancient Greek as Modern English is to Shakespearean English. There are differences in vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and syntax but they are the same language so there is no need to try to reconstruct how Shakespeare would have pronounced it just as there is no need to try to reconstruct how Ancient Greek speakers would have pronounced Ancient Greek.
I’m not so sure. One is 400 years old, the other 2500 years old. Modern Greek doesn’t retain vowel length, which is already a loss. The different vowel and consonant pronunciation isn’t such an issue to me. With regard to Shakespeare, there is effort in reading Shakespeare in his own accent. One loses puns and assonances, and likely more, reading him in anything but restored pronunciation. There is academic research into the different accentuation of his time, too.
Many rhymes in Shakespeare don't work in modern pronounciation. Take sonnet 1, lines 2 and 4: "die"/"memory". That the pronounciation of a language shouldn't have changed in centuries when the vocabulary, morphology, syntax and spelling did so to a great extent is highly unlikeable.
I studied Modern Greek before Ancient Greek. It was like watching a movie where you see the story's ending, but then go back to the beggining of the story. Theres not much of a difference besides the dumb pronunciation.
Luis Emmanuel Thats is not true, we can easily read it. It's just that some words are changed, grammar and syntax is not the same so even if we read it we don't understand 100% of it.
@@cassiejms5431 the articles την and τον become τη and το unless its followed by a vowel. The rest of the articles are the same or identical (except for feminine plural accusative). All of the -ει, -ω, -ετε, αω, ας, εις verb endings remain the same. The common Nueter noun declensions follow the same rule as Modern Greek, as in the Accusative and Singular articles/endings are the same. Even the -των article and -ων plural genitive endings are the same like in Modern Greek. Besides the Dative and Vocative Case changes, there's really not much of a difference besides word order, which isn't an issue because of cases. What is your argument though? I'm curious because I'm sure the Neuter gender went through a lot of changes.
I am grateful for your gifted, insightful work. I began studying Koine Greek way back in the 1970s and over those years, have certainly seen a lot of arguments for numerous pronunciations. Personally, I found it easier to learn and memorize words and paradigms using the Erasmian pronunciation since there's greater delineation between vowels. However, if one reads through the New Testament with the Erasmian pronunciation along with John Schwandt, they will probably find it far less flowing than doing so with Spiros Zodiates reading of the Koine using the Modern pronunciation.
As an autodidact I find audio recordings indispensable for successful language learning (even though the only thing I really care is reading). I've been trying to collect enough audio materials to start learning Ancient Greek and I have bad news for all 'purists' here who defend the restored pronunciation: Ex ungue leōnem. We may judge the lion from its claw and the American from his thick accent in Greek. (Or the German, the French, or the Russian for that matter). Your restored pronunciation is good in theory but it's a joke in practice (and, remember, the original video was about the effective techniques of language acquisition and pedagogy). The sad fact is that ALMOST NO ONE CAN DO IT. I cringe every time I listen to available recordings. Your 'restored' 'Greek' sounds pretty much like Slavoj Žižek's English. The only exception so far is Ioannis Stratakis who is - surprise! surprise! - a Greek. PS. For all purists here, I have but one request. If you're so obsessed with pronunciation, do me a favor: please, record Milton's Paradise Lost the way it was supposed to sound (or send me the link to the audio). I'm yet to find an audiobook of Milton's poem which respects its original prosody. Critical editions of Paradise Lost gloss it over but, surprisingly enough, when native English speakers-professional narrators or established profs-recite the poem they simply don't give a f... about it (I wonder why...). And as a non native English speaker, I would be glad to hear authentic Milton.
EXACTLY. I have yet to find a single sample of reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation that follows these rules consistently, if at all. Most readers presenting something purporting to be an accurate model of Ancient Greek are very inconsistent and frankly sound horrible. They would occasionally ignore the length of the vowels or have an inconsistent application of the pitch accent. The reader would pronounce, say, the acute accent sometimes with the pitch going up, sometimes down, sometimes he/she would ignore it; or read the vowel η sometimes long, sometimes short, etc.--- the kind of mistakes a beginning student of Chinese/Thai would make. All this with a very thick American/French or whatever accent.
@@simiyachaq have you heard of the lucian pronunciation of ancient greek? It was developed around a year ago by a latin language youtuber, Luke Ranieri, who takes great care to observe vowel length and the like.
I learned Modern Greek before Ancient Greek. You are right in that it gave me a huge advantage. It's the easiest but also my most favourite class (maybe theres a correlation). It hurts me to butcher the Greek language using "Restored" pronunciation. It really hurts when people study this language seriously using the Erasmian pronunciation. Like these professors don't even have an accent, it sounds like English letters in Greek and it's just sad. I think the dipthongs changed the most, but most of the letters should have kept the Modern Pronunciation. Τί δεκες τίς γλοσσές ξερεις;
restored is NOT erasmian, they are much different: for restored see here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fv46XgPPJy-ky9FUSApiemOVmtc8i6q7ZL5XkqtmMWA/htmlview#gid=1076752684
Great video! I am in total agreement with you on the use of the Modern Greek/Neohellenic pronunciation, and not just because I'm Greek myself. While I respect the meticulous work behind all the various reconstructed pronunciations of Ancient Greek, to me at least, they come across as artificial and forced when put into practice. Language relies on actually hearing sounds and repeating them, the human brain is wired to do so. To extrapolate the sounds of human speech, exactly, with all the subtle nuances and inflections and tones, from written texts alone is next to impossible. So, one can never know exactly how accurate he/she is being to the original pronunciation when trying to use one of these reconstructed phonologies. One must constantly look over one's shoulder, so to speak, doubting whether or not that eta was too long, that acute accent was too high. How can you be sure without a native speaker or voice recording to correct you? To add to that, eta is sometimes said to sound like the long e sound in the English "air" and omega like the o in the English "or", but which of the multitude of English accents out there is correct here? The British, the Americans, the Irish, the Scottish, the Australians all pronounce "air" and "or" differently, so who is right? Now, I understand we have evidences from various ancient texts outlining, for example, the difference between long vowels and short vowels, the nature of voiced/unvoiced plosives and aspirates, pitch accent and meter. However, these only paint a rough picture, like disconnected pieces of a puzzle, they are simply not enough to complete said puzzle and fully restore, essentially, the voices of people like Homer, Socrates, Plato and Plutarch. In my humble opinion, I think it is wiser to leave the data where they lie - in written print or carved stone etchings - appreciate them, consider them, but take them no further than that. Instead, we can use the one phonology of Greek that we have available, the one used consistently amongst all native Greek speakers, the one we have countless audio recordings of, the only verifiably correct system of pronunciation at least for one period of time in the language's long history: Modern Greek.
People forget that there were many Ancient dialects each with it’s own pronunciation. In fact the Boeotian dialect’s classical pronunciation was very similar to today’s Greek.
I think if you're just reading out loud, it doesn't really matter what system you use. Knowing the restored system is very interesting and is great for satisfying intellectual curiosity. If you are interested in speaking Attic Greek ex tempore, however, I think that using the Erasmian can be very helpful.
I do agree, but however, i do think that this video seemingly has within it the assumption that it is a very difficult task to apply ancient greek phonological knowledge to modern greek, i personally think we should teach it all.
For some inexplicable reason, I LOVE the Erasmian pronunciation. I have been studying Koine using both pronunciations. I have audio resources in both. During one set of study sessions I use one, take a break for a few days, then go back to Koine using the other pronunciation. It's working out pretty well so far.
Deka Im in total agreement with using modern Greek as a tool for the ancient. I disagree with the comments that modern is Greek is a flawed medium and unworthy of reading through it the works of Homer or Plato. The intonation and idiomatic consistency of the language far outweighs the attempt made by Irish and English academics in butchering this beautiful tongue. Can you recommend appropriate modern Greek learning materials as I've been learning attic Greek for about 4 years now in order to read the ancients and though Im progressing in it I have only B2 level of Irish, French and Dutch at best with a high beginners knowledge of Russian and Hebrew. I don't wish to be a dabbler so I intend revisit these languages at a later date but I wish to primarily improve the Greek with modern approach. Can you advise? Kevin
If you think that the reconstructed pronunciation sounds ugly, that's fine, but it's just your personal and subjective opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the reconstructed pronunciation is much more accurate than a modern Greek pronunciation. I personally think that Ancient Greek sounds much more beautiful than modern Greek. I would find it odd to read Homer with Modern Greek pronunciation, that's like reading Chaucer and pronouncing it like Modern English, which is completely wrong and butchers the rhymes and the metre. I don't see how you can call something like that 'idiomatic consistency'. No one ever talked like that. Languages change, that's just a fact. You can either try and reconstruct the old pronunciation, which might not be completely accurate or you can just use the modern pronunciation, which is definitely completely inaccurate.
Hans I take your point but when using the modern Greek approach it should be applying intonation and tone only and read in line with the ancient like for example let's say an Italian for the vulgar and classical Latin or a Dutch person for old English. Granted the Greek has lost certain attributes and mutated somewhat but surely the inhabitants of the area hold more sway over their old glossa than the outsider. Besides the modern Greek is still quite old and dates earlier than a lot of european languages.
Well, it's possible that it might be helpful. On the other hand, these languages changed so much that it might be misleading. Italian for example is very distinct from Latin, in almost every respect. The loss of the distinction between short and long vowels for example gives it a very different flavor, so to speak. It's not even the most conservative Romance language, that would be Sardinian (the only Romance language that has preserved the 'k'-sound of 'c' before 'i' and 'e', among other archaic features). I don't really know what you mean when you say that the inhabitants of the area should hold more sway over their old language. In the case of Latin that would mean not just Italians, but also people from France, Spain, Romania, etc., and their languages are all very distinct from each other. They all pronounce Latin differently. The way I see it, nationality doesn't matter when it comes to science. And since we're talking about historical linguistics, it's definitely a scientific matter. Of course the Greek will feel more attached to their ancient traditions and that's fine, but it doesn't make their pronunciation of Ancient Greek automatically right.
Hans Mahr As a Greek and an active participant in the living (and ever-changing) social practice that we call "the Greek language", I cannot but stand in awe when some academic, or other language hypochondriac, thinks he knows what is best, or most beautiful. Sure, Homer may rhyme according to your theory, but it is still a theory and not reality. More importantly, you are missing the point completely: the beauty of our language does not come from using the correct pronunciation; a made up thing as our language has always varied through space and time. It comes from its diachronic practice even when it contains "mistakes", from the literature written in it through the millenia, from the concepts, thoughts and values it has carried from our fathers, and their fathers.
I totally agree with you about learning modern Greek before Ancient Greek. As you correctly noted, Greek is a living language that hasn’t differed greatly over time. No one can understand the nuances of Greek as a native speaker can. My Ancient Greek professor in college, Ann Ellis Hanson, a renowned papyrologist who was given the only chair of Ancient Greek at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton before her professorship in Greek and Latin at Yale, used the restored classical pronunciation for classical period literature as well as Homer. But when we would do Koine, such as the New Testament and Lucian, she would ask me to recite so that the class could hear what Greek really sounded like in the 1st-2nd Century. Professor Hanson explained that the process of itacism was nearly complete by then and so Koine was pronounced nearly identically to modern Greek. She confessed that she herself never learned modern Greek, and wished she had, and so alas the restored classical was the only pronunciation she learned. The rest of the class thought that the sound of Koine in modern Greek was beautiful, while the academic restored classical pronunciation sounded to them awkward, artificial and obviously inauthentic. That impressed me because none of them had any previous exposure to modern Greek. Suddenly, the text came to life for them, and they appreciated that Greek was a real language, and not an abstract scientific construct. Let’s face it, hearing restored classical or Erasmian sounds like an English-speaker badly mangling the language. If you ever chuckled listening to an American tourist trying to order at a restaurant in Paris, or in Athens, in his Texan accent, you knew demonstrably that he was not speaking correctly, even if you were not proficient in the native language. “Restored” classical or Erasmian pronunciation sounds ugly, with articulations that are entirely foreign to the Greek language, and that is proof enough that those systems of phonology never existed in nature. It’s amusing to think what Pericles or Demosthenes would say if some American academic went back in time and tried to speak to them using the Erasmian/restored method. I can just imagine the looks on their faces. Keep up the good work!
Pakanahymni So I should use the Spanish or French pronounciation for Latin instead of Classical pronouciation just because they are attested? The people who created the reconstructed pronounciation were people who knew what they were talking about, and they understood that people can't pronounce a language in the same way for 3000 years. Pronounciation changes, get it.
No it didn't use B in the same way as modern greek, nor was mp abundant in biblical greek. There is no such thing as "erasmian pronunciation". There is restored pronunciation and it has plenty of scholarship behind it.
The scholars who disregard Modern Greek pronunciation also make horrendous mistakes in translation, which is evidence of their distance from the language. Ancient Greek as it is studied and taught is really just a perpetuation of all the accumulated mistakes of "educated" people whose small minds filtered the language and pompously inflicted it on their students. Mastery of Modern Greek should be a requirement of any PhD in ancient Greek. If they respected the ancient language enough to learn Modern Greek, Cypriot Greek and dialects, scholars would read modern poetry and understand what is said by the silences among the words, feel the lyrics of songs so strongly that they would have to get up and dance, laugh at Greek jokes told in slang, FEEL the untranslatable essence of Greek in how it expresses Greek thought. Non-Greek scholars should appreciate Modern Greek as their portal to ancient Greek. I say, go to Greece and experience life there, then climb into your ivory tower if you must.
What about so-called “historical reconstructions” based on the realization that Erasmian (sp?) Greek is certainly not right but who don’t want to use Modern either, so they look at spelling errors and the like? That’s another way
I have to disagree very strongly. Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are not the same language at all. Just as no one would argue that Modern High German and Old High German are the same language, despite having a continuous literary tradition at least from the 8th century onward. The differendes between the two Greek languages in my view far outnumber their similarities, acutally. Were is the infinitive of Ancient Greek? Where are the simple future and future perfect? Where is the whole perfect stem system? Most of the participles are gone too, as is the largest part of the third declension. No optative anymore. The aorist II? Gone as well, just like the dative. And it is very clear that the pronunciation has changed drastically, too. Not to forget that reading Ancient Greek poetry using modern Greek pronunciation is nearly impossible, as Modern Greek does not have long and short vowels independent of the accent. In a word like Σωκράτης, for example, Modern Greek pronunciation would make the only short (but stressed) vowel long, while the two long vowels ω and η would be shortened since they are unstressed. Basically, the whole system forming the basis of the Ancient Greek language would fall apart. Not to forget that so many endings vital for understanding what’s going on in a Greek sentence would be indistinguishable in Modern Greek pronunciation. Suddenly, βουλεύει, βουλεύοι, βουλεύῃ would all sound the same, which they certainly didn’t at any point within the timeframe normally used in education, i.e. the time from Homer to New Testament Greek. Indeed, I would claim that it is not really necessary (albeit undeniably helpful) to know modern Greek in order to pronounce Ancient Greek in a restored pronunciation, since almost all of Ancient Greek’s features can be learned from other languages as well, like unaspirated (and aspirated) plosives, pitch accent, retracted s. On the other hand, however, I would argue it is rather necessary to know Ancient Greek when trying to understand Modern Greek (as is the case in any language, since an older form of the language isn’t based on the newer one, which is not true vice versa): How would someone know when to use which letter to represent the i-sound, if not by knowing ancient Greek and its rules? And finally, although when speaking Modern Greek, Modern Greek pronunciation is undeniably beautiful and pleasing to hear, the same can’t be said, unfortunately, about applying it to Ancient Greek. A phrase like εἴ μοι ξυνείη, for example, which was pronounced in Classical Attic (noted without retracted s and pitch accent as TH-cam butchers those symbols) as [eː moi̯ ksyneːɛː], would in Modern Greek pronunciation give [i mi ksin'iːi], which is a lot less harmonic. Another example would be Σὺ δ' εἰπέ μοι μὴ μῆκος, which in Modern Greek pronunciation would be rendered as [Si d i'pɛː mi mi 'miːkɔs]. Not to forget that the onomatopoetic sounds of Homer’s sheep (μηκᾶσθαι) and cows (μυκᾶσθαι) would be rather inappropriate and hard to understand when using Modern Greek pronunciation.
may i ask something?πρωτων; μηλας ελληνικά; δεύτερων αν εγώ παω εκτός ελλάδος, στο σχολείο θα διδαχθώ την "αρχαία προφορά η την τωρινή; and last if you dont speack greek i'll translate plz answer....
You slaughtered two languages in as many lines. That was painful to read. If you want to learn ancient Greek in let's say and American university, you will have to learn the Erasmian pronunciation. You can however find a Greek teacher who can teach you in the modern Greek pronunciation.
Could you please provide examples of those two styles? Perhaps you could read samples from the New Testament in Ancient Greek or the Septuagint, as I am (and I figure other people too are) more familiar with that Greek. I must tell you, however, that I am not really looking forward to hearing the iotacistic, over velarized version of my adored Ancient Greek language.
In another comment I posted a link to this audio recording of the original New Testament (Greek Orthodox Byzantine Text-Type) read using standard Modern Greek Pronunciation: www.bible.is/GRKEPT/Matt/1/N I would point out that iotacism is itself very ancient phenomenon. And "over velarized" is a completely inaccurate way to classify any kind pronunciation. ᾽κ᾽, ᾽γ᾽ and ῾χ᾽ are all velars regardless of whether or not the last two are pronounced as stop consonants. I assume "your adored Ancient Greek language" is restricted to some iteration of Western Restored Pronunciation, with concessions to American English (or whatever variety you prefer). But Ancient Greek was never subject to such restrictions and has always enjoyed a polyphony of dialectical variety, as is the case in Greece today.
I think you are confusing classical greek with koine greek (the greek of the New Testament).At the time of the New Testament the pronunciation was already almost the same with the modern one.There is a reconstructed pronunciation specifically for koine greek from Randall Buth, which is basically the same pronunciation with Modern Greek with two or three differences (i don't remember exactly).So what abbadonnergal told you about iotacism being a very ancient phenomenon according to linguists is correct.And that's why reading koine greek with MG is pretty much accurate but reading it with erasmian or reconstructed for classical is completely wrong
According to Buth the only differences between koine and modern pronunciation is in the pronounciation of these three:υ,οι,η...In MG they are pronounced like /i/ while in koine Buth assumes that the first two are pronounced like the german /ü/ and the third like /e/(even though already from the second century it was pronounced as /i/) As for Pitch accent...are you talking about attic? Because there is not a pitch accent in koine. Ehhhh ....I can;t understand at all what you mean by that:''Is the logic, it existed long ago and must therefore have existed in Ancient Greek exactly the way as it does today Which, according to Buth,is not the case. '' ?Iotacism is the conversion of vowels and diphthongs into /i/.In koine era ΕΙ was already pronounced as /i/,H was pronounced as /i/ after the second century while those that haven't already conversed (υ,οι) were already in the process of becoming /i/... That's the koine pronunciation of Randall Buth : www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Greek_Pronunciation_2008.pdf
As for the pronunciation of "o" it's the same as today, I said that "οι"(όμικρον γιώτα , the diphthong) sounds like German "ü" according to Buth not the "ο" (ομικρον) ...The differences between koine and modern pronunciation is in one diphthong (οι) and one letter (υ),so I don't understand what you wanted to highlight,since the differences are almost non-existent..No I don't suggest to use two different phonological systems ,I agree with "deka glossai". I think the best is to use modern greek pronunciation (which if we take into consideration that is more or less the same for the last 2000 years is not exactly modern) and if someone is interested in linguistics can read the opinion of different linguists about how they assume the pronunciation evolved during the years. Today the students of greek (outside of greece) use the erasmian or the reconstructed attic (from Sidney Allen's vox graeca). Both are specifically for attic greek of the 5th century BC,so you can't use it to read homer,you can't use it to read a text from someone that is not athenian, and definitely you can't use it to read koine (which has almost the same pronunciation with modern greek). What I'm trying to say is that people started to use reconstructed pronunciations supposedly to achieve accuracy but at the same time they had no problem to use both of these systems of pronunciation for any kind of ancient greek text not caring if it was written in the 9th century BC,5th century BC,1th century AD or if it was written in the attic dialect,Ionic dialect, Aeolic dialect etc. So I can't understand why some people are opposing so strongly to the use of modern pronunciation, it's not like what they're using is more accurate... Reconstructions no matter how hard the linguists are trying will always be something artificial and incorrect. It's impossible to find the exact pronunciation of a language with so many different dialects and many different pronunciations from place to place all of which were evolving simultaneously and at their own pace through the passage of time. There is not only one ancient greek pronunciation as there is not only one modern greek pronunciation. Today in greece there are different dialects and even if we have a standard greek pronunciation if you travel you will notice that nowhere in greece the pronunciation is exactly the same with the standard athenian pronunciation...In each place the pronunciation differs from the standard one, to some places these differences are small while in others are bigger.And that is today, that people are travelling all over greece all the time, there is tv,phones etc., in ancient times this phenomenon would only be more intense. Since we won't ever be able to say with 100% certainty the exact pronunciation in ancient times I think the logical thing is to start from the thing that we know for certain and that is the modern greek pronunciation.I don't understand why outside of greece they are taking something that is purely theoretical and they put it into practice even though the result is something that sounds fake and artificial and lacks the natural flow of any real language...I don't understand why in a difficult language like ancient greek you must impose on the students to learn a pronunciation with which they will struggle to pronounce even one sentence and at the end we will never be certain how accurate it is. At the end of the day when you learn a foreign language you want to have some fun with it,to feel like it's part of real life not part of a museum...I think it's better to read different opinions from different linguists so you can see the matter of ancient greek pronunciation from different perspectives and when it comes to actually speak it's better to use modern pronunciation...Eh???Where have I said that greek aren't greek???
I like to study languages as a hobby using Duolingo and supplement with media spoken in the language I'm learning. I became interested in Koine Greek, because it would be cool to be able to read the New Testament in its original language, but was put off because of not knowing how to learn a dead language or what rescourses to use. But then I heard that Koine is actually fairly close to modern Greek and I started looking into it. More and more I'm getting the idea that I could actually learn modern Greek using the same language learning methods I've been using to learn other languages, and then once I have a firm grasp of modern Greek, I could use that to transition into Koine Greek.
I can read my favorite authors for pleasure without a dictionary (Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Thucydides, Herodotus). There are still words that I don't know, and some authors are definitely more difficult. The languages I know best are English, Ancient Greek, Latin, Russian, German, Italian, and Modern Greek. I can read French, Spanish, and Portuguese literature, but I don't really speak the languages. I also have studied many other languages, such as Polish, Czech, Ukrainian, Icelandic, Dutch, Mandarin, Japanese, and others. Finally, Sanskrit is a constant work in progress for me.
Nice job, sincere thanks! By the way the koine greek is acively used by the orthodox church since the early christian era until the contemporary era and uses the modern pronanciation.
@@69MindOverMatter69 The Slavic invasions in the VII - IX centuries killed and evacuated the original Greek speaking population, but after that almost two-hundred-year period the Byzantine emperors repopulated Greece with Greek-speaking people from Sicily and Asia Minor. Is this the era you are talking about?
Hi! I'm very glad to hear someone again stating an easily forgotten point: all greek literature is a continuum which no one should and can forget. One thing makes me stutter about your video. You never talk about real pragmatical (didactical) values of each pronounce. How to deal with many homophones, which the ancient never recognized as same words? And rhythm in poetry? These are real issues that, thinking of reconstructed pronounce as an hermeneutical device which can make real results in appreciation and practical use, the modern pronounce not only makes difficult to deal with but also makes worst. Let me know
2:33 Do you know why "most linguists agree that the restored system is accurate". Do you have any idea what kind of evidence Erasmus and the modern linguists use? I recently spoke with a guy studying indo-european. He said that the vowelsounds of attic greek is identical to the indo-european vowels. Sadly I didn't ask him how it's possible to know anything about a language of which we have neither texts, nor recordings.
The restored system is "accurate" in relation to Attic Greek insofar as certain ancient texts (especially poetry in dactylic hexameter) play on distinctions between long vs short vowels/diphthongs that gradually became homophonous in the Hellenistic period (through iotacism/vowel shifts). So someone at some point in history may have used a similar pronunciation system. But throughout history Greek has always been pronounced with whatever pronunciation was standard for its time, region and class (education level). An analogy with English would be the silent letters that used to be pronounced (e.g. night), but are now only preserved in orthography. If people in some country were to learn English by pronouncing ALL of its silent letters, and by pronouncing vowels the way they sounded prior to the great vowel shift, it could have some benefit in learning how to spell correctly. But that's about all it would accomplish and nobody would ever argue that such a system is more "correct" for reading Shakespeare, for example (though Germanic philologists often employ the technique for older English texts). Erasmian pronunciation thrives because it's simply easier to understand exactly which vowels and diphthongs are being used when Greek is read/spoke out-loud; because every letter has a unique phoneme. It's an ironic preoccupation for people with no interest in learning the modern language, because they're admittedly only interest in reading comprehension, which doesn't really benefit from Erasmian pronunciation at all, IMO.
I would recommend that you read something about historical linguistics and the methods that are used in this field of science. For people who don't know much about this stuff it often seems completely unbelievable that we can know anything about the way ancient languages sounded, especially in the case of reconstructed languages like PIE. But the fact is that language is not random. There's a lot of stuff that can be predicted based on the evidence we have, that's why we can postulate sound-change laws like Verner's law for Proto-Germanic for example. You could start reading the Wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European and continue from there. It will explain how it's possible to reconstruct languages and pronunciations. I'll just try to give a few examples on the kind of evidence that historical linguists use, but I'll use Latin as an example because I know more about it than about Ancient Greek. The pronunciation of the letter 'c' is probably most notorious when it comes to Latin. When we say 'Caesar' today we pronounce it as a kind of 's' sound but in Latin (at least in the Republican era) it was pronounced 'k'. The most obvious evidence for that can be found in Latin and Greek literature. Cicero for example writes his name in Greek with a 'k'. Plutarch does the same when he writes in Greek about Romans. Another type of evidence for the ancient pronunciation of Latin are graffiti written by people who made spelling mistakes (writing by ear). There are for example Latin graffiti from the early imperial period in which the word 'hic' (here) was written 'ic'. This implies that the 'h' was silent in Vulgar Latin at that time. There's however a list of corrections by a teacher that survived, in which he wrote down that it should be 'hic', not 'ic', so that we can assume that the 'h' originally wasn't silent. Another important source of evidence are the modern descendents of Latin, i.e. the Romance languages. By comparing them (Comparative Linguistics), we can draw all kinds of conclusions about the pronunciation of Latin because, as I've said, language change isn't random. Of course, there will always be a bit of uncertainty, especially when it comes to languages like PIE for which we have no records, but the amount of knowledge we have is still quite remarkable.
@Hans Mahr - You admit that "it's possible that (implementing Modern Greek Pronunciation) might be helpful...but also might be misleading". Nobody is trying to mislead anyone into thinking that Modern Greek pronunciation is more "historically accurate" than the Restored System. It's a question of whether or not historical accuracy actually contributes to foreign language acquisition. One could argue that Modern Greek pronunciation IS in fact more accurate for Biblical Greek in particular. But despite that, unfortunately, seminary students continue to use the Restored Pronunciation System, simply because it's the normative paradigm in Western academia. It's what all of the teachers use and students just tow the line by default. And most of them simply map their own accent onto the Restored Pronunciation (so Americans sound like Americans, Brits sound like Brits, Germans sound like Germans, etc). The result is most often grating to listen to, especially for those who speak Modern Greek, which is almost universally disregarded by teachers of Ancient Greek. In fact I've had Greek professors advise me NOT to learn Modern Greek at all because it would undoubtedly "confuse" me. It's an unfortunate double standard. Promoting the use of Modern Greek pronunciation is not about what is "right" and "wrong", or how much "sway the inhabitants Greece should have over their old language". You're missing the point; and you're in the overwhelming majority of people who miss the point. This video is about the pragmatism of leveraging the modern, living language as a tool for developing verbal skills that greatly enhance learning the ancient dialect. This works much more effectively for Greek than it would for Italian vs Latin, for example, because Greek has a much stronger continuity. This channel is all about foreign language acquisition. The author is a bona fide polyglot with a command of, presumably, 10 languages! So that should give him at least some credibility. He's promoting a diachronic approach to learning Ancient & Modern Greek in conjunction, employing Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek. I used the same approach and I can attest that it's actually VERY effective. I'm also perfectly comfortable using the Restored System whenever it suits me, either for poetry or for engaging with people who are limited to the Western system. It's important to be aware of it, and it even deepens ones understanding of Modern Greek. But historical linguistics shouldn't dictate norms of pronunciation in language pedagogy, IMO. In fact If it weren't for Erasmus (and for the fact that the Greeks were a stateless, subjugated, isolated people for so long) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Modern scholarship of Ancient Greek has developed over a long period of time in a linguistic vacuum; resulting in this diglossia we experience today. Think about this: everyone out there reading and performing Shakespeare in modern British/American accents, from a historical linguistic perspective, are just dead "wrong". They're pronouncing the text incorrectly. They often don't adhere properly to the meter and don't rhyme words correctly. By your logic they should all be using a restored pronunciation system for Shakespearean English. But that's simply not practical for teaching, reading and performing Shakespeare. That paradigm is probably never going to shift. But perhaps there's still hope for a paradigm shift in Ancient Greek pedagogy.
abbadonnergal "It's a question of whether or not historical accuracy actually contributes to foreign language acquisition." It's certainly not harmful. And if you're learning Ancient Greek to read the Classics, it's definitely advisable to pronounce it like the Ancient Greeks pronounced it themselves, especially when we're talking about poetry. "One could argue that Modern Greek pronunciation IS in fact more accurate for Biblical Greek in particular. But despite that, unfortunately, seminary students continue to use the Restored Pronunciation System, simply because it's the normative paradigm in Western academia." Well, that's not the problem of the pronunciation itself but a teaching problem. When I read ancient texts, I definitely try to pronounce them like they were pronounced when they were written. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to one pronunciation. "The result is most often grating to listen to, especially for those who speak Modern Greek, which is almost universally disregarded by teachers of Ancient Greek." But is it really important how it sounds to Modern Greek ears? Old English sound really weird to Modern English speakers, that's just the nature of language change. And that people from other countries will have accents is completely normal, that's just a given. "This video is about the pragmatism of leveraging the modern, living language as a tool for developing verbal skills that greatly enhance learning the ancient dialect. This works much more effectively for Greek than it would for Italian vs Latin, for example, because Greek has a much stronger continuity." And I never said anything against learning Modern Greek to enhance your experience of Ancient Greek. But I don't see how it helps to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek. When I read Homer, I want to read Homer, not some modernized hybrid-version of Homer. I want to get as close to the original sound as possible. And while it's true that Modern Greek is more conservative than Italian for example, Ancient Greek is still very different from the modern language, especially when we're talking about Homer. "The author is a bona fide polyglot with a command of, presumably, 10 languages! So that should give him at least some credibility. He's promoting a diachronic approach to learning Ancient & Modern Greek in conjunction, employing Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek. I used the same approach and I can attest that it's actually VERY effective." I'm also a polyglot, I don't see what this has to do with anything. He's still pronouncing Ancient Greek wrong. As I've said: it may certainly help to learn both Ancient and Modern Greek at the same time (although from my experience, learning two very similar languages or two forms of a language at the same time almost always leads to confusion). But why does it help to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek? If you're able to learn 10 languages, you'll certainly be able to pronounce two different versions of a language in different ways. I've learned Old Norse and since Modern Icelandic is extremely conservative, this means I've also learned Modern Icelandic. While there's not been much of a change on a grammatical level, the pronunciation has changed dramatically. So when I read an Old Norse saga, I'll pronounce it differently than when I read an Icelandic newspaper. I just try to pronounce every language like it is or was actually pronounced by native speakers, even if they are all dead. "In fact If it weren't for Erasmus (and for the fact that the Greeks were a stateless, subjugated, isolated people for so long) we wouldn't even be having this discussion." That's not true because the modern reconstructed pronunciation, while very similar to that of Erasmus, is based on evidence gained through the methods of historical linguistics. "Modern scholarship of Ancient Greek has developed over a long period of time in a linguistic vacuum; resulting in this diglossia we experience today." No, the diglossia is a result of over two millennia of language change. "Think about this: everyone out there reading and performing Shakespeare in modern British/American accents, from a historical linguistic perspective, are just dead "wrong". They're pronouncing the text incorrectly." That's true, but when we talk about Shakespeare, we're talking about a slightly different form of Modern English, as opposed to the fundamental differences between Ancient and Modern Greek. A better comparison would be to Chaucer and in that case, modern English speakers actually use Middle English pronunciation when they read him. A native speaker of Modern Greek has to learn Ancient Greek if he wants to understand Homer. He basically has to treat it like a foreign language, even though it will be easier for him than for a native German speaker for example. And if he learns about new grammar and new syntax rules, he can just as well learn about the differences in pronunciation. You seem to draw an arbitrary distinction between the phonological component of a language and the other components, like morphology, syntax, etc. The student will learn about the latter components that are unfamiliar to him, but when it comes to phonology he should just use a completely wrong approach because it doesn't matter? Because it's more convenient? Those are not very good reasons.
Thanks for the thoughtful, cogent explanation. You have some good points and you're obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. It's an important discussion to have, even though we seem to be talking past each other a lot. You do have an objective, scientific standard for your definition of which system is "right" vs "wrong"; theoretical historical linguistic accuracy. And Modern Greek pronunciation is admittedly NOT historically accurate in relation to many earlier dialects; or, for that matter, in relation to all other non-standard modern dialects of Greek. So you have a totally valid position. Your comments reinforce the fact that the Restored Pronunciation in the West is a juggernaut of a paradigm that may never be dethroned. But is there really no middle ground? By your logic everyone in Greece who pronounces older texts with their native pronunciation is just "wrong". I'm curious, do you think they should correct this and start using Restored Pronunciation across the board? Or are they exempt somehow? Or does it even matter? What about all of the Greeks who lived between the classical and modern periods, before the advent of modern Historical Linguistics? From the Hellenistic period through the the Middle Ages the Greeks simply read ancient texts exactly the way they spoke? And they were all "wrong" the whole time, right? Or is it unfair to cast such judgement retroactively, since the modern standard hadn't yet been invented? It just seems like such a high horse that modern linguistics has provided for us to invent a new standard and then completely subsumed the longstanding tradition. So as soon as we were able to determine what Attic probably sounded like, we had to change the way Attic literature was read for over a millennium in Greece and Byzantium. Why is that the one and only solution? I know you probably see it as "progress". But that's what I can't seem to wrap my head around. When I (mis)used the term "diglossia" I was NOT referring to the actual differences between Ancient and Modern Greek; a natural byproduct of linguistic change. I was referring to the two competing systems of pronunciation inside and outside of Greece. That is the result of a historical, geographical and cultural disconnect from the Greek-speaking world. The Greeks got along just fine without Restored Pronunciation. For example, they've always managed to mark rough and smooth breathing without actually aspirating the vowels. There's nothing wrong with aspirating vowels with rough breathing marks. But I just can't fathom why it's WRONG not to aspirate, according to your logic. You didn't address my question about people who teach/study Koine Greek. But you did admit that it is a "teaching problem". So in your opinion, should Restored Pronunciation be employed for Koine Greek? Or should it be abolished in favor of a reconstructed Koine pronunciation? Or would Modern Greek pronunciation be acceptable for Koine? Should earlier Koine texts be pronounced differently from later Koine texts, to accurately represent the phonological changes that took place at each stage of the language's development? Should Restored Pronunciation be used for Homeric Greek? Should Homeric Greek be read with a proper, reconstructed pitch accent? Historical linguists have not been able to adequately reconstruct how the pitch accent is supposed to sound. So you still have to compromise and draw the line somewhere. True "accuracy" is untenable. You described it perfectly: "You can either try and reconstruct the old pronunciation, which might not be completely accurate or you can just use the modern pronunciation, which is definitely completely inaccurate." So if what you're describing is a lose-lose scenario, why should Modern Greek pronunciation be off limits or taboo? One thing you can say for certain, and I'm sure you'll agree, is that Restored Pronunciation is WRONG for Modern Greek. There's already a precedent for the universal application of Modern Greek pronunciation across the entire spectrum, whether you agree with it or not. Because that's what they do in Greek. So why should Restored Pronunciation be applied universally if it's no more suitable for non-Attic dialects than Modern Greek pronunciation? You said, "I don't see how it helps to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek" and "I don't see why we should limit ourselves to one pronunciation." I specifically said "It's important to be aware of (Restored Pronunciation), and it even deepens ones understanding of Modern Greek." So what I'm suggesting is that BOTH systems should be taught. But teaching should be anchored in one system for consistency; and, believe it or not, Modern Pronunciation CAN actually be more effective for beginning students of Greek. I know, from personal experience, that Modern Greek pronunciation promotes verbal fluency in a way that Restored Pronunciation does not. If you establish Modern Greek pronunciation as the basis, it's easy to switch over to Restored Pronunciation. But I think it's much harder for people to go the other way around. For a beginning student of Greek (especially autodidacts who aren't required to use a particular system) using Modern Pronunciation gives them a back door into the living language. Yes, it is convenient to use Modern Greek pronunciation and yes, that is a good enough reason to do it! Convenience is a very important, time saving component when learning a foreign language. As a polyglot, I'm sure you know how much time you need to achieve fluency in a language. And any method that cuts down on those hours should be taken advantage of; whatever facilitates the language acquisition process most effectively. At the end of the day the goal is to read and understand ancient texts. And if you're able to read them out-loud comfortably, it really doesn't matter what system you use. Because nobody is going back to Ancient Athens in a time machine to impress the locals with Restored Pronunciation. It's just a theoretical exercise. But Modern Greek pronunciation has a strong practical component. There are just certain practical things you can absorb from exposure to a living, spoken language that you can't get from a dead, written language using a theoretically reconstructed pronunciation. Just a few examples off of the top of my head: A student can actually listen to a native speaker to pick up subtleties in pronunciation, many of which are completely applicable to Ancient Greek (i.e. pronunciation of proclitic/enclitics and the resulting double accents on the words they lean against). Rising intonation for interrogative sentences is also very helpful to pick up from native speakers. Hearing and mimicking alternating voicing and de-voicing of consonants in various positions is also very helpful. The way the Greeks maintain vowel quality through multi-syllabic words, in all positions, is very helpful to pick up (for English speakers whose vowels often weaken in unstressed positions). There are certain phonemes, such as liquid consonants, that are really helpful to pick up from native Greeks. Λ is a perfect example: most people who use Restored Pronunciation simply use the approximate L sound from their native language. But the English L is simply not identical to the Greek Λ. A proper Greek L requires a degree of fronting and palatalization that most non-Greeks, using Restored Pronunciation, make little effort to achieve. For example, most people I know using Restored Pronunciation pronounce λόγος as if they were saying "log on" (in English) with an "s" at the end. It just sounds horrible! You just have to call a spade a spade sometimes and admit when people are butchering Greek because they just don't care to even try to pronounce to pronounce it as if it were a foreign language. Lastly, I'll just cite a few references for you, or anyone else interested in exploring the scholarship on this topic further: Constantine Campbell's "Advances in the Study of Greek" (Ch.9 - Pronunciation) Geoffrey Horrocks' "Greek A History of the Language and Its Speakers" Robert Browning's "Medieval & Modern Greek"
eh, that's kinda like saying old English should be pronounced in modern English, obviously different but same. As a non-academic it sounds too much like standardization for practicality's sake.
i agree that continuity is a valuable belief to instill for a living culture which has A LOT of historical precedence to effectively manage and bestow upon its posterity. However, too much perceived continuity can also become a bad thing. If continuity is overemphasized, it can drive people the other way in thinking that there was never any change. That would just go against the nature of how cultures mutate and adapt over time, and it could blind them to changes happening in contemporary settings. Perhaps the best thing would indeed be to teach ancient texts with modern pronunciation, and then simply keep students open-minded towards the possibility that the language may have been pronounced differently back then. After all, English students don't recite Shakespeare using contemporaneous OP, but they do have an idea that it likely didn't sound as it does when they read it aloud in the modern day. Students of both languages could always try it out for fun, of course. Last thing. I know Erasmian pronunciation has quite a number of flaws, but I also can't help feel a little annoyed at people who are against Erasmian for the particular reason of "it doesn't sound as nice/smooth". Like, seriously? I'm pretty sure no language "has" to sound nice for it to be real. There are plenty of languages in this wider world which do not have a smooth "Euro-lang" feel to them, but are very real nonetheless.
I love how the entirety of the rest of the world decided that one non native dudes teaching of ancient Greek has the pronunciation right while Greece is learning it in a completely different way. Its sad because Greeks cant understand you at all and are mostly angry and confused that something so close to their tradition is incomprehensible when a non native tries to embrace it.
The Erasmian pronunciation is scientifically untenable. If anyone is interested, I highly recommend the following (though as yet unfinished) website: attic.kanlis.com
I think hearing the ancient language is fascinating and would prefer learning that, rather than simply another modern language with less connection even if it is a descendant
Yeah, I'm going to be using a modified form of Lucian pronunciation. Modern Greek vowels have collapsed way too much to be viable for pronunciation. And I already speak modern Greek to a sufficient level to not be confused..
The Greek I'm most interested in, is that of historians Thucydides, Xenophon, and Demosthenes. Secondarily, I'm interested in the Greek of playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes. In one of Plato's books, Ion makes a living by reciting Homer's epics. I'd imagine the Greek of Ion was similar to that of Euripides or Aristophanes. Euripides because his active period was roughly the same as Socrates' period. Aristophanes because his active period overlaps with that of both Plato and Socrates. Whether Ion's Greek was more like Euripides' or Aristophanes' largely depends on the creative license taken by Plato. Another consideration is the degree to which Ion adapted his Greek to match that of Attic Greek. It would have been in his best interest to be as intelligible to imperial Athens as much as possible, since he depended on them to make a living.
I whole-heartedly agree with you! But, can the same Modus Discendi, Docendi, et Loquendi: the Mode of Learning, Teaching, and Speaking, have the very same efficacious Result with Classical Latin? For LATIN is not ITALIAN, nor SPANISH, nor FRENCH, nor ROMANIAN and Vice Versa!
But the modern Greek pronunciation divorces it from the script. It is like Thai, where you have many more letters than sounds. I say this as a person who is half Greek and somewhat fluent at it.
The problem is that the Ancient Greek contained motivational qualities which were mostly found in the vowel complexity, as the society lost these sounds so did the civilisation fall. See th-cam.com/video/yMYiJ4eC7l8/w-d-xo.html So your conviction that modern pronunciation should be used is questionable.
This isn't accurate. Greek language spans three millennia. And it DID change during that time. So, I ageee that reading koine greek (III century BC) in Erasmian pronunciation is a silly anachronism. Yet the pronounciation wasn't exactly the modern one (although closer). H (ita) remains eta well late into Byzantine times, for example. On the other hand, reading Homer in modern pronunciation is pure folly, and rather difficult too, if read in proper metric. What should be right is to teach both and adapt to the age of the text, keeping the birth of koine as a rough border between the two. But, I see your point. After all, in very few schools we read Shakespeare in his old pronunciation. We read it in modern English. So I d agree, if it wasn't for Greek tragedy and Homer, two signature staples of ancient Greek culture, that simply can't (for practical reasons) be read in the modern way, least the metre be completely lost
I agree and would argue the same for the pronunciation of Latin. An additional argument is that it is easier to actually learn Latin and Greek if they are taught like living languages instead of dead ones. You will get a feel for these languages if you get used to hearing and speaking them. Just reading is not enough. PS At school I was often scolded for pronouncing Latin like a Catholic, but now I know the language much better than my old class mates.
Very interesting video!! I fully agree with you. I also first learnt Modern Greek and now I’m studying Ancient Greek. I can definitely say that reading Ancient Greek is way easier if you have studied Modern Greek.
I completely disagree with you. I learned and love Modern Greek, but using this pronunciation for Classical is as close to blasphemy as I'm willing to accept the concept. Modern Greeks are not the best sources to go for Ancient, precisely for the bias. Our teachers in uni even told us that if you want scholarship on Classical Greek, you go to the French or the Germans, not the modern-day Greeks. If Erasmus' reconstruction is more accurate than the modern pronunciation, it's still worth pursuing. If he chose to pronounce modern himself, that's his business, but I care about what's actually accurate. Also, I don't see the ancient pagan cultures and the Byzantine Christian culture to be compatible at all. Conversion to Christianity was not natural, but forced. The Christians wanted to destroy pagan civilization. They burned their books. They stole materials from the old temples to build churches. The pronunciation changes that are in effect to this day happened in the Hellenistic era, which is why the modern pronunciation is used by the Church. By all means, use modern to read Hellenistic and Byzantine literature. I see it as an insult to use it to read Homer. The language may have had a seamless evolution, but the culture did not, and I choose to honor that. I choose to honor the Ancients by pronouncing their language as close as possible to the original as we can figure out how.
Guys using the erasmian (false pronounciation) the ancient greek poems of odyssey iliad all the tragedies comedies and all the written things we found sound like nonsense that means nothing and the poems dont sound good. So stop using that pronounciation its false. Erasmus did this thing because the westerners cant say some greeks words and compilations of words so they can use it. Im so sad they are trying to do such bad things.
I don't use any "Erasmian" pronunciation, I don't even know or care how Erasmus used to pronounce Greek. I use an ANCIENT pronunciation. "Erasmian" is a straw man.
So we should pronounce Chaucer's language as some form of Estuary English dialect, just to make it easier for students ? I think not. If people could get away with pronouncing languages incorrectly, then we could all learn them more easily.....
I’ve never heard a more Americanized pronunciation of Latin and Greek than in this video. With respect, Ancient Greek was NOT pronounced as modern Greek. Take something like the betacism, pronouncing a B like a V the way modern Greeks do. That started in 200AD. In ancient Greek a verse with a B rhymed with other letters sounding like a B, and after 200AD, in verses words with a B rhymed with other words containing V. The only people who think ancient Greek sounded like modern Greek are some foreigners and most uneducated Greeks. Try to connect a bigger picture in your mind. Languages, all languages change at a furious rate like a fractal branching off. Study some basics in proto language reconstructions and you will see that a language like ancient Hittite sounded modern Arabic mixed with modern Kurdish and some Turkish. The Anatolian languages today still make heavy use of the Hittite š, (sh), modern Turkish S̩. A complex, slow, unwieldy language branches off into subgroups and quickens over millenia, certainly. Shakespeares reconstructed Elizabethan English rhymes only work if the language sounds like a mix between modern Irish and English West country dialect. The same way it is only logical that ancient Greek has many sounds that to a modern listener would sound almost like modern Adriatic even Polish. Sh, Cz, etc. Greater inflection, more melody. More arduous to speak for a modern person. Languages are entropic, they always split from a whole, never recombine. At the same time they quicken over time. If you read Plutarch, then Xenophon it makes perfect sense that ancient Greek was a very nuanced and laborious language to speak (for a modern person) that sounds like Greek mixed with Slavic sounds. Modern Greek sounds like a monotonic machine gun compared to it. And that makes sense. Languages branch off and simplify over time. This video will explain it: th-cam.com/video/yCv5dK1DOgw/w-d-xo.html
There are slight differences between Erasmian and restored classical. Primarily the letters Θ, Φ and Χ. These mostly assumed their present values by the Koine period. However, υ (and οι) and η had not become “iotacized” yet. Pronouncing Koine Greek with a modern accent confuses words like “υμιν” and “ημιν” and “τοίχος” and “τειχος”, among others. Erasmian pronunciation was never used by Greek speakers anywhere. This leaves three historical pronunciation schemes: Restored Classical, Koine and Modern (for Modern Greek, NOT Ancient Greek). Only, please, please if you read Ancient Greek DON’T use an American or British accent!! It sounds like fingernails on a blackboard!! Ευχαριστώ πολύ!
I’m Greek. I’ve studied Classics and Linguistics in Greece. All you say and argue is fine; nevertheless: You CANNOT read and “feel” classical poetry correctly using the modern Greek pronunciation, since: 1. There is no prosody in modern Greek, no short and long vowels, no “light and heavy” syllables due to the phonemes they contain (only due to their stress), which define the sort of any metrical foot in classical poetry . 2. Modern phonology is quite different from classical, eg in classical times Attic ε and ει had exactly the same quality (not quantity, since they had different length/morae), thus “parechesis” is in action in a verse containing them; yet in modern Greek ε = [e] and ει = [i]; also ε and η in classical phonology are quite homologous, as being vowels of the [e] quality, thus again “parechesis” is employed; 3. the same holds for κ,γ,χ and π,β,φ, all being stop/plosive consonants in Attic, with different attributes and relations to each other than in modern Greek, where some are voiced or voiceless fricatives (no “parechesis” can be felt) . This list could be easily prolonged; I suppose the point is made clear. There is no Classicist who argues in favor of the modern Greek pronunciation for poetry, at least, like Homer and attic poetry, because these are better understood, felt and studied using the reconstructed phonology, or less using the Erasmian, and least using the Modern Greek one.
For attic and Ionian prose there is no major advantages in using reconstructed phonology, but some minor ones are still in place (the reader still has a better sense and feeling of the language).
The second major problem with the Modern Greek pronunciation is the accentuation; we pronounce only 5 vowels of one mora (shirt), but we teach about short and long vowels etc., and we really pronounce no diphthong at all in all Ancient Greek diphthongs; thus the difference between ᾶ/ά, ῆ/ή is totally absent.
I teach my pupils ancient Greek always using the Modern Greek pronunciation, since this is the practice in Greece; I never read or study Ancient Greek using this pronunciation; of course I know many things on the history, development and dialectal differentiation of the Greek language, and I can exploit this knowledge in favor of my reading and understanding Ancient Greek texts (Archaic, classical, Hellenistic or Medieval).
there are more than 2 ways though. the "restored classical" pronunciation should be broken up in 3 different ones: koine, classical (all the classical dialects had different pronunciations) and archaic (this one would also be broken up in dialects)
And Erasmian is none of those
When you use modern pronunciation to read Ancient Greek poetry you miss one very important aspect: rhythm. Really, the most important in poetry!
So if the distinction of long vowels and diphthongs is essential for proper rhythm, and such distinction was lost in the late Hellenstic period, then wouldn't that mean that Greek speakers during the Byzantine period were incapable of reading poetry with proper rhythm?
abbadonnergal It is very propaple.
Surely they must have been able to recite poetry (for hundreds of years) while respecting the rhythm, despite their pronunciation; since vowel length is subordinate to the meter in Greek hexameter. Besides, the scansion rules are flexible and allow vowels to lengthen or shorten whenever necessary. For example, synizesis contracts εω into one long syllable in Iliad 1.1 (Πηληϊάδεω) and into one short syllable in Iliad 1.15 (χρυσέῳ). And correption can shorten vowels and diphthongs before a vowel, as in Iliad 1.14, where the pre-vocalic ου of ἑκηβόλου is shortened. All things considered, I don’t see why Byzantine pronunciation should be considered inherently improper for poetry, since the meter and rhythm aren't necessarily broken by it. And to say that it isn’t “beautiful” is a subjective judgement, since some people (like myself) may consider it to be beautiful in its own right. Ideally, it should be a matter of personal preference, in my opinion.
abbadonnergal I agree that for hundreds of years some people could still recite poetry while respecting the rhythm because they kept the pronunciation, but slowly, during the Byzantine era, that changed. As for flexibility, it is one of the wonderful aspects of the Homeric language, because he uses whatever is appropriate for each hexameter (Achilles is also written with one l for example).
@Konos P - That may be the case for some regions and social strata (since the Hellenestic world was quite large and diverse). However, some long vowels (η in particular) were still distinct in the Roman period among educated, conservative speakers (especially in Athens). The process of itacism was gradual and was likely widespread enough to be deemed "complete" during the Byzantine era (by the 2nd, 3rd & 4th centuries A.D.). *See Allen's Vox Graeca, pg. 78; Horrocks' Greek, pg. 163; Caragounis' Development of Greek, pg. 350; Buth's Ἡ Κοινὴ Προφορά, pg. 222; Campbell's Advances in the Study of Greek, pg. 200
What about the actual reconstructed pronunciation of classical (attic) Greek
Very informative and inspiring, you can hear the passion and conviction in your voice. Makes me want to go learn Greek!
This is a historically correct account of the language. It has not changed from byzantine Greek essentially. And it seems you are the only one that acknowledges this on you tube
Hey, Deka Glossai, thanks to inspiration from you and others, i started learning Ancient Greek a year ago, and then, thanks solely to your advice in this video, three months ago i switched to modern Greek, and have been taking three lessons a week with a Greek, planning to return to Ancient Greek when i have attained some fluency in Modern. Thanks so much for your video, it's really made my family crazy (that i spend my spare time learning Greek, haha)!
Have you found learning modern greek helped your ancient greek?
I think you’re right. I independently came to the same conclusion and Then found your videos. You make a very convincing and skilled argument. Much appreciated!
Thank you for this video.
I've been studing Thai and living in Thailand for 5 years and I've gotten to a level where I can make myself understood and understand what happens around me---not perfectly, but acceptably okay. One of the features of the Thai language is that it has five tones and a clear distinction between short and long vowels. It is VERY important to hear and pronounce Thai vowels and tones accurately if communication is to occur. So I pay a lot of attention to this now.
I started learning Ancient Greek a few weeks ago and in a lot of introductory materials the authors mention pitch accent and vowel length, described as rising, falling and short-long, with explanations as to which vowels are long, which are short, and what should accent marks sound like. I was imagining something between Swedish, a modern European language with pitch accent and Finnish, a language with a clear distinction between short and long vowels. In any case, something quite different from what Modern Greek sounds like.
HOWEVER, I have yet to find a single sample of reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation that follows these rules consistently, if at all. Most readers presenting something purporting to be an accurate model of Ancient Greek are very inconsistent. They would occasionally ignore the length of the vowels or have an inconsistent application of the pitch accent. The reader would pronounce, say, the acute accent sometimes with the pitch going up, sometimes down, sometimes he/she would ignore it; or read the vowel η sometimes long, sometimes short, etc.--- the kind of mistakes a beginning student of Chinese/Thai would make. It was all very confusing and I was kind of losing hope, until I found your video. I found your arguments very convincing and I will use Modern Greek as the model.
One thing that you don't mention, which I think explains why mastering spoken Modern Greek boosted your reading of Ancient Greek is that the written word is just a representation of language, which is essentially spoken. When you read, you necessarily sound out the words in your head with a specific rhythm, intonation, emotion, etc. Without the spoken aspect "language" isn't language, but a terse code you decipher instead of reading. Linguists noticed this long ago and institutions like the Foreign Service Institute emphasise a strong spoken foundation with pattern drilling and repetition aloud and only then they'd move to the written part of their courses. Anyway, I'm digressing. Thanks again for this video.
Simply put, a text read in erasmian pronunciation, sounds like a two stroke gas engine with the exhaust broken. I don't think that the language of the people who valued harmony so much, would sound like that.
Definitely
Purely a matter of taste. I think the Erasmian pronunciation sounds great when done properly. And I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that ancient Greek "valued harmony".
@@devinreese7704 Actually there are six accents mentioned
@@devinreese7704 Mentioned by name (also that of the Greek grammarian from Samos who wrote more about them) in a Latin grammar (of antiquity). I don't have the text before me, but in general Latin grammarians made naturally many references to the Greek language in their treatises. Others name 3, 4, 5... I'm not sure if there were one giving even 7 accents. To me the accents' names made sense when I found the passage; one could clearly understand what the guy was describing only by their names and easily apply them (even if not written nowadays, if ever)
@@devinreese7704 Of course it was different. You can not only see that through transcriptions of words or names among languages or writing errors, but they are even described in ancient treatises. Modern Greeks (luckily with some exceptions) ignore these texts, automatically believing that the ancients pronounced as we do now, while the ancients spoke first and not we. For me as a Greek this is stupidity of tragic dimensions (as one can even read in the comment section of my channel) and I'll try to change it...
Πολύ ενδιαφέρον «δέκα γλώσσαι». Σίγουρα θα έχεις υπόψιν ότι μπορεί κανείς να πλησιάσει το ζήτημα της προφοράς και μέσα από τη μελέτη των ελληνικών διαλέκτων που επιβιώνουν. Τυχαίνει να έχω καταγωγή από Έλληνες του Πόντου και από μικρό παιδί είμαι συνηθισμένος να ακούω ποντιακά. Στα ποντιακά όντως συναντά κανείς την προφορά του «η» πολύ κοντά στο «ε». Η γιαγιά μου έλεγε Γιάννε αντί Γιάννη. Καθώς και άλλα στοιχεία από την Κοινή που σε άλλες ελληνικές διαλέκτους και στη δημοτική χάθηκαν. Η γιαγιά μου ο παππούς μου ακόμη και η μάνα μου έλεγαν «κι έ(ι)θελα» (δεν ήθελα) «ουκ εθέλω». Δηλαδή η άρνηση «ουκ», δε χάθηκε σ΄ αυτή τη μορφή νέων ελληνικών. Έχεις ακούσει πως προφέρουν οι Κύπριοι τη λέξη θάλασσα, ή την λέξη πολλά; Τα δύο σίγμα και τα δύο λάμδα ακούγονται ξεκάθαρα και δίνουν έντονο χρώμα στη προφορά.
Το ποιο εντυπωσιακό για μένα είναι εκεί που λες ότι ο ίδιος ο Έρασμος μάλλον δεν χρησιμοποιούσε την ερασμιακή προφορά! Μου φαίνεται πολύ λογικό διότι ο ποιο εύκολος τρόπος, για τους περισσότερους ευρωπαίους μελετητές των αρχαίων κειμένων εκείνης της εποχής ήταν να συναντούν και να μαθαίνουν τα ελληνικά από τους Ρωμιούς μετανάστες και φυγάδες της Ελλάδας και της Μικράς Ασίας που εγκατέλειπαν την Οθωμανική αυτοκρατορία πηγαίνοντας προς τα δυτικά παίρνοντας μαζί τους ίσως πολύτιμα χειρόγραφα βιβλία. Τώρα μπορώ να δικαιολογήσω και την δουλειά που έκανε ο Έρασμος με την ερασμιακή προφορά. Ήταν μάλλον μια μελέτη να προσεγγίσει το ζήτημα της προφοράς παρά μια πρόταση για πρακτική χρήση. Φαίνεται ότι ο τρόπος που προσέγγισες εσύ τα ελληνικά, εννοώ μέσα από την εκμάθηση πρώτα των νέων ελληνικών, μοιάζει μ΄ αυτό που συνέβαινε στους πρώτους μελετητές στη δυτική Ευρώπη κατά τον 15ο και 16ο αιώνα, στην περίοδο που ξεκίνησε ΄να αναπτύσσεται αυτό το ενδιαφέρον για την ελληνική γραμματεία. Προφανώς αυτή η προσέγγιση δεν σημαίνει ότι η νέα προφορά της δημοτικής είναι κοντύτερα απ΄ ότι η ερασμιακή, αλλά έχει το πολύ σημαντικό πλεονέκτημα ζωντάνιας και αναιρεί με συνέπεια και στην πράξη τον χαρακτηρισμό της «νεκρής γλώσσας» για τα ελληνικά.
Τα περισσοτερα απ αυτα που γραφεις ειναι ενδιαφεροντα και συμφωνω. Ομως οι ποντιοι γραφουν στα αληθεια έθελα και προφερουν οντως"ethela". Δεν γραφουν ηθελα και προφερουν "ethela". Η συζητηση γινεται για το αν θα ηταν "σωστοτερο" κι οι ξενοι αντι να βλεπουν ηθελον και να λενε "ethelon", να βλεπουν ηθελον και να λενε "ithelon" !
maláka
@@lennonjackson1264 Look your face in the mirror...
@@heraclitop7904 maláka
στα ποντιακα το ¨ηθελα" ειναι "εθελνα" και οχι "εθελα". "Εθενλα να λεγω σε ντο χαπαρ' κι ε'εις ασα ρωμαίκα αμα επ'εκει επουσμανεψα και τιδεν 'κι ειπα σε, . Εφοεθα γιαμ χωλιασκεσε".
Hmmm. Not particularly convincing. What about the change from aspirated to fricative, with φ, θ and χ, for example? This occurred around the 2nd century AD. We know that both Greeks and Romans thus pronounced Φοιβος "p'hoyboss", not "foyboss".
This actually confused me a bit. From what I understand, modern "classical restored pronunciation" is not erasmian pronunciation, which as I understand it, was never actually used by natives of any period. The pronunciation promoted by W. Sydney Allen in his "Vox Graeca" describes a rather different pronunciation. Well, I suppose much of the vowel system is the same, but many of the consonants are markedly different. This is the pronunciation used in Assimil's Le Grec Sans Peine.
In summary, I was under the impression that Erasmian was considered a restored pronunciation, but is no longer considered so in the late 20th century onward.
Sydney Allen's system is really not that different from Erasmian. It only differs in a handful of consonants.
deka glossai Its pretty different, imo. The main differences between Erasmian and restored pronunciation are:
1. φ, θ, χ, are aspirates, not fricatives.
2. ζ is /zd/, not /dz/.
3. ει and ου are spurious diphthongs, whose true pronunciation is long close-mid front vowel and long close-mid back vowel, respectively.
4. The iota subscript is pronounced.
5. Double consonants are pronounced.
6. There was a pitch accent, not stress.
(There may be more differences)
Anyway, Ioannis Stratakis (Podium Arts channel) has recordings with the restored pronunciation and it sounds just beautiful.
Do you honestly think that these minor points make them "pretty different"? East-coast and west-coast English in America differ far more than this.
deka glossai "Minor points"? Is the pitch accent really a minor point? This alone is a major difference. The accent had a *huge* role in ancient Greek. The poetry was designed to fit a pitch accent system.
And does it really matter how different they are? The point of the restored pronunciation was to create a pron. as accurate as possible, not to sound different and exotic to one's ears compared to the Erasmian that was designed to make ancient Greek easier for students.
I think it's important to at least recognize that they are indeed different... i.e. erasmian != restored classical. While they are much more similar than Modern Greek, and Erasmus is truly the "father" of classically restored pronunciation, the differences are enough that they really are two separate things.
HEY! Great video. Can you give me links to sources as to how they learned Greek in Erasmus' day?? Please!
I really enjoy your videos, I'm glad to see you posting two new videos in such quick succession. Thanks!
Thank you! More videos are on the way...
Good reasoning mostly, practical-except if we can take it back to Proto-Indo-European quite reliably why are you saying that reconstruction from textual evidence is not accurate? Erasmus is not the only source.
I teach Greek students and one of the most difficult lessons they have is Ancient Greek so I wonder if a knowlwdge of Modern Greek really helps
"I teach Greek students and one of the most difficult lessons they have is Ancient Greek" :-) Do you teach them the restored pronunciation?
@@miklosnemeth8566 I Teach then English and the vast majority of them find Ancient Greek one of their most difficult lessons, given the huge differences between Ancient and Modern Greek syntax
.
@@teacherdude I see, this is especially interesting, I had a Serbian friend at the university, and he picked Russian as second language, while most of us picked English, German or French, and it was very easy for him, he was really a lazy guy, so definitely he wanted to learn a language the easy way. On the other hand, in my high school years the most dreaded subject was Hungarian Grammar and Literature for most of us, it didn't help that Hungarian was our mother language.
Happy to see the modern greek pronunciation not being called a bastardization of ancient greek for once.
Some nice points about MG. What do you think of a “restored koine” (see Randall Buth) which sounds a lot like modern greek? I did primary research in roman period epigraphy and documentary texts in Palestine and I also have some video blogs in which I discuss grammatical questions IN KOINE GREEK with a restored pronunciation ( www.kainediatheke.com ). Would appreciate feedback. Modern Greeks can understand me when I speak Koine with this pronunciation.
Check out Καθαρεύουσα. That will be the rabbit hole of nightmares.
I'm so happy someone uploaded a video defending this point of view.
:)
Great to see you back again Deka as I previously enjoyed some of the older videos and found them inspirational. However I have not been able to access them for language learning tips.
Thank you! I've taken down my older videos and am focusing on producing better content of higher quality. I promise that I will be revisiting many of the ideas of my older videos!
Eg. Pronouncing the name Zeus in modern Greek is downright horrible (Zefs), compared to saying it in Ancient Greek which is more closer to Classical Latin's pronunciation of the word Deus (Déyus). And this shows how a reconstructed version of the ancient language is needed. Now I'm not with the Erasmian version, thats more of a patched-up version of Ancient Greek, but a well studied modern reconstruction would be needed in our heavily informed/technologically advanced age.
There's a free digital copy online of Telemachus
Timayenis' 1877 treatise on why Modern Greek pronunciation should be used for Ancient Greek (link to downloadable PDF: ia801406.us.archive.org/16/items/moderngreekitspr00timarich/moderngreekitspr00timarich.pdf). A lot of it is out-of-date. But it's still a good, quick read.
As a classical philologist and reader of Ancient Greek (using modern pronunciation), how do you read poetry?
We dont even need to go there. If it were the same, why would they have a consonantal H in classical inscriptions. Why was Perikles written with a epsilon long in the -es? not -is? and why would they use a rough breathing? When did they stop using it? How about the tonoi? Everyone just doesnt pronounce them, or pronounces them as a uno-stress like in modern. We additionally have tons of evidence that languages shange over time. Before the eucliedian alphabet, the genitive was written -o omikron long on ostraka. Just look at them. So weve plenty of evidence from these areas, and questions.
How do you read Shakespeare?
tos coba I read Shakespeare using period pronunciation. While it is technically not necessary, it does enhance one’s understanding of certain puns. The very character of some of the poems changes when you read it using the pronunciation that he himself used. This is particularly true for sonnet 15. The rhythm is also better because some words no longer rhyme in our time but did rhyme in Shakespeare’s time.
I am curious to hear your experience on this:
As you move through the phonological development of Greek, at what point, and how, specifically, does the intelligibility break down?
For instance, as vowel length ceases to be relevant, the subjunctive ceases to make sense. Itacism erases certain conjugation distinctions after the Koine period, and the monophthongization of diphthongs makes things tricky. The optative is audible until around the 10th Century A.D., afterwards iotacism deletes it.
How late a pronunciation is still comprehensible when speaking Ancient Greek? What specific ambiguities arise over the development towards Modern Greek?
Finally, can Ancient Greek seriously be spoken comprehensibly using a modern/byzantine phonology?
It is not a question of intelligibility. Even in the modern Greek dialects there is such a variety of pronunciations which are in different degrees understood by a standard modern Greek speaker. You can imagine how things could be in the ancient times without modern mass media.
In my opinion the variety of the vowels spoken throughout the Greek realm, under the presence of the Attic dialect, lead to the "vowel collapse" where Koine was an intermediate stage. Attic dialect was influential because it had been considered as "perfect" by educated people, implying that the other ways of speaking Greek had imperfections. I guess the imperfections were the norm and lead to modern Greek.
As long as the vowels could not help the use of the same expressions as those of the older generations, new expressions were created by the same grammar, which eventually lead to innovative grammar rules. Think of the way subjunctive in Greek has evolved. The endings became indistinguishable from the indicative so "ἵνα" clauses were employed which became the modern subjunctive with the particle "να".
There are many Greek grammar evolution stories like that, about some classical ways of expression falling into disuse, while some others of late antiquity become overused. Afterwards almost nobody cared about spoken language, as in the medieval times the Koine of the church stylized by Atticism were the official language. The exact steps of the evolution are subject to research.
Now for your final question, there are philologists who are trained to write down ancient Greek by dictation from a modern Greek pronunciation of the text. I also wonder how effective they are in "real time" speech.
Just curious, but would you argue the same for pronouncing Latin (i.e. using the Italian pronunciation as opposed to the Classical pronunciation)?
I don't know know what his point of view is, but I would argue its a different case. And latin deserves being learning in its classical form. The thing about the new latin is that it's been adopted to fit the needs of a church, and its not native to any country (the vatican doesn't count, even if it calls itself a country hahaha)
Excellent point, and I guess You are talking about the Ecclesiastical Pronunciation. The problem with that is that the audio/video resources even from Italian channels are far more abundant than the Ecclesiastical Pronunciation. I guess the same is the case with Modern Greek pronunciation of Ancient Greek texts, it simply haven't got popularity, all popular Ancient Greek TH-cam channels speak restored pronunciation.
The main problem I see with using modern pronunciation is the loss of vowel length. in languages with contrastive vowel length, like Ancient Greek and Latin, said vowel length is extremely crucial to the poetry and rhythm to the language, and if that's gone, most of the character is too. At least, that's my perspective.
Do you say that vowel length has been lost with Modern Green pronunciation? There are a number of modern languages where vowel length is crucial: Hungarian, Egyptian Arabic, Finnish. On the other hand, a number of other languages can do fine without them, so I don't know any Indo-European language that has vowel length preserved. Very interesting. The Hungarian dialect, for example spoken in Moldavia possibly because of the heavy influence of Rumanian lost double consonants and vowel length. Really interesting.
@@miklosnemeth8566 many Germanic languages have vowel length in stressed syllables still, but lengthened vowels have very different qualities
Great video. It seems well researched but I'd love to see sources for claims in it referenced individually.
Thank you! In a future video I will go deeper into the evidence used for various reconstructions.
Thank you for this video and the links provided. I will watch these other videos as well.
First of all, Erasmus wrote his work on Ancient Greek pronunciation *after* he learned Greek using Modern pronunciation, which means that his knowledge of Modern helped to reconstruct the Ancient, which, in my opinion, would give Erasmus more credibility rather than not even learning to speak it - or not even learning Greek altogether. You need some kind of basis for reconstruction and there weren't really many separate languages that spawned from Ancient Greek. This is common for every reconstruction process. For some reason he blows by this and doesn't think it's worth noting, which is a bit funny.
No mention is made about how the reconstructed pronunciation has been refined over time with the advent of better understanding of phonological change, which wasn't around in Erasmus's time and is a little bit important. Also there's a lot of conflating with Erasmus's reconstruction and the reconstruction which is used today.
"By using the Modern Greek pronunciation, we send an important message to students, namely that the Greek language and Greek literature comprise a continuous tradition stretching back from Homer to the modern day. There has never been a time when literature of value was not produced in Greek."
No one's "sending a message" by making kids use a certain pronunciation, only that you're trying to push your views onto others. Kids probably shouldn't be forced to choose one over the other, but what you're proposing isn't much better than what's being done now.
"Using the Attic system of pronunciation prioritizes an elite dialect of the language and closes off this entire tradition to students, depriving them of the most important research for learning Ancient Greek, namely the connection to Modern Greek."
This is huge leap. You could argue that teaching the Modern system prioritizes an elite dialect and closes off an "entire tradition" of literature before the 10th century.
"Modern Greek is by far the most excessible version of Greek and connecting Ancient Greek to the Modern Greek language, culture, and people only enhances and deepens students' knowledge."
Why? How is that different from learning Ancient Greek with Erasmus's pronunciation? Are people who learn Erasmian pronunciation inherently missing out on something important by virtue of not using Modern pronunciation?
"It is indeed possible to learn Ancient Greek without reference to the modern language, but fluent speakers of Modern Greek have a huge advantage when learning to read Ancient Greek."
And you can say the same about an Anglophone learning Old English, you could say the same about a Frenchman learning Old French, you could say the same about an Italian learning Latin, etc. etc
"And it is my experience that learning Modern Greek directly correlates to increased reading fluency in Ancient Greek."
From your perspective, but not everyone learns in the same way.
"It is important to remember that the restored classical pronunciation is an artificial, philological reconstruction and was likely never used in this exact form by any one speaker."
>was likely never used in this exact form by any one speaker
Okay, but then he goes on to say that Greek had many varieties, but it's *still* unlikely that anyone anywhere could have possiblely used a reconstruction which has been thoroughly refined since Erasmus, even though Greek was used widely not only in the classical world but also as a trade language for centuries afterwards?:
"Greek is a tradition that spans many centuries and many different dialects. And language changes very quickly. Therefore, it makes no sense to pronounce Homer, Ionic, Aeolic, Koine, and Byzantine Greek with the same restored classical pronunciation."
Except Modern is fine if used in the same way, right?
"In short, restored classical pronunciation obscures the connections between the various stages of Greek, which Modern Greek highlights the remarkable continuity and resilience of the Greek language and puts students in close connection with the living, breathing Greek language and nation."
The fact that Ancient Greek is still studied in schools today should be what highlights the remarkable continuity and resilience of the Greek language.
Almost nothing of what he said can't also be applied the other way around.
Κοινή in modern greek sounds like Kini. Your pronunciation is erasmian
As a Greek (from Cyprus ) I can understand Byzantine Greek fully.
South of Cyprus 😊
MakeAmerica GreatAgain , go fuck your self
@@lapsuscalami2252 go back to the abish you satanist
@@lapsuscalami2252 congratulations, you are an idiot.
@@lefterismagkoutas4430 This idiot's nation is about to take your islands... And also we are dominant the mediterrian sea at the moment so you can go fck yourself loser
From a learner's perspective, a pronunciation where you clearly hear from it how the words are written, is always the most practical. That means that a classical pronunciation is the only valid method for the pronunciation of classical Greek. If you want to speak modern Greek with somebody, you can easily shift to modern pronunciation. The same holds for Latin and Hebrew of course. But you must take the effort to lean sound foreign to Americans, and that may be a very tough thing to do, since it looks like the English language tend to destroy the natural ability to learn new language sounds at even a young age. But this ability can be regained with some self-administered logopaedic therapy.
I think, if Modern Greek Pronunciation is predictable and consistent as for the written text (unlike English, where you have to learn the pronunciation of each and every word), just like German and French, then it's ok from a learner's perspective. Of course one letter = one phoneme concept would be ideal, but there are very few language that follow that rule, I think Finnish is the only one I can regard totally consistent, and periodically the Finnish Academy adjust the spelling to match the spoken language perfectly, amazing.
Have you watched Luke Ranieri’s videos on this subject?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I've watched a lot of his content, for years now. I think he's very intelligent and well-spoken, but his renditions of Greek sound far too robotic and artificial, as does everyone's. This is less his fault than it being due to the fact that reconstructed pronunciations are artificial by definition. They never sound natural. Language REQUIRES listening to grasp accurately, which is why I have no doubt that if Socrates or Plato could travel to our time and hear their ancient Attic phonology reconstructed, they would probably be very confused.
So my question is, why should we bother with reconstructed pronunciations at all? We're lucky enough that Greek has survived to this day and has a natural, functioning, melodic phonology. Why not simply use it?
deka glossai πολλά συγχαρητήρια για το βίντεο. Χωρίς να είμαι ειδικός, είχα πάντοτε την αίσθηση ότι εκτός από το επιστημονικό υπήρξε και ιδεολογικό υπόβαθρο που οδήγησε στην επικράτηση της Ερασμιακής προφοράς στη Δύση. Μπορείς να υποδείξεις πηγές ή βιβλία για τις αντιρρήσεις των λογίων στην εργασία του Εράσμου; Ευχαριστώ!
Oh my god... Although I liked the video, it is very ironic that you prefer the modern Greek pronunciation while saying the title of Erasmus' book in *Classical* Latin and not Ecclesiastical... If you prefer the mod. Greek pronunc., the same should apply for Latin :)
I have to admit that even though I prefer the mod. Greek pronunciation and the ecclesiastical, the classical pronunciation which I learned is so deeply lodged in my head that I revert to it almost unintentionally. Gotta work on that.
deka glossai I still don't understand though if you support the modern Greek pronunciation in teaching or if you support that the modern Greek pronunciation was present in Classical times or both...
Also, λαλεῖς δέκα γλώττας;
But Latin wasn‘t continuously used till today, right?
And I don‘t think that the ecclesiastical pronunciation exists for such a long time
So, koine dialect us pronouncedas: kiní ( the 2 i sound exactly as the ee in teen). The tone goes to the second i. Kiní ( keeneè).
Walking into a Greek Orthodox church and listening to their pronunciation opened my eyes to the benefits of reading ancient Greek the way contemporary, native Greek speakers pronounce it today. After having become accustomed to the modern pronunciation and applying it to the Koine Greek (properly pronounced kee-NEE, not Koy-NAY) of the New Testament, I stumbled upon a very sobering realization: MOST modern American and British theologians (and even professors of Koine Greek) are NOT pronouncing the Greek of the New Testament accurately! By relying on the so-called "reconstructed"/Erasmian pronunciation, they are disregarding the only authentically extant pronunciation available, i.e., the modern Greek pronunciation. How in the world can those of us who grew up speaking English in America have the nerve to challenge native Greek speakers, attempting to circumvent their accurate pronunciation with an alternative "ancient" pronunciation which is NOT actually verifiable and, quite honestly, often sounds like an americanized/anglicized version of Greek?
I happen to be a native speaker of Spanish; I can assure you that my pronunciation of Spanish, modern or ancient, is much more accurate than that of a non-native speaker of Spanish who is insisting on reconstructing Old Spanish (that which evolved from Latin after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and was spoken prior to the 16th century) via an unverifiable method that ends up converting the Old Spanish/Castilian language into a bizarrely distorted tongue which modern Spanish speakers would find laughable because of the infusion of a modern English pronunciation which would NEVER be employed by a native speaker of Spanish. The same applies to Greek, modern and ancient. Why rely on a so-called reconstructed version of Greek that is merely an estimate, a guess, an exercise by Erasmus? I would much rather side with native Greek speakers in the Orthodox Church who choose to read Koine Greek with a modern Greek pronunciation. IT is much more consistently and genuinely...ummm...Greek!
Finally, I suggest completely avoiding all TH-cam videos by American/British/Western "teachers"; instead, select (and trust) those Greek (modern or ancient) language instruction videos uploaded by native Greek speakers. The username is usually a good indicator, a litmus test for a reliable, accurate pronunciation.
River Rejoices
@
Nationalists with an identity crisis is hardly a none bias source.
The new modern Greek pronunciation is completely different from the ancient one. Besides Erasmus there was an ancient Greek (Διονύσιος αλικαρνασσεύσ) who has written about the pronunciation they had and it is the same as the Erasmus pronunciation, you can watch this video to hear the correct ancient Greek pronunciation (a Greek speaks in the video with the correct pronunciation of Διονύσιος αλικαρνασσεύσ) also modern greek is not nice at all compared to ancient greek pronunciation
th-cam.com/video/RNlzQ6Trr3Q/w-d-xo.html&feature=shares
Great video. This was my experience as well. My ability in Koine Greek skyrocketed when I learned Modern Greek because I was able to connect it to a living use of the language. Modern Greek is to Ancient Greek as Modern English is to Shakespearean English. There are differences in vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and syntax but they are the same language so there is no need to try to reconstruct how Shakespeare would have pronounced it just as there is no need to try to reconstruct how Ancient Greek speakers would have pronounced Ancient Greek.
I’m not so sure. One is 400 years old, the other 2500 years old. Modern Greek doesn’t retain vowel length, which is already a loss. The different vowel and consonant pronunciation isn’t such an issue to me.
With regard to Shakespeare, there is effort in reading Shakespeare in his own accent. One loses puns and assonances, and likely more, reading him in anything but restored pronunciation. There is academic research into the different accentuation of his time, too.
Many rhymes in Shakespeare don't work in modern pronounciation. Take sonnet 1, lines 2 and 4: "die"/"memory".
That the pronounciation of a language shouldn't have changed in centuries when the vocabulary, morphology, syntax and spelling did so to a great extent is highly unlikeable.
The biggest misconceptions westerners have is that there is no modern or ancient Greek. It is all Greek as you said. Just a long continuation.
I studied Modern Greek before Ancient Greek. It was like watching a movie where you see the story's ending, but then go back to the beggining of the story.
Theres not much of a difference besides the dumb pronunciation.
I've heard that contemporary greek people cannot read attic greek at all. They need to learn it like a separate language. How much is that true?
cfroi08 Excuse me but you are very wrong.
Luis Emmanuel Thats is not true, we can easily read it. It's just that some words are changed, grammar and syntax is not the same so even if we read it we don't understand 100% of it.
@@cassiejms5431 the articles την and τον become τη and το unless its followed by a vowel. The rest of the articles are the same or identical (except for feminine plural accusative).
All of the -ει, -ω, -ετε, αω, ας, εις verb endings remain the same.
The common Nueter noun declensions follow the same rule as Modern Greek, as in the Accusative and Singular articles/endings are the same.
Even the -των article and -ων plural genitive endings are the same like in Modern Greek.
Besides the Dative and Vocative Case changes, there's really not much of a difference besides word order, which isn't an issue because of cases.
What is your argument though? I'm curious because I'm sure the Neuter gender went through a lot of changes.
Thanks for the video,εὖγε!`
Thank you!
I am grateful for your gifted, insightful work. I began studying Koine Greek way back in the 1970s and over those years, have certainly seen a lot of arguments for numerous pronunciations. Personally, I found it easier to learn and memorize words and paradigms using the Erasmian pronunciation since there's greater delineation between vowels.
However, if one reads through the New Testament with the Erasmian pronunciation along with John Schwandt, they will probably find it far less flowing than doing so with Spiros Zodiates reading of the Koine using the Modern pronunciation.
so when and how the restored system became prevalent? you say you have another video, but I can't find it
As an autodidact I find audio recordings indispensable for successful language learning (even though the only thing I really care is reading). I've been trying to collect enough audio materials to start learning Ancient Greek and I have bad news for all 'purists' here who defend the restored pronunciation: Ex ungue leōnem. We may judge the lion from its claw and the American from his thick accent in Greek. (Or the German, the French, or the Russian for that matter). Your restored pronunciation is good in theory but it's a joke in practice (and, remember, the original video was about the effective techniques of language acquisition and pedagogy). The sad fact is that ALMOST NO ONE CAN DO IT. I cringe every time I listen to available recordings. Your 'restored' 'Greek' sounds pretty much like Slavoj Žižek's English. The only exception so far is Ioannis Stratakis who is - surprise! surprise! - a Greek.
PS. For all purists here, I have but one request. If you're so obsessed with pronunciation, do me a favor: please, record Milton's Paradise Lost the way it was supposed to sound (or send me the link to the audio). I'm yet to find an audiobook of Milton's poem which respects its original prosody. Critical editions of Paradise Lost gloss it over but, surprisingly enough, when native English speakers-professional narrators or established profs-recite the poem they simply don't give a f... about it (I wonder why...). And as a non native English speaker, I would be glad to hear authentic Milton.
EXACTLY. I have yet to find a single sample of reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation that follows these rules consistently, if at all. Most readers presenting something purporting to be an accurate model of Ancient Greek are very inconsistent and frankly sound horrible. They would occasionally ignore the length of the vowels or have an inconsistent application of the pitch accent. The reader would pronounce, say, the acute accent sometimes with the pitch going up, sometimes down, sometimes he/she would ignore it; or read the vowel η sometimes long, sometimes short, etc.--- the kind of mistakes a beginning student of Chinese/Thai would make. All this with a very thick American/French or whatever accent.
@@simiyachaq have you heard of the lucian pronunciation of ancient greek? It was developed around a year ago by a latin language youtuber, Luke Ranieri, who takes great care to observe vowel length and the like.
Heres a recording of Milton you might like: th-cam.com/video/DFgoNgtxD4M/w-d-xo.html. I'm not sure how exactly how accurate it is, though
@@weirdlanguageguy Yes, I have. That's what I'm going with, actually. Thank you for your suggestion ;)
@@simiyachaq that was a fast response. You're welcome, and good luck!
I learned Modern Greek before Ancient Greek. You are right in that it gave me a huge advantage. It's the easiest but also my most favourite class (maybe theres a correlation).
It hurts me to butcher the Greek language using "Restored" pronunciation.
It really hurts when people study this language seriously using the Erasmian pronunciation. Like these professors don't even have an accent, it sounds like English letters in Greek and it's just sad.
I think the dipthongs changed the most, but most of the letters should have kept the Modern Pronunciation.
Τί δεκες τίς γλοσσές ξερεις;
*γλώσσες
restored is NOT erasmian, they are much different: for restored see here
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fv46XgPPJy-ky9FUSApiemOVmtc8i6q7ZL5XkqtmMWA/htmlview#gid=1076752684
The first frame of the video is already wrong. Erasmian is not th restored classical pronunciation.
Great video!
I am in total agreement with you on the use of the Modern Greek/Neohellenic pronunciation, and not just because I'm Greek myself. While I respect the meticulous work behind all the various reconstructed pronunciations of Ancient Greek, to me at least, they come across as artificial and forced when put into practice. Language relies on actually hearing sounds and repeating them, the human brain is wired to do so. To extrapolate the sounds of human speech, exactly, with all the subtle nuances and inflections and tones, from written texts alone is next to impossible. So, one can never know exactly how accurate he/she is being to the original pronunciation when trying to use one of these reconstructed phonologies. One must constantly look over one's shoulder, so to speak, doubting whether or not that eta was too long, that acute accent was too high. How can you be sure without a native speaker or voice recording to correct you? To add to that, eta is sometimes said to sound like the long e sound in the English "air" and omega like the o in the English "or", but which of the multitude of English accents out there is correct here? The British, the Americans, the Irish, the Scottish, the Australians all pronounce "air" and "or" differently, so who is right? Now, I understand we have evidences from various ancient texts outlining, for example, the difference between long vowels and short vowels, the nature of voiced/unvoiced plosives and aspirates, pitch accent and meter. However, these only paint a rough picture, like disconnected pieces of a puzzle, they are simply not enough to complete said puzzle and fully restore, essentially, the voices of people like Homer, Socrates, Plato and Plutarch. In my humble opinion, I think it is wiser to leave the data where they lie - in written print or carved stone etchings - appreciate them, consider them, but take them no further than that. Instead, we can use the one phonology of Greek that we have available, the one used consistently amongst all native Greek speakers, the one we have countless audio recordings of, the only verifiably correct system of pronunciation at least for one period of time in the language's long history: Modern Greek.
People forget that there were many Ancient dialects each with it’s own pronunciation. In fact the Boeotian dialect’s classical pronunciation was very similar to today’s Greek.
What are your thoughts on pronunciation for passages written in Attic, or Atticizing Greek?
I think if you're just reading out loud, it doesn't really matter what system you use. Knowing the restored system is very interesting and is great for satisfying intellectual curiosity. If you are interested in speaking Attic Greek ex tempore, however, I think that using the Erasmian can be very helpful.
I do agree, but however, i do think that this video seemingly has within it the assumption that it is a very difficult task to apply ancient greek phonological knowledge to modern greek, i personally think we should teach it all.
For some inexplicable reason, I LOVE the Erasmian pronunciation. I have been studying Koine using both pronunciations. I have audio resources in both. During one set of study sessions I use one, take a break for a few days, then go back to Koine using the other pronunciation. It's working out pretty well so far.
I'm new to learning Greek and I am taking the same approach as you are. I too am learning the Erasmian and modern at the same time.
Erasmian is a fake, made up pronunciation
great presentation!
thanks, too!
This is not accurate
Deka Im in total agreement with using modern Greek as a tool for the ancient. I disagree with the comments that modern is Greek is a flawed medium and unworthy of reading through it the works of Homer or Plato. The intonation and idiomatic consistency of the language far outweighs the attempt made by Irish and English academics in butchering this beautiful tongue. Can you recommend appropriate modern Greek learning materials as I've been learning attic Greek for about 4 years now in order to read the ancients and though Im progressing in it I have only B2 level of Irish, French and Dutch at best with a high beginners knowledge of Russian and Hebrew. I don't wish to be a dabbler so I intend revisit these languages at a later date but I wish to primarily improve the Greek with modern approach. Can you advise? Kevin
If you think that the reconstructed pronunciation sounds ugly, that's fine, but it's just your personal and subjective opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the reconstructed pronunciation is much more accurate than a modern Greek pronunciation. I personally think that Ancient Greek sounds much more beautiful than modern Greek. I would find it odd to read Homer with Modern Greek pronunciation, that's like reading Chaucer and pronouncing it like Modern English, which is completely wrong and butchers the rhymes and the metre. I don't see how you can call something like that 'idiomatic consistency'. No one ever talked like that. Languages change, that's just a fact. You can either try and reconstruct the old pronunciation, which might not be completely accurate or you can just use the modern pronunciation, which is definitely completely inaccurate.
Hans I take your point but when using the modern Greek approach it should be applying intonation and tone only and read in line with the ancient like for example let's say an Italian for the vulgar and classical Latin or a Dutch person for old English. Granted the Greek has lost certain attributes and mutated somewhat but surely the inhabitants of the area hold more sway over their old glossa than the outsider. Besides the modern Greek is still quite old and dates earlier than a lot of european languages.
Well, it's possible that it might be helpful. On the other hand, these languages changed so much that it might be misleading. Italian for example is very distinct from Latin, in almost every respect. The loss of the distinction between short and long vowels for example gives it a very different flavor, so to speak. It's not even the most conservative Romance language, that would be Sardinian (the only Romance language that has preserved the 'k'-sound of 'c' before 'i' and 'e', among other archaic features).
I don't really know what you mean when you say that the inhabitants of the area should hold more sway over their old language. In the case of Latin that would mean not just Italians, but also people from France, Spain, Romania, etc., and their languages are all very distinct from each other. They all pronounce Latin differently. The way I see it, nationality doesn't matter when it comes to science. And since we're talking about historical linguistics, it's definitely a scientific matter. Of course the Greek will feel more attached to their ancient traditions and that's fine, but it doesn't make their pronunciation of Ancient Greek automatically right.
Hans Mahr As a Greek and an active participant in the living (and ever-changing) social practice that we call "the Greek language", I cannot but stand in awe when some academic, or other language hypochondriac, thinks he knows what is best, or most beautiful. Sure, Homer may rhyme according to your theory, but it is still a theory and not reality. More importantly, you are missing the point completely: the beauty of our language does not come from using the correct pronunciation; a made up thing as our language has always varied through space and time. It comes from its diachronic practice even when it contains "mistakes", from the literature written in it through the millenia, from the concepts, thoughts and values it has carried from our fathers, and their fathers.
I totally agree with you about learning modern Greek before Ancient Greek. As you correctly noted, Greek is a living language that hasn’t differed greatly over time. No one can understand the nuances of Greek as a native speaker can. My Ancient Greek professor in college, Ann Ellis Hanson, a renowned papyrologist who was given the only chair of Ancient Greek at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton before her professorship in Greek and Latin at Yale, used the restored classical pronunciation for classical period literature as well as Homer. But when we would do Koine, such as the New Testament and Lucian, she would ask me to recite so that the class could hear what Greek really sounded like in the 1st-2nd Century. Professor Hanson explained that the process of itacism was nearly complete by then and so Koine was pronounced nearly identically to modern Greek. She confessed that she herself never learned modern Greek, and wished she had, and so alas the restored classical was the only pronunciation she learned. The rest of the class thought that the sound of Koine in modern Greek was beautiful, while the academic restored classical pronunciation sounded to them awkward, artificial and obviously inauthentic. That impressed me because none of them had any previous exposure to modern Greek. Suddenly, the text came to life for them, and they appreciated that Greek was a real language, and not an abstract scientific construct. Let’s face it, hearing restored classical or Erasmian sounds like an English-speaker badly mangling the language. If you ever chuckled listening to an American tourist trying to order at a restaurant in Paris, or in Athens, in his Texan accent, you knew demonstrably that he was not speaking correctly, even if you were not proficient in the native language. “Restored” classical or Erasmian pronunciation sounds ugly, with articulations that are entirely foreign to the Greek language, and that is proof enough that those systems of phonology never existed in nature. It’s amusing to think what Pericles or Demosthenes would say if some American academic went back in time and tried to speak to them using the Erasmian/restored method. I can just imagine the looks on their faces.
Keep up the good work!
I think that the most compelling argument is simply that the modern pronunciation is attested, the reconstructed one is not.
Definitely.
Pakanahymni So I should use the Spanish or French pronounciation for Latin instead of Classical pronouciation just because they are attested? The people who created the reconstructed pronounciation were people who knew what they were talking about, and they understood that people can't pronounce a language in the same way for 3000 years. Pronounciation changes, get it.
Sure its attested - for the way people speak now, 2500 years later. Modern Greek pronunciation is not attested at all for the classical period.
Hi John, I suppose their pronunciation is correct for modern greek, but i agree its not how somebody in the classical period would have pronounced it
No it didn't use B in the same way as modern greek, nor was mp abundant in biblical greek. There is no such thing as "erasmian pronunciation". There is restored pronunciation and it has plenty of scholarship behind it.
The scholars who disregard Modern Greek pronunciation also make horrendous mistakes in translation, which is evidence of their distance from the language. Ancient Greek as it is studied and taught is really just a perpetuation of all the accumulated mistakes of "educated" people whose small minds filtered the language and pompously inflicted it on their students. Mastery of Modern Greek should be a requirement of any PhD in ancient Greek. If they respected the ancient language enough to learn Modern Greek, Cypriot Greek and dialects, scholars would read modern poetry and understand what is said by the silences among the words, feel the lyrics of songs so strongly that they would have to get up and dance, laugh at Greek jokes told in slang, FEEL the untranslatable essence of Greek in how it expresses Greek thought. Non-Greek scholars should appreciate Modern Greek as their portal to ancient Greek. I say, go to Greece and experience life there, then climb into your ivory tower if you must.
What about so-called “historical reconstructions” based on the realization that Erasmian (sp?) Greek is certainly not right but who don’t want to use Modern either, so they look at spelling errors and the like? That’s another way
I have to disagree very strongly. Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are not the same language at all. Just as no one would argue that Modern High German and Old High German are the same language, despite having a continuous literary tradition at least from the 8th century onward. The differendes between the two Greek languages in my view far outnumber their similarities, acutally. Were is the infinitive of Ancient Greek? Where are the simple future and future perfect? Where is the whole perfect stem system? Most of the participles are gone too, as is the largest part of the third declension. No optative anymore. The aorist II? Gone as well, just like the dative. And it is very clear that the pronunciation has changed drastically, too. Not to forget that reading Ancient Greek poetry using modern Greek pronunciation is nearly impossible, as Modern Greek does not have long and short vowels independent of the accent. In a word like Σωκράτης, for example, Modern Greek pronunciation would make the only short (but stressed) vowel long, while the two long vowels ω and η would be shortened since they are unstressed. Basically, the whole system forming the basis of the Ancient Greek language would fall apart. Not to forget that so many endings vital for understanding what’s going on in a Greek sentence would be indistinguishable in Modern Greek pronunciation. Suddenly, βουλεύει, βουλεύοι, βουλεύῃ would all sound the same, which they certainly didn’t at any point within the timeframe normally used in education, i.e. the time from Homer to New Testament Greek. Indeed, I would claim that it is not really necessary (albeit undeniably helpful) to know modern Greek in order to pronounce Ancient Greek in a restored pronunciation, since almost all of Ancient Greek’s features can be learned from other languages as well, like unaspirated (and aspirated) plosives, pitch accent, retracted s. On the other hand, however, I would argue it is rather necessary to know Ancient Greek when trying to understand Modern Greek (as is the case in any language, since an older form of the language isn’t based on the newer one, which is not true vice versa): How would someone know when to use which letter to represent the i-sound, if not by knowing ancient Greek and its rules? And finally, although when speaking Modern Greek, Modern Greek pronunciation is undeniably beautiful and pleasing to hear, the same can’t be said, unfortunately, about applying it to Ancient Greek. A phrase like εἴ μοι ξυνείη, for example, which was pronounced in Classical Attic (noted without retracted s and pitch accent as TH-cam butchers those symbols) as [eː moi̯ ksyneːɛː], would in Modern Greek pronunciation give [i mi ksin'iːi], which is a lot less harmonic. Another example would be Σὺ δ' εἰπέ μοι μὴ μῆκος, which in Modern Greek pronunciation would be rendered as [Si d i'pɛː mi mi 'miːkɔs]. Not to forget that the onomatopoetic sounds of Homer’s sheep (μηκᾶσθαι) and cows (μυκᾶσθαι) would be rather inappropriate and hard to understand when using Modern Greek pronunciation.
may i ask something?πρωτων; μηλας ελληνικά; δεύτερων αν εγώ παω εκτός ελλάδος, στο σχολείο θα διδαχθώ την "αρχαία προφορά η την τωρινή; and last if you dont speack greek i'll translate plz answer....
You slaughtered two languages in as many lines. That was painful to read.
If you want to learn ancient Greek in let's say and American university, you will have to learn the Erasmian pronunciation. You can however find a Greek teacher who can teach you in the modern Greek pronunciation.
Could you please provide examples of those two styles? Perhaps you could read samples from the New Testament in Ancient Greek or the Septuagint, as I am (and I figure other people too are) more familiar with that Greek. I must tell you, however, that I am not really looking forward to hearing the iotacistic, over velarized version of my adored Ancient Greek language.
In another comment I posted a link to this audio recording of the original New Testament
(Greek Orthodox Byzantine Text-Type) read using standard Modern Greek
Pronunciation: www.bible.is/GRKEPT/Matt/1/N
I would point out that iotacism is itself very ancient phenomenon. And "over velarized" is a completely inaccurate way to classify any kind pronunciation. ᾽κ᾽, ᾽γ᾽ and ῾χ᾽ are all velars regardless of whether or not the last two are pronounced as stop consonants. I assume "your adored Ancient Greek language" is restricted to some iteration of Western Restored Pronunciation, with concessions to American English (or whatever variety you prefer). But Ancient Greek was never subject to such restrictions and has always enjoyed a polyphony of dialectical variety, as is the case in Greece today.
I think you are confusing classical greek with koine greek (the greek of the New Testament).At the time of the New Testament the pronunciation was already almost the same with the modern one.There is a reconstructed pronunciation specifically for koine greek from Randall Buth, which is basically the same pronunciation with Modern Greek with two or three differences (i don't remember exactly).So what abbadonnergal told you about iotacism being a very ancient phenomenon according to linguists is correct.And that's why reading koine greek with MG is pretty much accurate but reading it with erasmian or reconstructed for classical is completely wrong
According to Buth the only differences between koine and modern pronunciation is in the pronounciation of these three:υ,οι,η...In MG they are pronounced like /i/ while in koine Buth assumes that the first two are pronounced like the german /ü/ and the third like /e/(even though already from the second century it was pronounced as /i/) As for Pitch accent...are you talking about attic? Because there is not a pitch accent in koine. Ehhhh ....I can;t understand at all what you mean by that:''Is the logic, it existed long ago and must therefore have existed in Ancient Greek exactly the way as it does today Which, according to Buth,is not the case. '' ?Iotacism is the conversion of vowels and diphthongs into /i/.In koine era ΕΙ was already pronounced as /i/,H was pronounced as /i/ after the second century while those that haven't already conversed (υ,οι) were already in the process of becoming /i/... That's the koine pronunciation of Randall Buth :
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Greek_Pronunciation_2008.pdf
As for the pronunciation of "o" it's the same as today, I said that "οι"(όμικρον γιώτα , the diphthong) sounds like German "ü" according to Buth not the "ο" (ομικρον) ...The differences between koine and modern pronunciation is in one diphthong (οι) and one letter (υ),so I don't understand what you wanted to highlight,since the differences are almost non-existent..No I don't suggest to use two different phonological systems ,I agree with "deka glossai". I think the best is to use modern greek pronunciation (which if we take into consideration that is more or less the same for the last 2000 years is not exactly modern) and if someone is interested in linguistics can read the opinion of different linguists about how they assume the pronunciation evolved during the years. Today the students of greek (outside of greece) use the erasmian or the reconstructed attic (from Sidney Allen's vox graeca). Both are specifically for attic greek of the 5th century BC,so you can't use it to read homer,you can't use it to read a text from someone that is not athenian, and definitely you can't use it to read koine (which has almost the same pronunciation with modern greek). What I'm trying to say is that people started to use reconstructed pronunciations supposedly to achieve accuracy but at the same time they had no problem to use both of these systems of pronunciation for any kind of ancient greek text not caring if it was written in the 9th century BC,5th century BC,1th century AD or if it was written in the attic dialect,Ionic dialect, Aeolic dialect etc. So I can't understand why some people are opposing so strongly to the use of modern pronunciation, it's not like what they're using is more accurate... Reconstructions no matter how hard the linguists are trying will always be something artificial and incorrect. It's impossible to find the exact pronunciation of a language with so many different dialects and many different pronunciations from place to place all of which were evolving simultaneously and at their own pace through the passage of time. There is not only one ancient greek pronunciation as there is not only one modern greek pronunciation. Today in greece there are different dialects and even if we have a standard greek pronunciation if you travel you will notice that nowhere in greece the pronunciation is exactly the same with the standard athenian pronunciation...In each place the pronunciation differs from the standard one, to some places these differences are small while in others are bigger.And that is today, that people are travelling all over greece all the time, there is tv,phones etc., in ancient times this phenomenon would only be more intense. Since we won't ever be able to say with 100% certainty the exact pronunciation in ancient times I think the logical thing is to start from the thing that we know for certain and that is the modern greek pronunciation.I don't understand why outside of greece they are taking something that is purely theoretical and they put it into practice even though the result is something that sounds fake and artificial and lacks the natural flow of any real language...I don't understand why in a difficult language like ancient greek you must impose on the students to learn a pronunciation with which they will struggle to pronounce even one sentence and at the end we will never be certain how accurate it is. At the end of the day when you learn a foreign language you want to have some fun with it,to feel like it's part of real life not part of a museum...I think it's better to read different opinions from different linguists so you can see the matter of ancient greek pronunciation from different perspectives and when it comes to actually speak it's better to use modern pronunciation...Eh???Where have I said that greek aren't greek???
I like to study languages as a hobby using Duolingo and supplement with media spoken in the language I'm learning. I became interested in Koine Greek, because it would be cool to be able to read the New Testament in its original language, but was put off because of not knowing how to learn a dead language or what rescourses to use. But then I heard that Koine is actually fairly close to modern Greek and I started looking into it. More and more I'm getting the idea that I could actually learn modern Greek using the same language learning methods I've been using to learn other languages, and then once I have a firm grasp of modern Greek, I could use that to transition into Koine Greek.
Fine! You can read any ancient greek text without dictionnary? How many languages do you know at the moment?
I can read my favorite authors for pleasure without a dictionary (Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides, Thucydides, Herodotus). There are still words that I don't know, and some authors are definitely more difficult.
The languages I know best are English, Ancient Greek, Latin, Russian, German, Italian, and Modern Greek. I can read French, Spanish, and Portuguese literature, but I don't really speak the languages. I also have studied many other languages, such as Polish, Czech, Ukrainian, Icelandic, Dutch, Mandarin, Japanese, and others. Finally, Sanskrit is a constant work in progress for me.
@@dekaglossai How about Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Aristophanes, Pindar, and Theocritus?
Nice job, sincere thanks! By the way the koine greek is acively used by the orthodox church since the early christian era until the contemporary era and uses the modern pronanciation.
Thank you!
Actually most of the dialect is Byzantine Greek that used in the Greek Orthodox Church...use of Koine Greek by the church is limited to the Gospels.
knowing that christianity genocided the native Greeks to convert them we cannot trust that they took good care of our language !!!
Θεόδωρος Ράκκας sorry but katharevousa is not only an artificial modern dialect (that’s why they done away with it), it certainly isn’t Koine
@@69MindOverMatter69 The Slavic invasions in the VII - IX centuries killed and evacuated the original Greek speaking population, but after that almost two-hundred-year period the Byzantine emperors repopulated Greece with Greek-speaking people from Sicily and Asia Minor. Is this the era you are talking about?
You are amazing! I can not thank you enough for this video. And i agree with you.
Thank you!
Thanks for the "living breathing", as of late it feels like anything but.
Hi! I'm very glad to hear someone again stating an easily forgotten point: all greek literature is a continuum which no one should and can forget. One thing makes me stutter about your video. You never talk about real pragmatical (didactical) values of each pronounce. How to deal with many homophones, which the ancient never recognized as same words? And rhythm in poetry? These are real issues that, thinking of reconstructed pronounce as an hermeneutical device which can make real results in appreciation and practical use, the modern pronounce not only makes difficult to deal with but also makes worst. Let me know
2:33 Do you know why "most linguists agree that the restored system is accurate". Do you have any idea what kind of evidence Erasmus and the modern linguists use?
I recently spoke with a guy studying indo-european. He said that the vowelsounds of attic greek is identical to the indo-european vowels. Sadly I didn't ask him how it's possible to know anything about a language of which we have neither texts, nor recordings.
The restored system is "accurate" in relation to Attic Greek insofar as certain ancient texts (especially poetry in dactylic hexameter) play on distinctions between long vs short vowels/diphthongs that gradually became homophonous in the Hellenistic period (through iotacism/vowel shifts). So someone at some point in history may have used a similar pronunciation system. But throughout history Greek has always been pronounced with whatever pronunciation was standard for its time, region and class (education level). An analogy with English would be the silent letters that used to be pronounced (e.g. night), but are now only preserved in orthography. If people in some country were to learn English by pronouncing ALL of its silent letters, and by pronouncing vowels the way they sounded prior to the great vowel shift, it could have some benefit in learning how to spell correctly. But that's about all it would accomplish and nobody would ever argue that such a system is more "correct" for reading Shakespeare, for example (though Germanic philologists often employ the technique for older English texts). Erasmian pronunciation thrives because it's simply easier to understand exactly which vowels and diphthongs are being used when Greek is read/spoke out-loud; because every letter has a unique phoneme. It's an ironic preoccupation for people with no interest in learning the modern language, because they're admittedly only interest in reading comprehension, which doesn't really benefit from Erasmian pronunciation at all, IMO.
I would recommend that you read something about historical linguistics and the methods that are used in this field of science. For people who don't know much about this stuff it often seems completely unbelievable that we can know anything about the way ancient languages sounded, especially in the case of reconstructed languages like PIE. But the fact is that language is not random. There's a lot of stuff that can be predicted based on the evidence we have, that's why we can postulate sound-change laws like Verner's law for Proto-Germanic for example. You could start reading the Wikipedia page on Proto-Indo-European and continue from there. It will explain how it's possible to reconstruct languages and pronunciations.
I'll just try to give a few examples on the kind of evidence that historical linguists use, but I'll use Latin as an example because I know more about it than about Ancient Greek. The pronunciation of the letter 'c' is probably most notorious when it comes to Latin. When we say 'Caesar' today we pronounce it as a kind of 's' sound but in Latin (at least in the Republican era) it was pronounced 'k'. The most obvious evidence for that can be found in Latin and Greek literature. Cicero for example writes his name in Greek with a 'k'. Plutarch does the same when he writes in Greek about Romans. Another type of evidence for the ancient pronunciation of Latin are graffiti written by people who made spelling mistakes (writing by ear). There are for example Latin graffiti from the early imperial period in which the word 'hic' (here) was written 'ic'. This implies that the 'h' was silent in Vulgar Latin at that time. There's however a list of corrections by a teacher that survived, in which he wrote down that it should be 'hic', not 'ic', so that we can assume that the 'h' originally wasn't silent. Another important source of evidence are the modern descendents of Latin, i.e. the Romance languages. By comparing them (Comparative Linguistics), we can draw all kinds of conclusions about the pronunciation of Latin because, as I've said, language change isn't random.
Of course, there will always be a bit of uncertainty, especially when it comes to languages like PIE for which we have no records, but the amount of knowledge we have is still quite remarkable.
@Hans Mahr - You admit that "it's possible that (implementing Modern Greek Pronunciation) might be helpful...but also might be misleading". Nobody is trying to mislead anyone into thinking that Modern Greek pronunciation is more "historically accurate" than the Restored System. It's a question of whether or not historical accuracy actually contributes to foreign language acquisition. One could argue that Modern Greek pronunciation IS in fact more accurate for Biblical Greek in particular. But despite that, unfortunately, seminary students continue to use the Restored Pronunciation System, simply because it's the normative paradigm in Western academia. It's what all of the teachers use and students just tow the line by default. And most of them simply map their own accent onto the Restored Pronunciation (so Americans sound like Americans, Brits sound like Brits, Germans sound like Germans, etc). The result is most often grating to listen to, especially for those who speak Modern Greek, which is almost universally disregarded by teachers of Ancient Greek. In fact I've had Greek professors advise me NOT to learn Modern Greek at all because it would undoubtedly "confuse" me. It's an unfortunate double standard. Promoting the use of Modern Greek pronunciation is not about what is "right" and "wrong", or how much "sway the inhabitants Greece should have over their old language". You're missing the point; and you're in the overwhelming majority of people who miss the point. This video is about the pragmatism of leveraging the modern, living language as a tool for developing verbal skills that greatly enhance learning the ancient dialect. This works much more effectively for Greek than it would for Italian vs Latin, for example, because Greek has a much stronger continuity. This channel is all about foreign language acquisition. The author is a bona fide polyglot with a command of, presumably, 10 languages! So that should give him at least some credibility. He's promoting a diachronic approach to learning Ancient & Modern Greek in conjunction, employing Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek. I used the same approach and I can attest that it's actually VERY effective. I'm also perfectly comfortable using the Restored System whenever it suits me, either for poetry or for engaging with people who are limited to the Western system. It's important to be aware of it, and it even deepens ones understanding of Modern Greek. But historical linguistics shouldn't dictate norms of pronunciation in language pedagogy, IMO. In fact If it weren't for Erasmus (and for the fact that the Greeks were a stateless, subjugated, isolated people for so long) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Modern scholarship of Ancient Greek has developed over a long period of time in a linguistic vacuum; resulting in this diglossia we experience today. Think about this: everyone out there reading and performing Shakespeare in modern British/American accents, from a historical linguistic perspective, are just dead "wrong". They're pronouncing the text incorrectly. They often don't adhere properly to the meter and don't rhyme words correctly. By your logic they should all be using a restored pronunciation system for Shakespearean English. But that's simply not practical for teaching, reading and performing Shakespeare. That paradigm is probably never going to shift. But perhaps there's still hope for a paradigm shift in Ancient Greek pedagogy.
abbadonnergal "It's a question of whether or not historical accuracy actually contributes to foreign language acquisition."
It's certainly not harmful. And if you're learning Ancient Greek to read the Classics, it's definitely advisable to pronounce it like the Ancient Greeks pronounced it themselves, especially when we're talking about poetry.
"One could argue that Modern Greek pronunciation IS in fact more accurate for Biblical Greek in particular. But despite that, unfortunately, seminary students continue to use the Restored Pronunciation System, simply because it's the normative paradigm in Western academia."
Well, that's not the problem of the pronunciation itself but a teaching problem. When I read ancient texts, I definitely try to pronounce them like they were pronounced when they were written. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to one pronunciation.
"The result is most often grating to listen to, especially for those who speak Modern Greek, which is almost universally disregarded by teachers of Ancient Greek."
But is it really important how it sounds to Modern Greek ears? Old English sound really weird to Modern English speakers, that's just the nature of language change. And that people from other countries will have accents is completely normal, that's just a given.
"This video is about the pragmatism of leveraging the modern, living language as a tool for developing verbal skills that greatly enhance learning the ancient dialect. This works much more effectively for Greek than it would for Italian vs Latin, for example, because Greek has a much stronger continuity."
And I never said anything against learning Modern Greek to enhance your experience of Ancient Greek. But I don't see how it helps to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek. When I read Homer, I want to read Homer, not some modernized hybrid-version of Homer. I want to get as close to the original sound as possible. And while it's true that Modern Greek is more conservative than Italian for example, Ancient Greek is still very different from the modern language, especially when we're talking about Homer.
"The author is a bona fide polyglot with a command of, presumably, 10 languages! So that should give him at least some credibility. He's promoting a diachronic approach to learning Ancient & Modern Greek in conjunction, employing Modern Greek pronunciation for Ancient Greek. I used the same approach and I can attest that it's actually VERY effective."
I'm also a polyglot, I don't see what this has to do with anything. He's still pronouncing Ancient Greek wrong. As I've said: it may certainly help to learn both Ancient and Modern Greek at the same time (although from my experience, learning two very similar languages or two forms of a language at the same time almost always leads to confusion). But why does it help to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek? If you're able to learn 10 languages, you'll certainly be able to pronounce two different versions of a language in different ways. I've learned Old Norse and since Modern Icelandic is extremely conservative, this means I've also learned Modern Icelandic. While there's not been much of a change on a grammatical level, the pronunciation has changed dramatically. So when I read an Old Norse saga, I'll pronounce it differently than when I read an Icelandic newspaper. I just try to pronounce every language like it is or was actually pronounced by native speakers, even if they are all dead.
"In fact If it weren't for Erasmus (and for the fact that the Greeks were a stateless, subjugated, isolated people for so long) we wouldn't even be having this discussion."
That's not true because the modern reconstructed pronunciation, while very similar to that of Erasmus, is based on evidence gained through the methods of historical linguistics.
"Modern scholarship of Ancient Greek has developed over a long period of time in a linguistic vacuum; resulting in this diglossia we experience today."
No, the diglossia is a result of over two millennia of language change.
"Think about this: everyone out there reading and performing Shakespeare in modern British/American accents, from a historical linguistic perspective, are just dead "wrong". They're pronouncing the text incorrectly."
That's true, but when we talk about Shakespeare, we're talking about a slightly different form of Modern English, as opposed to the fundamental differences between Ancient and Modern Greek. A better comparison would be to Chaucer and in that case, modern English speakers actually use Middle English pronunciation when they read him. A native speaker of Modern Greek has to learn Ancient Greek if he wants to understand Homer. He basically has to treat it like a foreign language, even though it will be easier for him than for a native German speaker for example. And if he learns about new grammar and new syntax rules, he can just as well learn about the differences in pronunciation. You seem to draw an arbitrary distinction between the phonological component of a language and the other components, like morphology, syntax, etc. The student will learn about the latter components that are unfamiliar to him, but when it comes to phonology he should just use a completely wrong approach because it doesn't matter? Because it's more convenient? Those are not very good reasons.
Thanks for the thoughtful, cogent explanation. You have some good points and you're obviously very knowledgeable on the subject. It's an important discussion to have, even though we seem to be talking past each other a lot. You do have an objective, scientific standard for your definition of which system is "right" vs "wrong"; theoretical historical linguistic accuracy. And Modern Greek pronunciation is admittedly NOT historically accurate in relation to many earlier dialects; or, for that matter, in relation to all other non-standard modern dialects of Greek. So you have a totally valid position. Your comments reinforce the fact that the Restored Pronunciation in the West is a juggernaut of a paradigm that may never be dethroned. But is there really no middle ground?
By your logic everyone in Greece who pronounces older texts with their native pronunciation is just "wrong". I'm curious, do you think they should correct this and start using Restored Pronunciation across the board? Or are they exempt somehow? Or does it even matter? What about all of the Greeks who lived between the classical and modern periods, before the advent of modern Historical Linguistics? From the Hellenistic period through the the Middle Ages the Greeks simply read ancient texts exactly the way they spoke? And they were all "wrong" the whole time, right? Or is it unfair to cast such judgement retroactively, since the modern standard hadn't yet been invented? It just seems like such a high horse that modern linguistics has provided for us to invent a new standard and then completely subsumed the longstanding tradition. So as soon as we were able to determine what Attic probably sounded like, we had to change the way Attic literature was read for over a millennium in Greece and Byzantium. Why is that the one and only solution? I know you probably see it as "progress". But that's what I can't seem to wrap my head around.
When I (mis)used the term "diglossia" I was NOT referring to the actual differences between Ancient and Modern Greek; a natural byproduct of linguistic change. I was referring to the two competing systems of pronunciation inside and outside of Greece. That is the result of a historical, geographical and cultural disconnect from the Greek-speaking world. The Greeks got along just fine without Restored Pronunciation. For example, they've always managed to mark rough and smooth breathing without actually aspirating the vowels. There's nothing wrong with aspirating vowels with rough breathing marks. But I just can't fathom why it's WRONG not to aspirate, according to your logic.
You didn't address my question about people who teach/study Koine Greek. But you did admit that it is a "teaching problem". So in your opinion, should Restored Pronunciation be employed for Koine Greek? Or should it be abolished in favor of a reconstructed Koine pronunciation? Or would Modern Greek pronunciation be acceptable for Koine? Should earlier Koine texts be pronounced differently from later Koine texts, to accurately represent the phonological changes that took place at each stage of the language's development? Should Restored Pronunciation be used for Homeric Greek? Should Homeric Greek be read with a proper, reconstructed pitch accent? Historical linguists have not been able to adequately reconstruct how the pitch accent is supposed to sound. So you still have to compromise and draw the line somewhere. True "accuracy" is untenable. You described it perfectly: "You can either try and reconstruct the old pronunciation, which might not be completely accurate or you can just use the modern pronunciation, which is definitely completely inaccurate." So if what you're describing is a lose-lose scenario, why should Modern Greek pronunciation be off limits or taboo? One thing you can say for certain, and I'm sure you'll agree, is that Restored Pronunciation is WRONG for Modern Greek. There's already a precedent for the universal application of Modern Greek pronunciation across the entire spectrum, whether you agree with it or not. Because that's what they do in Greek. So why should Restored Pronunciation be applied universally if it's no more suitable for non-Attic dialects than Modern Greek pronunciation?
You said, "I don't see how it helps to pronounce Ancient Greek like Modern Greek" and "I don't see why we should limit ourselves to one pronunciation." I specifically said "It's important to be aware of (Restored Pronunciation), and it even deepens ones understanding of Modern Greek." So what I'm suggesting is that BOTH systems should be taught. But teaching should be anchored in one system for consistency; and, believe it or not, Modern Pronunciation CAN actually be more effective for beginning students of Greek. I know, from personal experience, that Modern Greek pronunciation promotes verbal fluency in a way that Restored Pronunciation does not. If you establish Modern Greek pronunciation as the basis, it's easy to switch over to Restored Pronunciation. But I think it's much harder for people to go the other way around.
For a beginning student of Greek (especially autodidacts who aren't required to use a particular system) using Modern Pronunciation gives them a back door into the living language. Yes, it is convenient to use Modern Greek pronunciation and yes, that is a good enough reason to do it! Convenience is a very important, time saving component when learning a foreign language. As a polyglot, I'm sure you know how much time you need to achieve fluency in a language. And any method that cuts down on those hours should be taken advantage of; whatever facilitates the language acquisition process most effectively. At the end of the day the goal is to read and understand ancient texts. And if you're able to read them out-loud comfortably, it really doesn't matter what system you use. Because nobody is going back to Ancient Athens in a time machine to impress the locals with Restored Pronunciation. It's just a theoretical exercise. But Modern Greek pronunciation has a strong practical component.
There are just certain practical things you can absorb from exposure to a living, spoken language that you can't get from a dead, written
language using a theoretically reconstructed pronunciation. Just a few examples off of the top of my head: A student can actually listen to a native speaker to pick up subtleties in pronunciation, many of which are completely applicable to Ancient Greek (i.e. pronunciation of proclitic/enclitics and the resulting double accents on the words they lean against). Rising intonation for interrogative sentences is also very helpful to pick up from native speakers. Hearing and mimicking alternating voicing and de-voicing of consonants in various positions is also very helpful. The way the Greeks maintain vowel quality through multi-syllabic words, in all positions, is very helpful to pick up (for English speakers whose vowels often weaken in unstressed positions). There are certain phonemes, such as liquid consonants, that are really helpful to pick up from native Greeks. Λ is a perfect example: most people who use Restored Pronunciation simply use the approximate L sound from their native language. But the English L is simply not identical to the Greek Λ. A proper Greek L requires a degree of fronting and palatalization that most non-Greeks, using Restored Pronunciation, make little effort to achieve. For example, most people I know using Restored Pronunciation pronounce λόγος as if they were saying "log on" (in English) with an "s" at the end. It just sounds horrible! You just have to call a spade a spade sometimes and admit when people are butchering Greek because they just don't care to even try to pronounce to pronounce it as if it were a foreign language.
Lastly, I'll just cite a few references for you, or anyone else interested in exploring the scholarship on this topic further:
Constantine Campbell's "Advances in the Study of Greek" (Ch.9 - Pronunciation)
Geoffrey Horrocks' "Greek A History of the Language and Its Speakers"
Robert Browning's "Medieval & Modern Greek"
I strongly agree that the use of modern pronunciation to ancient text is best way. Simply because Eramos' pronunciation is artificial.
eh, that's kinda like saying old English should be pronounced in modern English, obviously different but same. As a non-academic it sounds too much like standardization for practicality's sake.
Interesting video and perspective though I prefer Erasmian/Reconstructed Classical Pronunciation.
i agree that continuity is a valuable belief to instill for a living culture which has A LOT of historical precedence to effectively manage and bestow upon its posterity.
However, too much perceived continuity can also become a bad thing. If continuity is overemphasized, it can drive people the other way in thinking that there was never any change. That would just go against the nature of how cultures mutate and adapt over time, and it could blind them to changes happening in contemporary settings.
Perhaps the best thing would indeed be to teach ancient texts with modern pronunciation, and then simply keep students open-minded towards the possibility that the language may have been pronounced differently back then. After all, English students don't recite Shakespeare using contemporaneous OP, but they do have an idea that it likely didn't sound as it does when they read it aloud in the modern day. Students of both languages could always try it out for fun, of course.
Last thing. I know Erasmian pronunciation has quite a number of flaws, but I also can't help feel a little annoyed at people who are against Erasmian for the particular reason of "it doesn't sound as nice/smooth". Like, seriously? I'm pretty sure no language "has" to sound nice for it to be real. There are plenty of languages in this wider world which do not have a smooth "Euro-lang" feel to them, but are very real nonetheless.
As a Greek i approve this message. Great work δέκα γλώσσαι!
obviously greek has not changed its phonology in 1000 years! come on no language has!
The pronunciation of Erasmus don't works in Greece or Cyprus!Believe me.
@@nexusanphans3813 Great reply :)
I love how the entirety of the rest of the world decided that one non native dudes teaching of ancient Greek has the pronunciation right while Greece is learning it in a completely different way. Its sad because Greeks cant understand you at all and are mostly angry and confused that something so close to their tradition is incomprehensible when a non native tries to embrace it.
The Erasmian pronunciation is scientifically untenable. If anyone is interested, I highly recommend the following (though as yet unfinished) website:
attic.kanlis.com
Modern greek sounds like spanish. I dont want no part of that.
I am interested in homer not in despacito
Came to hear Ancient Greek; only heard Latin. :(
oooh! you're right!!! you convinced me and blown my mind in the process
I think hearing the ancient language is fascinating and would prefer learning that, rather than simply another modern language with less connection even if it is a descendant
Yeah, I'm going to be using a modified form of Lucian pronunciation. Modern Greek vowels have collapsed way too much to be viable for pronunciation. And I already speak modern Greek to a sufficient level to not be confused..
The Greek I'm most interested in, is that of historians Thucydides, Xenophon, and Demosthenes. Secondarily, I'm interested in the Greek of playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes. In one of Plato's books, Ion makes a living by reciting Homer's epics. I'd imagine the Greek of Ion was similar to that of Euripides or Aristophanes. Euripides because his active period was roughly the same as Socrates' period. Aristophanes because his active period overlaps with that of both Plato and Socrates. Whether Ion's Greek was more like Euripides' or Aristophanes' largely depends on the creative license taken by Plato. Another consideration is the degree to which Ion adapted his Greek to match that of Attic Greek. It would have been in his best interest to be as intelligible to imperial Athens as much as possible, since he depended on them to make a living.
I whole-heartedly agree with you! But, can the same Modus Discendi, Docendi, et Loquendi: the Mode of Learning, Teaching, and Speaking, have the very same efficacious Result with Classical Latin? For LATIN is not ITALIAN, nor SPANISH, nor FRENCH, nor ROMANIAN and Vice Versa!
But the modern Greek pronunciation divorces it from the script. It is like Thai, where you have many more letters than sounds. I say this as a person who is half Greek and somewhat fluent at it.
Compared to English or French, Greek is still much more uniform and consistent in its spelling system. I think alot of people seem to forget that.
The problem is that the Ancient Greek contained motivational qualities which were mostly found in the vowel complexity, as the society lost these sounds so did the civilisation fall. See th-cam.com/video/yMYiJ4eC7l8/w-d-xo.html So your conviction that modern pronunciation should be used is questionable.
Good video
This isn't accurate. Greek language spans three millennia. And it DID change during that time. So, I ageee that reading koine greek (III century BC) in Erasmian pronunciation is a silly anachronism. Yet the pronounciation wasn't exactly the modern one (although closer). H (ita) remains eta well late into Byzantine times, for example. On the other hand, reading Homer in modern pronunciation is pure folly, and rather difficult too, if read in proper metric. What should be right is to teach both and adapt to the age of the text, keeping the birth of koine as a rough border between the two. But, I see your point. After all, in very few schools we read Shakespeare in his old pronunciation. We read it in modern English. So I d agree, if it wasn't for Greek tragedy and Homer, two signature staples of ancient Greek culture, that simply can't (for practical reasons) be read in the modern way, least the metre be completely lost
I agree and would argue the same for the pronunciation of Latin. An additional argument is that it is easier to actually learn Latin and Greek if they are taught like living languages instead of dead ones. You will get a feel for these languages if you get used to hearing and speaking them. Just reading is not enough.
PS At school I was often scolded for pronouncing Latin like a Catholic, but now I know the language much better than my old class mates.
So... nobody knows how Ancient Greek is pronounced. Too bad. I wanted to know how to say "Abraxas".
Very interesting video!! I fully agree with you. I also first learnt Modern Greek and now I’m studying Ancient Greek. I can definitely say that reading Ancient Greek is way easier if you have studied Modern Greek.
I guess you use Modern Greek pronunciation?
@@miklosnemeth8566 yes I do
Γαμβρός= Γαμπρός, Εμβαινω= μπαίνω. Δεν βγάζει νόημα η προφορά στα νέα ελληνικά αν το β δεν είναι b στα αρχαία.
I completely disagree with you. I learned and love Modern Greek, but using this pronunciation for Classical is as close to blasphemy as I'm willing to accept the concept. Modern Greeks are not the best sources to go for Ancient, precisely for the bias. Our teachers in uni even told us that if you want scholarship on Classical Greek, you go to the French or the Germans, not the modern-day Greeks. If Erasmus' reconstruction is more accurate than the modern pronunciation, it's still worth pursuing. If he chose to pronounce modern himself, that's his business, but I care about what's actually accurate.
Also, I don't see the ancient pagan cultures and the Byzantine Christian culture to be compatible at all. Conversion to Christianity was not natural, but forced. The Christians wanted to destroy pagan civilization. They burned their books. They stole materials from the old temples to build churches. The pronunciation changes that are in effect to this day happened in the Hellenistic era, which is why the modern pronunciation is used by the Church. By all means, use modern to read Hellenistic and Byzantine literature. I see it as an insult to use it to read Homer. The language may have had a seamless evolution, but the culture did not, and I choose to honor that. I choose to honor the Ancients by pronouncing their language as close as possible to the original as we can figure out how.
Guys using the erasmian (false pronounciation) the ancient greek poems of odyssey iliad all the tragedies comedies and all the written things we found sound like nonsense that means nothing and the poems dont sound good. So stop using that pronounciation its false. Erasmus did this thing because the westerners cant say some greeks words and compilations of words so they can use it. Im so sad they are trying to do such bad things.
I don't use any "Erasmian" pronunciation, I don't even know or care how Erasmus used to pronounce Greek. I use an ANCIENT pronunciation. "Erasmian" is a straw man.
absolutely top notch video and very educational ! thanks a lot for your input
So we should pronounce Chaucer's language as some form of Estuary English dialect, just to make it easier for students ? I think not. If people could get away with pronouncing languages incorrectly, then we could all learn them more easily.....
I think his point was that greek is a very conservative langauge unlike English so it didn't change that much
@@oussematrabelsi9429 it still did change quite a bit
I’ve never heard a more Americanized pronunciation of Latin and Greek than in this video.
With respect, Ancient Greek was NOT pronounced as modern Greek. Take something like the betacism, pronouncing a B like a V the way modern Greeks do. That started in 200AD.
In ancient Greek a verse with a B rhymed with other letters sounding like a B, and after 200AD, in verses words with a B rhymed with other words containing V.
The only people who think ancient Greek sounded like modern Greek are some foreigners and most uneducated Greeks.
Try to connect a bigger picture in your mind. Languages, all languages change at a furious rate like a fractal branching off.
Study some basics in proto language reconstructions and you will see that a language like ancient Hittite sounded modern Arabic mixed with modern Kurdish and some Turkish. The Anatolian languages today still make heavy use of the Hittite š, (sh), modern Turkish S̩. A complex, slow, unwieldy language branches off into subgroups and quickens over millenia, certainly.
Shakespeares reconstructed Elizabethan English rhymes only work if the language sounds like a mix between modern Irish and English West country dialect.
The same way it is only logical that ancient Greek has many sounds that to a modern listener would sound almost like modern Adriatic even Polish. Sh, Cz, etc. Greater inflection, more melody. More arduous to speak for a modern person.
Languages are entropic, they always split from a whole, never recombine. At the same time they quicken over time.
If you read Plutarch, then Xenophon it makes perfect sense that ancient Greek was a very nuanced and laborious language to speak (for a modern person) that sounds like Greek mixed with Slavic sounds.
Modern Greek sounds like a monotonic machine gun compared to it. And that makes sense. Languages branch off and simplify over time.
This video will explain it: th-cam.com/video/yCv5dK1DOgw/w-d-xo.html
Video title "how should ancient greek be pronounced" contains no pronunciations
The title question is answered because it contains a recommendation to use Modern Greek pronunciation.
There are slight differences between Erasmian and restored classical. Primarily the letters Θ, Φ and Χ. These mostly assumed their present values by the Koine period. However, υ (and οι) and η had not become “iotacized” yet. Pronouncing Koine Greek with a modern accent confuses words like “υμιν” and “ημιν” and “τοίχος” and “τειχος”, among others. Erasmian pronunciation was never used by Greek speakers anywhere. This leaves three historical pronunciation schemes: Restored Classical, Koine and Modern (for Modern Greek, NOT Ancient Greek). Only, please, please if you read Ancient Greek DON’T use an American or British accent!! It sounds like fingernails on a blackboard!! Ευχαριστώ πολύ!