Talk:Greek language/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This article is weird

In the "info-box" it says that Greek is a minority language in parts Italy and Albania but in the article it self it says that it's a minority language in Italy, Albania and Turkey... So which is it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.47.54 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

The links to http://www.uoxantiqua.com/ in the literature section, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform in the dictionaries section and the link to Lorem Ipsum in the typography section seem dead. --213.66.0.38 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Need help

Can someone with expertise in the Greek language check the Greek word I've added in the first paragraph of Ennead for spelling and accuracy? Thanks, Badagnani 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the diminutive suffix in Greek? Crazy 29 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

-άκι (changes gender to neutral), for persons: -άκης (masc.), -ούλα (fem.) Andreas ^(T) 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

also - ίτσα (fem.) and sometimes -ούτσικος -ούτσικη, -ούτσικο (the latter forming dimunitives of adjectives) All mentioned so far are modern greek suffixes. In classical greek a dimunitive suffix is (-ίδιον) or sometimes just (-ιον), both changing gender to neuter. Ε.g.: παππίδιον, μαμμίδιον, ιχθύδιον, λιθίδιον (daddy, mommy, little fish, little stone). Third declension nouns ending in ξ, use the dimunitive form -άκιον as in μειράκιον, κοράκιον (early adolescent, little crow). The modern greek -άκι continues this morphology. In classical greek there is also -ίσκος (masc.) as in παιδίσκος (=preschooler) Yannos 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Diminutives permeate the Greek language, and are formed with many suffixes and substantial regional variations. To the above I would add -ουλης, -ουλα, -ουλι in all three genders (as in μικρούλης, probably Byzantine Latin influence), -ακος (φοιτητάκος, likely Venetian influence), plus the regional -ουδι (Thrace, Thasos, Chalkidiki, Eastern Romylia) and -ελι (Crete, Ionian Islands, Lesbos, likely Venetian influence, also -rarer- -ελος and -ελα), plus male first name diminutive suffixes -ιτσος (Κίτσος; Slavic influence), -ουτσος (Ανδρούτσος--likely Venetian influence), -ικας (Γιωρίκας--in Pontian dialect) and -ικος (Αντρίκος, Σολομωνίκος--possible Ladino influence from Sephardic Jewish population).

In addition, countless modern Greek words were formed, starting in late Hellenistic and mediaeval times from koine originals through diminutive suffixes, as in -ι, -αρι, -ιδι, -αφι (παιδί, χορτάρι, λεπίδι, χρυσάφι). All these originally had -ον at the end. This ending is preserved in the Pontian dialect (παιδίον) and, in part, the Cypriot dialect (παιδίν).

There are probably more current and historical diminutive suffixes, especially in regional dialects.

In recent years the tendency to use diminutives, especialy by women and children, has strengthened to the point that some will utter scarcely a noun without one, and a few people have started expressing distaste at what could be called a creeping infantilization of the language. Yp57 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Special Ancient Greek characters

Can I ask those who think of themselves as "average MSIE users" to help us evaluating the usability of different fonts @ special Ancient Greek characters? If some of you would like to help, please check this out. --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamma+Kappa befor [e] and [i]

I would prefer [[ɲɟ] by assimilation. However, a source would be needed for either version. Andreas ^(T) 12:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthography???

Why is the section concerning orthography enterely dedicated to pronounciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.65.1.187 (talk • contribs)

Hi, good question. I can see what you mean. I guess the idea was for it to treat the relation between sound and orthography, but it could be done better. Feel free to edit if you have good ideas how to organise it better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

Couple of months back I proposed a large restructuring of the Greek-related articles (see #Big restructuring needed? above.) The responses were largely positive but I never found the time and energy of actually doing it. Do you mind if I go ahead and do it now? I've also checked the objections brought forward against similar plans last year by User:Peter Isotalo - it was apparently just this one editor, and I now believe his objections don't stand against the consensus that emerged here, but I've asked him again for his input too, as Andreas suggested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Discussion continued in section above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Linear B

Britannica [1] says language attested from 14th c. BC. More importantly, Brian Joseph (Ohio State University) says [2] "the earliest [Linear B tablets] coming from Knosos on Crete (where Mycenaeans had overcome the local Minoan rulers) dating from the 14th century BC".--Michkalas 13:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a source for Vedic Sanskrit?--ΚέκρωΨ 13:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There is something good: the section "Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit)" [3] from Brian D Joseph & Hans H Hock, Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics, Berlin and NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. At p.55, [4] there is also reference to linear B attestation.--Michkalas 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] Re. Linear B: FWIW, F. Bader in Langues indo-européennes, p.11, speaks of 15th-13th centuries, noting that these datings are subject to debate; G. Horrocks in Greek: A history..., p.3, puts its beginnings to "sometime towards the end of the sixteenth century BC." As for Sanskrit, my understanding is that the dates are even more hypothetical, because they refer to the age at which the oldest known works of literature took shape, orally; they were apparently written down much later. The person to ask for confirmation would be User:Dbachmann. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Britannica put Mycenaean at the same time period as Hittite, that is 14th c. BC. However there are Linear B inscriptions dating from 1500 BC [5], so it's possible that some of those sources are outdated. Earliest Hittite and Sanskrit also generally date from 1500 BC. Miskin 14:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The current formulation is probably the one to go with. "Matched" instead of "preceded by" is a good way of avoiding the "mine is bigger than yours" argument entirely.--ΚέκρωΨ 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The best references we've seen so far (Joseph/Hocks, Bader, Horrocks) differ from each other by about a century (c.1500 - c.1400), and Bader explicitly acknowledges incertainty. That means I wouldn't rely too much on the apparent certainty expressed in that Perlman webpage, which isn't technically a "reliable source" anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably in Britannica there is a difference between the estimated period the language was spoken and the date of the linear B tablets. True, the exact datings are a subject of debate. But we cannot take into consideration the earliest possible dating estimations we can find about Greek and the latest possible about the other languages. Hittite language texts date from at least 17th c. BC [6] For Sanskrit, the texts available are consedered to represent at least the 15th c. BC language (see the reference above). Like the homeric poems, the language represented it is not considered being that of the time the text were written down. --Michkalas 14:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also the Kafkania_pebble. It's fair to keep them on the same level, as most sources do. Miskin 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Most sources do? The first link of the article says it is a possible forgery, the second says it is XV century b.C. Not to mention your previous argument "a wikipedia article is not a source".--Michkalas 15:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't really care. Miskin 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made a change based on "matched". Just for the record, FPaS, Horrocks in Greek: A history..., p.3, puts to "sometime towards the end of the sixteenth century BC." the beginnings of the Mycenaean civilization not the first attestation of Mycenaen language/linear B. But, OK, the issue is controversial.--Michkalas 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually ANY viable proof that Linear B was used by the Hellene tribes that migrated to the region sometime after it lapsed from use due to extinction of its user culture? It is neither scientific nor logical to make the assumption that a language was 'rediscovered' because linguists since late 19th century CE know only too well how difficult it is to rediscover a dead language, particularly for a culture that had no concept of writing prior to arrival in the area. I would suggest that the linkage of Ancient Greek writing usage from 9th century BCE to Linear B should not be in the article as it is misleading.--Mrg3105 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia

Since this is an English language Wikipedia, I think the fact that both the US and the UK (the biggest english speaking countries in the world) recognize the "ΠΓΔΜ - FYROM" under its constitutional name does make a difference regarding this matter, and even though this article is related to Greece, "FYROM" should be replaced with Macedonia (or Republic of Macedonia, to prevent mix-ups between the greek region and the country) and the source that the user Telex gave us refers to "FYROM" as Macedonia. To my personal opinion is that if this wouldn't be changed, this wikipedia would be a nationalist place where every nationality is NOT equaly treated, let alone a sovereign country. Guitardemon666 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course, your own nationalism would have nothing to do with this at all, would it?--ΚέκρωΨ 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the UK does not recognize the "constitutional name" of this state, and nor do Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The UN doesn't either, and according to the Greek Foreign Minister, Dora Bakoyannis: "...the Hellenic Parliament, under any composition, will not ratify the accession of the neighbouring country to the EU and NATO if the name issue is not resolved beforehand" [7], so quite obviously, the name FYROM is not unheard of or rarely used in the English language, nor does it seem to be dissapearing. --Tzekai 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek in Wikipedia

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Greek (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek language as an Indo-European language

I disagree that Greek language is one of the Indo-European family. I actually disagree that the Indo-European family indeed existed or is an unscientific solution to scientific deadlocks but this is another discussion. I want only to mention that Indo-European theory was a Hitler-time "invention" to support the superiority of the Arie in contrary with the Slavs Communists of Russia.

From the time that Linear A and Arcadocypriot are the ancestors of Linear B and the written Greek Language and if we take for ground that Minoan Cretans were not an Indo-European tribe then how is Greek Language linking with the Indo-European family. I agree that Greek Language may be a "loan" from the Phoenicians as Herodotus also says, but a more careful study to Linear A and B will convince as that this "loan" is actually a loan of a loanword. That means that Phoenicians "borrowed" Linear A during their trade relations with Minoan Cretans, "work it out" and then during the Mycenaean or during the First Greek Expansion, when they came in touch with the Greek people again, gave back the "new" language. In supporting to this is the example of Cyprus (a part of the Greek nation where Greeks and Phoenicians always coexisted in some analogies) where Linear A and Linear B developed to the dialect known as Arcadocypriot which remain in use until about the classical era.

So my points are that Indo-European language family did never exist and that Greek language is not one of its languages (you will have to choose whether it is an Indo-European language or it is Phoenician) and that Greek language is a develop from the languages of Minoan Cretans and prior to them the ProtoHellenic tribes. The question is logic. Why do we have to search the roots of Greek language away from Greece? What makes as believe that the language of ProtoHellenes, Minoan Cretans and Mycenaeans by a magic way disappeared and gave its sit to an imaginary Ino-European language communty or to a Phoenician invention? —preceding unsigned comment by 80.1.72.245 (talk • contribs)

This is original research, and therefore does not belong in the Wikipedia. --Macrakis 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a significant bias in the article which contradicts linguistic discipline as a whole, and logic in particular. Development of Greek is presented as something evolved in 1) a linguistic vacuum through efforts of Greeks alone, and 2) as the most sophisticated system of communication available. None of these suggestiosn are logicaly true. Firstly it is commonly attested that the Hellene/Greek in "The modern English adaptation of Greek is derived from the Latin Graecus, which in turn originates from Greek Γραικός (Graikos), the name of a Boeotian tribe that migrated to Italy in the 8th century BC, and it is by that name the Hellenes were known in the West." This is confirmed by general study of the area in the ancient times that attests to significant population movements that continued with arrival of other Ionian tribes, Scythian tribes, Celts, Goths, etc. There is no evidence that nomadic populations anywhere on the globe and throughout history had been able to develop writing on their own. However there are ample examples of nomads borrowing writing. In fact there were several societies in the region which had writing, yet there is no mention of Ionian tribes borrowing from them although in example of the Japanese it has been estimated that 60% of their current vocabulary is borowed. Secondly the Greek language is not as sophisticated as the article suggests. It had 28 letters to Punic/Hebrew 22, evidently to enable reproduction of vowels exactly. This is not required for consistent users of writing since they have a limited choice of vowels, which is the case in modern usage of Hebrew. The need to record vowels also makes the writing less efficient, further requiring grammar rules. This inefficiency is highlighted by the relative illiteracy of the ancient Ionic populations given attested cost of reproduced literature. Nor is there evidence of oral transmission outside of operatic tradition. There is also consistent evidence that cultures which tend to borrow linguisticly also participate in migration to source of borrowing. There is a significant attestation for large scale resettlement of Ionian population to ancient Israel to a level of saturating local culture with Hellenic practice. This is consistent with observed phenomena elsewhere in regions and histories of other past and current societies. I therefore suggest the article be changed to reflect these facts of history and introduce greater objectivity into the content.--Mrg3105 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but all of this is blatantly "original research", and very poor folk linguistics at that. Please do not try to insert thoughts like this in the articles. The articles on the Greek language and writing system currently reflect the relevant scholarship adequatley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is REVISIONIST research which suggests that the original research was wrong. This is substantiated by the fact that the IET continues to be a theory for over 150 years now. There is no concrete proof of the 'Greek' tribes being from their current location, or having literacy at the time claimed. Given the 'Greek' alephbet is clearly Phoenician in origin, there is however actual proof of widespread borrowing by the 'Greeks'. The link made between Sanskrit (hence Hindu) and 'Greek' can only explain remnant/legacy elements in 'Greek' and therefore the origin of tribal migration. 'Greek' mythology in itself attributes Europe to a Phoenician origin. Do you suggest that old research is always correct? Debunking takes place in science every day, and yet this foolishness of 'Greek' pre-eminence in Europe continues. --Mrg3105 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Man wake up, there are no Phoenicians left on the planet for the last 2000 years. You're obsessing over something to which you're linked by fiction. And I don't think you understood what original reseach is. Miskin 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No Phoenicians left on the planet ... hmmm ... what happened to them? Evaporated? Millions of people just went up in a puff of smoke... because that how it happens, yes? No. They go through a name change especially if they were run down by another culture. As mostly happens, the invaders take over the conquered people's culture, especially if it was higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.161 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just tought that I'd point out that the slavic languages are also indo-european so it has nothing to do with nazi jibberish. The exsistance of an indo-european family tree is not disputed by any respected professor.

Greek words in Turkish and vice versa

Does any one know how many words the Turkish language has borrowed from Greek and vice versa? Helladios 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary counts like this are difficult for many reasons. One is that the "Turkish language" and the "Greek language" are not well-defined. They have changed over time (both Greek and Turkish have "purified" their vocabulary, so for example γύρος -- a calque of the Turkish word -- is now more common than ντονέρ), they vary by region and by register, etc. Many dictionaries are purist or prescriptive, and tend to avoid loanwords. Another reason is that the detailed history of words is often difficult to establish. Another is that the history of words is often complicated and roundabout: how do we count the Turkish word sinema: it is obviously borrowed from French, and 'cinematographe' was coined in modern times, but the roots are ancient Greek. Do you count καφενείο as Turkish? Well, clearly Greek got it from Turkish, but it comes from the Persian compound kahve-hane (coffee house), and the first part, kahve, comes from the Arabic qahwah. How about φιστίκι? It is borrowed from Turkish fıstık, which is in turn borrowed from Greek πιστάκη, but that in turn is probably borrowed from Persian.... Turkish iskele comes from Greek σκάλα, but that in turn comes from Latin scala. I think the only consistent, sensible way to count is by immediate loans, which indicate cultural connections, so that sinema in Turkish (and in Greek for that matter) counts as a loan from French, iskele counts as a loan from Greek, and φιστίκι counts as a loan from Turkish. --Macrakis 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when I say the "vary by region", I'm alluding to the varieties of Greek spoken in Asia Minor (Cappadocian, Pontic, etc.) which had many more loanwords from Turkish, many of which will not be found in general modern Greek dictionaries. Also, Greek before 1820 had many more Turkish words.

You might be interested in Kostas Kazazis's article "Greek Reactions to an Ancient Greek Primer for Turks", Modern Philology 73:2:162-165 (Nov., 1975)at JSTOR. Here he discusses the "stylistic demotion" that Turkish borrowings underwent as a result of 19th-century Greek "purification". One interesting case of a round-trip loan is Turkish zor 'violence' which becomes Greek ζόρι, which in turn gives the Turkish metazori 'by threats' from Greek με το ζόρι.

A paper Kazazis cites is "The Status of Turkisms in the Present-Day Balkan Languages" in Aspects of the Balkans, ed. Henrik Birnbaum and Speros Vryonis, Jr., but I haven't seen it. --Macrakis 18:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not been able to find much about Greek loanwords in Turkish. I do know that many nautical and fishing terms -- especially the names of fish -- have been borrowed from Greek into Turkish: barbun(ya) (Venetian > Greek > Turkish); σκουμπρί > uskumru; τσιππούρα > çipura; λαβράκι > levrek; αστακός > istakoz; etc. although interestingly there is kalkan 'shield' > καλκάνι 'turbot'.

interestingly? kayık > kaiki? etc. and also many fishing terms was borrowed from Turkish to Greek...

About nautical terms, an interesting study, Henry and Renee Kahane, "Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian Origin", Journal of the American Oriental Society 62:4:238-261 (Dec., 1942) JSTOR shows that "almost all of the Italian nautical terms in the Turkish language came from Greek."

I have found a couple of relevant articles which you might want to consult:

Gustav Meyer, "Türkische Studien I (Die griechischen und romanischen Bestandtheile im Wortschatze des Osmanish-Türkischen", SB Wien. phil.-hist. Classe 128:I;72-85, 1893.
A. A. Papadopoulos, Τα εκ της Ελληνικής δάνεια της Τουρκικής, Αθηνά 44:3-27 (1932)

Perhaps you could read them and summarize them in the relevant WP articles? --Macrakis 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Turkish and Italian loan words that entered Modern Greek have not survived in the standard language. It's not that they were replaced by Greek words via purification, they just didn't make it to the standard language, as was the fate of many archaisms that existed in various dialects. Therefore a 1932 source might be worth quoting for historical purposes, but not in order to describe the state of the living language. That's my opinion. Miskin 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, you really need to read my messages more carefully. The 1932 source is for Greek loanwords in Turkish, not vice versa (Τα εκ της Ελληνικής δάνεια της Τουρκικής). The sources for Turkish loanwords in Greek are all more recent than that.

As for how Turkish loanwords in Greek "didn't make it to the standard language", there are certainly many forces, of which purification is one important one:

As a result of (mostly) nineteenth-century efforts to "purge" the Greek language of its Turkisms, several Turkish loanwords were replaced by Ancient Greek or Ancient Greek-sounding terms... [footnote:] The removal or stylistic specialization of Turkish loanwords did not always result from a conscious purge, but has just as often been a consequence of the reorientation of Greek society toward the West....

Kazazis, op.cit.

It is certainly true that some dialects (notably Cappadocian) were very heavily Turkicized in vocabulary and even syntax (take a look at R.M.Dawkins, "Modern Greek in Asia Minor", The Journal of Hellenic Studies 30:109-132 (1910)[8]) and that almost none of that made it to standard modern Greek.

On the other hand, there definitely has been purification, some successful (a recent example is γύρος for ντονέρ), and some not (who says υπόδημα for παπούτσι 'shoe' or βαφέας for μπογιατζής 'painter'?). And I guess the purifiers didn't get around to ντουλάπα 'closet'; or should we use ερμάρι (< Latin)? --Macrakis 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC) --Macrakis 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand Macrakis, but I meant what I said for both languages. Due to extensive purification and reconstruction, Modern Turkish is arguably a different language from Ottoman Turkish, and I'm pretty sure that a 1932 source would refer to the latter. I think that many Turkish words were lost from Standard Modern Greek for the same reason that many Latin words were lost from Medieval Greek, i.e. reduced contacts with the speakers of the other language (and not because of purification). Miskin 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Turkish has changed more in the past 75 years than Greek. In any case, the article is no doubt interesting.

As for your theory that words of Turkish origin were lost from Standard Modern Greek because there were "reduced contacts with the speakers of the other language", I'd love to see some sources for that. It's a lovely theory. --Macrakis 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Helladios, here's a source for Greek loanwords in Turkish (which I'm afraid I haven't seen):

Christos Tzitzilis, Griechische Lehnwörter im Türkischen: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anatolischen Dialekte, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1987.

Let us know what you find out.... --Macrakis 20:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

Please restore any ISBN-numbers you may find deleted by user:Iblardi, or numbers connected by a hyphen in general. I appear to be pestered by some kind of malware. Iblardi 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently my browser did no longer recognize those numbers as Wikipedia text after installation of this dialing program. I assume it is just a bug. I've uninstalled the program and hopefully the trouble will be over now. Iblardi 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert by Sthenel

Why the revert? Do you know every language in the world? Cheers Io 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: If you revert, do it properly. You left out a counter-example to the assertion that Greek is the, well, most compoundable language in the world, followed by German. Cheers Io 17:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can add examples of his language in this way. - Sthenel 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if his language allows it. The statement, as it stood, was nothing but linguistic chauvinism. There are numerous languages with the same word-forming capabilities as Greek. All that is required is that they form words by composition (goes without saying). A Frenchman would probably not have been able to make one word out of Thetis and Achilles (French tends to have long strings of prepositions and articles instead), but it took me two seconds. And why did you strike polysynthetic languages (look it up, if they are unfamiliar)? They are surely the most compounding at all. A word of advice: Never get involved in a "language war" with an Icelander. Since we are just as chauvinistic as you, it would never end. But, for fun, how long does it take you to come with a Greek version of Vaðlaheiðarvegamannaverkfærageymsluskúr, which translates as the shed that the road-workers on Vaðlaheiði keep their tools in? And as a last note: By saying that anyone an come up with such examples from his or her own language (which is in fact incorrect - it depends on the language), you are actually contradicting yourself. Cheers Io 18:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is that shed where they outsourced the Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänspatentformulardruckerei to? -- But seriously, I don't see the need for that Icelandic quote there. But most of all, I don't see the need for wording that insinuates the ability of forming one-word compounds is something that makes a language particularly "rich" or "better" than others. That's really the silent assumption behind that passage that makes it so POV-ish. There's absolutely nothing inherently superior to a language that can express the concept [X of [Y of [Z]]] by a word of the form "ZYX" rather than by a string of the form "X de Y de Z" as for instance French would do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that I tried to make it less biased with my edit. I suppose the problem with Sthenel's version is that it says only German and Greek can make such compounds, and that may well offend speakers of other languages that can. It seems we should remove specific mention of German in addition to removing the POV aspect. The way, the truth, and the light 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That was precisely why I provided a counter-example. Every language is equally valid as an object of study and every language (as far as I know) can express any thought. They just do it differently. What irritated me was the chauvinism and I just wanted to express a different opinion. Greek per se is unique. Otherwise it would not be a separate language. But as compounding languages go, it is run of the mill. Other languages may have other devices (and some go about their business in the Greek fashion), but as far as I know, any child can learn any language, and there have been no instances of language pairs, where translation from one to the other was impossible. But I must admit, I was also teasing Sthenel, but not in a mean way. Best of luck Io 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all the text is not written by me. I reverted it because everyone can add another language as an example something that we should avoid in my opinion. That's all. Maybe we could replace the word "only". - Sthenel 19:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the references to German in my last edit. This should take care of that complaint. The way, the truth, and the light 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes, albeit fairly minor ones, to make the article more neutral and made a mention of polysynthetic languages again, since they trump everything I know of in compounding. I have no desire to reintroduce more counter-examples, I just wished the article to be more neutral and hence more believable. Regrettably I don't speak Greek and my Latin skills are nothing to boast about either, although I did study the languange on my own for two years until life intervened. But I believe that an article about something like Greek, a subject I have the utmost respect for, should not be tainted by chauvinism - Greek speaks for itself in history and culture. Cheers Io 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek is officially recognised as a minority language in parts of Turkey...

Greek is officially recognised as a minority language in parts of Turkey.......

Sure? Source of this claim?

Can anyone confirm this claim? Recognized in what sense? By local government? Statute?

This statement has not been verified by sources although clarification has been sought since June 2007 (see above unsigned statements). I have removed this claim from the info box. Could be reinstated if a source is given. Andreas ^(T) 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

see you: Treaty of Lausanne, Greeks in Turkey --90.187.78.209 05:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Treaty of Lausanne would be the reference here [9]. In particular:

Art. 40: "Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities [...] shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language"
Art. 41: "As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language."

This has traditionally been applied to Greeks, Armenians and Jews, as far as I'm aware. After the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, it would apply only to Greeks in Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agglutination?

Question regarding

Yet the most distinctive characteristic of the Greek language is its powerful compound-constructing ability.

Wouldn't this be formally called agglutination? In some sources I see Greek classified as agglutinative but in most cases I see Greek left out of that classification. Frankly it is not clear to me what distinction is being made if there is a legitimate distinction between Greek's compounds and the concept of agglutination (i.e. although Greek is certainly inflected that does not mean it is not also agglutinative).

--Mcorazao 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoken in Kazakhstan?

Per the Infobox, spoken also in Kazakhstan, or has a (Borat-wanna-be) vandal simply had his way?PBarak 17:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is spoken in Kazakhstan.--NetProfit 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Minority language

According to the article Greek is recognized as a minority language in Albania, Egypt, Italy and Turkey. I find certain things here ambiguous: we know that Greek is recognized in Italy and Albania however the article says that Greek is official in the Mezzogiorno and Northern Epirus, the problem is that they are not administrative units so the statement has to be inaccurate. Also I doubt that Egypt and Turkey have recognized Greek; is there any proof of this? The Lausanne Treaty mentioned above implies that Turkey would recognize Greek and other languages, however what the Lausanne Treaty says and what Turkey does are two very different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetProfit (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know if Greek is recognized as a minority language in Russia or Ukraine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetProfit (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Lausanne Treaty, the relevant articles automatically count as fundamental laws of the country, so they are not just outside obligations but officially incorporated into the internal constitutional system of the Turkish state, so yes, they constitute official recognition. And in practice, yes, Greek-speaking schools, church organisation and so on exist - various bureaucratic hindrances notwithstanding -, and the legal basis for their existence is that treaty. (Turkey otherwise watches jealously that nothing official can be done in any language other than Turkish; see the case of Kurdish for example.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Language?

I don't know, in Turkey, Greek is official language!! :))) I'm Turkish and in my country, Greek isn't our official language. :))) But I think, in Greece, Turkish must be official language. :)) Because in the Northwest Greece, %60 of people are Turkish. ;)))--88.231.211.125 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean in Northeastern Greece, see Muslim minority of Greece. Andreas ^(T) 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IPA transliteration of Greek word "Greek"

Why is there no aspirant in either the IPA or its Latin transliteration? It's "Helenika" not "elenika."

Parmadil 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The /h/ sound (aspiration) was lost already in ancient times, see Ancient Greek phonology#Fricatives and Koine Greek phonology#Loss of aspirate Andreas ^(T) 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'el' is the name of God in Sumerian. [El > Ela > Ella > Alla(h)]. "Ele' = leader, in this case God the Leader; 'elenik; or 'eleink' is plural = (godly) leaders; 'a' is an article = the.

Greek with K > G lenition is Krik meaning cirkle. The symbol of God in Sumerian was the cirkle; this is the Sun symbol. Since the meaning of both words are the same they are translatable. Both words are Sumerian origin via the Pelazg people who spoke that language - not Indoeuropean. The Indoeuropean conquerors may have run down the Pelazg but couldn't deal with the higher culture; it leaves on. Just remember, S. Kramer said "Sumeria is the cradle of civilisation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.112.117 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Koine Greek X Modern Greek

What are the differences between koine and modern greek (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation)? Are they mutually intelligible (written, spoken form)?

What are the differences between koine and classical greek (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation)? Are they mutually intelligible (written, spoken form)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.73.79.20 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks RGS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.73.79.20 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialect chart

any use for this ?Greek dialects Megistias 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to add a important link, but

i had tried to add a new link, that is considerable important for this article, Lineal B article and the Mycanaean greek article, but, a stupid bot, deleted it several times. i give you the link for your consideration, that i think, and many of us i suppost, is extremely relevant:

Glossary of Linear B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans soplopuco (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

greeklish

According to wikipedia article,is Greek language written with the Latin alphabet.Inoficial,but still greek language.--88.82.47.205 (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good manners to bring this to the discussion page. I don't think this belongs here but if noone else objects I will not revert you again. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Greek alphabet extended.png

Removed Image:Greek alphabet extended.png, since the additions to the standard Greek alphabet of 24 letters in that image are a miscellaneous grab-bag of various archaic letters (rarely used after ca. 300 B.C.), numerical symbols not usually used as letters, letters used only in the writing of non-Greek languages, and medieval ligatures identified with numerical symbols. There was never a single historical alphabetic sequence, or sequence of alphabetic symbols used numerically, which included all these "letters". See further the discussion at Talk:Alpha and Omega. - AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's not very useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Greek Speakers around the world ... Just to prove wrong the 12 million speakers sites

All of these american sites i've Searched here in Amercia say that the Greek language is spoken by only 12 million people. Thats is Completely not right or true .. For one Greece's Population is 11,216,708 million and lets just say 11.100,000 million speak Greek __ Excluding the muslims of thrace who speak turkish and pomak in their normal everyday lives...Okay so right there is 11.100,000 million Greek Speakers. Second what about Cyprus? Cyprus's population is 788,457 and all of these people speak greek ,since 700,000 people are ethnic Greeks. The rest learn greek to live there.. We dont inculde the occupied northern side( and undocumented old turkish cypriots who can still speak greek) so all together Greece and Cyprus's Greek speakers is at 11.888,457 So if only 12,000,000 miliion speak greek , that's leaves only approx 111,543 greek speakers around the world in the diasporas.. There are close to 5-7 million greeks in the Diaspora <~~ so those millions dont Know any Greek ? lol what about the 100,000's to millions of non ethnic Greeks who speak Greek ?.. Just to prove the 12 million is wrong lets mention the official 365,435 Greek americans who Speak Primarly Greek at home (the survey didnt include Greek americans who speak bi-lingual Greek and english in homes)so lets combine 11,888,457 (Greece&Cyprus total Greek Speakers )with the Greek americans who speak it um the total is already over 12,253,892 hmm thats already over the limit of the total Greek speakers in the world that americans sites say... I didnt even touch on the subject of the greeks and Greek Speakers of all of North and South America or Europe or Africa or Asia ... I just put in the speakers of Greek in Cyprus and Greece and the surveyed Greek Americans to prove my point . Greek is spoken by way more than 15 million people i am 100% positive i mean (example) Many Greek orthodox and Greek catholic arabs speak greek.. Alot and i mean Alot of albanians in the world know greek and our balkans nieghbors learn Greek and what about the 100,000 of thousands of greek speaking turk in Turkey ? and Greek is spoken by all of the Greeks in the all of the countries they live in ... If Ethnic Greeks are approx 17 million in the world, Than the Greek language should be in between 15- 17 automatically just for ethnic hellenes who speak Greek..and if you include non ethnic greeks who speak greek it would most likely be all together atleast 21 million ... we need sources outside of american ones cause they are WRONG completely ... 17 million greeks and only 12 million speak it so 5 million greeks dont speak it ? so what about non Greeks who speak it ? do they not exist? That right there is a LIE... so please stop putting 12 million total speakers on the page.. Its wrong put a MEDIAN number like in betwwen 15-22 million and put a question mark untill someone finds a accurate number ... sorry if this is long :-) (p.s. and for any mistakes in my grammer or spelling)lol

Taki223 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Taki223

I generally agree, the figure is way too low. We just need to find and cite some figures from reliable sources as so to include the Greeks and Greek-speakers around the world. Without any sources the above rationale is just WP:Original Research. --157.228.x.x (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

White night (λευκη νύχτα)

Is λευκη νύχτα (pl.: Λευκές Νύχτες?) a synonym for μεσημβρινός ύπνος or σιέστα (siesta)? Thank you. --Immanuel Giel (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

What is the superlative suffix in Greek? <Question by unsigned<

υπερθετικο επιθεμα?CuteHappyBrute (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It varies according to the declension of the adjective. It can be formed by use of adverbs such as mallon and malista and suffixes such as -teros and -tatos etc. This Google book explains it in more detail. Dr.K. (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I gave you the details for Ancient Greek. Modern Greek is similar but the adverb prefixes and some of the suffixes are different from the Ancient. Others remain substantially the same. Dr.K. (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A few more details for modern Greek can be found here and here. If you check the new references covering Modern Greek forms and the original reference covering Ancient Greek forms you'll see that many suffixes are the same. --Dr.K. (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek offical in Turkey ? Funny Greek idea of supporten by Vikipedianists

Hey everyone please read that artcile en:Languages of Turkey, Greek isnt offical language in Turkey.Who saay it ? Turkey has one "natioal language:Turkish".And otehr imortant lang. Laz, Kurdish, Circassian, Bosnian...But Turkey has only one language.Lausanne don't say about "Offiacl languages of both country".If Greek offical in Turkey, Turkish is offical in Greece to for Lausanne or this anti-scientific article" !!!

the Turkish government accepts the language rights of the Jewish, Greek and Armenian minorities as being guaranteed by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. But the government claims that these are Turkey's only minorities(Laz, Kurd, Abkhaz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.236.7 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.188 (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion

Greek language spoken in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

By whom, and where is the source to confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akula444 (talk • contribs) .

*Ethnologue [10] [11]. Also, the 2002 census found that 0,021% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia (small I know) self-identified as Greek. --Telex 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time someone finally removed Macedonia (FYROM) it from the list as only 0,021% of the population identified themselves as Greek, or 444 out of 2,045,368 citizens to be more precise. The fact that there are no other speakers in the country (as the source from Ethnologue also states), indicates that except for propaganda, there is no other logical reason for this country to be stated in the main list. The countries in this list all have at least 10.000 Greek speakers, so how does this country with 444 speakers get in the list? Maybe we should add Tonga or East Timor too? Guitardemon (user talk), 21:39 (UTC)

quotes and peacock farms

Fut, why do you need to knead the wording everywhere? Your intro version is really a removal and simplification; why did Linear B disappear? Sourced, interesting info are peacock terms now? Let's super-humble it down and leave just the infobox.. Facts are facts. "Peacock language" is a subjective view; especially when it is that sourced. "A new language emerging" ? What? The dates you removed (alphabet) are also peacock language?
Also about the quotes you changed: how did a quote farm become "one estimation"? ... you:"Greek speakers today still tend to regard literary works of ancient Greek as part of their own rather than a foreign language". Was that what Browning meant when he said: "To speakers of modern Greek the Homeric poems of the 7th century BC are not written in a foreign language."? Really? Explain because i personally think quote farms are better than disfigurement lenses. Haas quote may be big but it explains a lot of things. You obviously have a different belief system about the Greek language but there are readers who actually want to learn something from articles like this. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Linear B thing because it was too much detail for the intro. The details of the minor writing systems and their chronology can be treated in the paragraph right below, in the history section. – The objection against the "peacock language" was mainly against the silliness of "greatest literatures of all time", "most influential civilizations in human history" and "enjoys a high level of respect". Those were just stupid; I wonder who inserted them while I wasn't looking. – As to "Greek speakers tend to regard..." as a paraphrase of Browning's statement: I haven't got Browning here to look up the context, but knowing Browning is a reasonable, enlightened linguist, I naturally assume he must be well aware that judgments of identity and non-identity of languages are always subjective perceptions, never, by their very nature, issues of objective reality, so when he says "To speakers of modern Greek...", he means in their perception, so I maintain my paraphrase is one that is both true to the text and consistent with a reasonable reading of it. – As for "one estimation", yes, that is exactly what that reference is, one estimation. Would you prefer to present it as God's truth? (Incidentally, I find it personally rather doubtful.) – As for quote farming, we generally do not include extensive literal quotes unless there is a pressing reason for it, i.e. the literal quote achieves something that a well-sourced paraphrase couldn't achieve. Which isn't the case here. Literal quotes are just like non-free images, to be avoided wherever possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, looking up the alleged Browning quote on the web, it seems that this sentence is contained in the editorial blurb of the book. Is it actually something that is said by Browning himself in his actual text? We have no page reference for it. Oh man. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail. Ok. Don't want to over-inform those retards. Yes. I agree. Delete the peacock language you mentioned, don't dumb down the whole paragraph and remove everything interesting. Although those are heavily sourced especially in the related articles in Wikipedia. Oh my god. You judge and speak about and for and instead of Browning? You judge the quote he chose to include in his book's back cover to be of less importance or notability than if he had it in the inner pages of the book? I think this is a textbook case of wtf?! This is why I like quotes. Because people can distort it in their heads but not in everyone's. Paraphrases that filtered by personal beliefs are the reason why some quotes are really needed raw. Don't get too happy. GoogleBooks specifically mention who wrote editorials or a synopsis so the quote is Browning's. What god, what truth? No, I said how 3 linguists became "one estimation". Really. How? Note: the second quote just had a quote in itself. So there are 2 quotes. Is that too much for you? Is it killing you inside to see the raw opinion of some "mediocre" linguists/historians about the very subject that is mentioned in the paragraph? I don't see an aesthetic problem nor any other about those clearly-worded quotes. When i do see problems in your paraphrasing. Why is it needed? The article isn't too big.. .. and it is not a shock that your understanding of the Browning quote is 100% wrong. See why: Robert may be dumb enough for you to say something and mean something else (on his book's back cover i stress to you once again) but in reality (oh) he chose his words carefully, Persian. Perhaps you should have done the same!. He specifically said "To speakers of modern Greek". And not "to Greeks" as you seem or want to assume. He could've said Greeks which would be a fast and rough way to mean Greek speakers but no. He said "modern Greek speakers". Which means he could have added "but never by the very nature of Modern and Ancient Greek". Though he didn't. And explain me how exactly does the "perception" of a person changes when he learns Greek? I know it is different but the paragraph like the Browning quote was talking about the degree of Ancient Greek understanding by a modern Greek speaker (with no AncGreek education). While you distorted the quote as to somehow "how the Greek speakers view the modern Greek language in relation to Ancient Greek." No offence but your try to differentiate "Greek perception" from truth you've created a pretty funny universe. Strange one. Replacing straightforward, sourced, supposed peacock language with extensive weasel language together with original research/personal paraphrasing and stuffing scholars' mouths with words they didn't say is not what we aim for, is it? --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Plonk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

oh and about the "rather doubtful" ancient Gr-modern/Middle En-modern thing. i am very much sure your linguistic analysis has gone way further than this but let's see the first comparison example that comes to our hands here in Wikipedia:

Middle English, 1400 after Christ, [Luke ch.8 v.1–3, New Testament]:
"And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites and castelis prechende and euangelisende the rewme of god.."
Modern English, 2000 after Christ, Translation:
"And it came to pass afterward, that Jesus went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God.."
Ancient Greek, 300 before Christ, Pella curse tablet:
"ΘΕΤΙΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΓΑΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΑΛΛΑΝ ΠΑΣΑΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΧΗΡΑΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΝ.."
Modern Greek, 2000 after Christ, Translation, capitals for better comparison:
"ΘΕΤΙΜΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΝΥΣΟΦΩΝΤΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΓΑΜΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΩ ΚΑΙ ΟΛΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΑΛΛΩΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΧΗΡΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΡΘΕΝΩΝ.."

hmm and according to you Ancient and Modern Greek are further apart than Middle English to Modern English. Ok.. I am willing to believe you about all these. But stuff like knowing how to read makes it difficult. That's why quotes are needed and used in WP. Because paraphrases filter the words in a pov way. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that quotation about Middle English etcetera. It wasn't even cited correctly. It turns out it was merely a passing remark from a work on an entirely different topic, not by the author named in the reference, and it's unclear if the author is any kind of expert on the specific topic. Why is it that the people pontificating the loudest about reliable sources are the most incompetent when actually citing them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

oh it turns out... right, because the topic "diglossia" in a book named "Standard languages", that consists of lectures delivered at Manchester Univ. by different (linguist) professors between 1968 and 1977 is obviously off-topic. seriously? τι πίνεις? You talk about reliable sources when with massive weasel wording and lots of OR you try your best to hide scholars' quotes and distort them in a supposed linguist terminology way (not successfully even towards your pov aim) when as proved by your explaining of the Browning quote and the Manchester Univ. book off-topic remark, you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's not the final result of your tweaks that annoys me the most (the scholars don't give you much of a choice, do they?) but your own interpretation of your own weasel words and what you try to show with them. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll retract the remark about the (real) author involved – Alexiou, it turns out, is in fact a reputable scholar qualified to make that sort of statement. That doesn't change the fact that in the context she was quoted from, her statement was nothing but a passing remark within an unrelated discussion, and as such not a particularly suitable item to quote, when much better specialised works abound. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Some day you should enlighten us with those because an illiterate like me hasn't seen a galore of actual quotes by good publications about subjects like these. That's weird though, because that paragraph (history section 2nd from end) did not have one source or reference before i touched it (with the Browning and Manchester Univ. quotes you despise). --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they speak Greek in DR Congo

--129.234.4.1 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Plato's ideas had pre-existed in Greek, in the same way that Meister Eckhart's thoughts had in German"

This is pretty meaningless. As to the very tenuous possible meaning which it might have, the same would have to apply to the thoughts of any person relative to the language he or she speaks. Kind of an arbitrary and disconnected nod to extreme and dubious linguistic determinism, and a random denigration of an individual genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennod2009 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

help with greek fonts

Hey, I was wondering, could someone tell me where I can find greek fonts/keyboard setups that include vowel accents and breathing marks in a relatively simple typing scheme? I find it really irritating to have to write in my accents after I type everything out with Symbol font or a Greek keyboard. If anyone could help, that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.93.121 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Greek language

Just some interesting information I have come across and beg your indulgence: That English does not contain only 12% Greek but more like 40%- 70% Greek depending on branch of study/learning (our everday lexicon contains approx. 40% and the branches of medicine the lexicon of Greek rises to 70%.) According to a book called "oi Ellhnikes lexis sthn agglikh glossa” or " The Greek Words in the English Language" there are approximately over 52,000 words of Greek origin contained in the English language, The French language contains more than this and even Latin contains a large portion of Greek (when the Romans adopted the Greek alphabet they did not adopt the "Z" until the 2nd century A.D. and then also adopted a large proportion of Greek words as well.) Therefore anywhere where English, French and Latin are spoken, Greek is spoken. Greek is the only noematic language and all other languages are simiotic. Greek in contained in languages of South America, Indonesia, Japan, Spain, France, Italy, Polynesian and Hebrew (Hebrew linguist, Joseph Yahuda spent many years of his life comparing the Old Testament, written in Hebrew and a copy of Homer's Iliad written in Ancient Greek and concluded that over 90% of the Hebrew language is actually Greek, and even went on to say that even the Arabic languages have Greek as their foundation.) The Cyrillic alphabet that is used by some of the Slavic/Eastern Bloc countries (derived in the 8th to 9th century A.D. by the two Greek monks and brothers from Thessaloniki, capital of Macedonia, Greece) is also based on the ancient Greek alphabet. German grammar is based on ancient Greek grammar and also contains Greek. There is a very famous saying in America when something new is discovered and a word/words are needed to identify it - "The Greeks have a word for it." It seems the Greek language has a longer and more intricate history than we think or understand. It bears more investigation and study to understand it's full importance on other languages today. I will leave you with an adage that my mother likes to quote: "Wherever (in the world) you lift up a rock, there will be a Greek." So to say that Greek is spoken in just about every country of the world, it not so impossible or unimaginable lets keep an open mind. Just a small taste of some Greek words and the year that they were adopted into the English language: analysis (1667), synthesis (1611), antithesis (1529), problem (1382), hypothesis (1596), method (1541), theory (1605), practice (1553), empiric (1605), paradigm (1483), music (1250), orchestra (1606), melody (1569), rhythm (1557), harmony (1532), rhapsody (1542), organ (1000), hypocrisy (1225), theater(1374), drama (1515), tragedy (1374), comedy (1374), poetry (1447), lyrism (1859), symptom (1398), diagnosis (1681), therapy (1846), politic (1420), democracy (1531), tyranny (1374), anarchy (1539), despotism (1727), oligarchy (1577), idea (1430), ideology (1796), logic (1362), dilemma (1656), category (1588), program (1633), system (1638), organization (1432), etiology (1656), symbol (1450), syllable (1384), phrase (1530), dialect (1551), dialogue (1551), theme (1300), theorem (1551), axiom (1485), physic (1390), energy (1581), energy (1581), plastic (1632), meter (900), machine (1549), metal (1300), mass (900), magic (1386), myth (1838), mystery (1315), phenomenon (1639), period (1413), phase (1812), dynamic (1827), fantasy (1382), crisis (1543), criterion (1647), dogma (1600), psalm (961), bible (1095), church (825), martyr (900), liturgy (1560), orthodox (1630), catholic (1551), hymn (1667), symmetry (1563), asymmetry (1652), panic (1420), mania (1607), aesthesis (1879).

First names and surnames that are also of Greek origin include: Campbell from Kampana = bell, Troy, Fonda from Foundas?Kristofferson from Christophoros,Andrew/s, Bronte, Armani/s Alexander/Alexandra/Alesandra/Alejandro/Lexie/Lexia/Xander/Sandra/Sandy/Lex, Ball, Philip/s/Philippe, Ellis, Evans (from Evangelos), George/s, Harris (from Harissiou or Haralambos), Nicholls/son, Pericles/Perry/Perri/Peri/, Leto, Milo, Myron/Myrtle, Sophocles/Sophia, Ambrose/Amber, Basil, Christopher/Chris, Danae, Dimitri/Dimitra/Dimi/Demi, Dion/Dionne, Doris/Dorian, Eugene/Eugenia/Gene/Jean, Gregory/Greg/Grigor, Jason, Lea/Leander, Leon/Leonidas, Nicholas/Nicolas/Nick/Nikita/Nicki/Nikki, Nicodemus, Peter, Petros/Petra/Petria, Stephen/Stephania/Steffi, Theodore/Theodora/Dorothy/Dorothea/Dora, Timotheos/Timothy/Tim, Ulysses from Odysseus, Ari/Aristotle, Agatha, Agnes, Althea, Aliki/Alice, Angela/Angelique/Angel/Angelina/Angelica, Ariana, Philomena/Philomela, Philidyia/Lydia, Cassander/Cassandra/Cassie, Ekaterine/Catherine/Katerina/Katina/Tina/Ina, Cleopatra/Cleo/Clio, Cynthia, Delia, Margaret/Margarita/Rita, Penelope/Penny/, Elias/Ellie/Eli, Evangelos/Evangelina/Lena/Vangelis/Evangeline/Evan/Evanthea, Lily, Eunice, Urania/Ina, Euphemia/Mia, Olympia/Pia, Aristides/Ari/Arista/Aristea/Tea, Caliope/Caly/Poppy, Elektra, Hermione/Ione, Melina/Lina, Melissa/Leesa/Lisa, Melanie/Melania/Nia, Perry from Pericles, Eleftherios/Thierry/Rio, Troy, Hector, Andromache, Paris, Daphne, Konstantine/Konstantina/Kosta/Dina/Dino/Dinah, Crystal/Chrysler, Sebastian/Sebastina/Sebi, Christos/Christina/Christian/Kristian/Chistianne/Kristen/Kirsty, Adrian/Adriana, Zachary, Achilles, Antigone, Ptolemy, Eva/Eve, Ada, Rhea, Zoe, Larissa, Philomena/Mena, Zeta, Delta, Moira, Morpheus, Myrtle, Cypress, Nephele, Calypso, Calisto/Callista, Xenia, Zenovia/Zena, Nathaniel/Nate, Daniel, Emmanuel/Manuel/Manny, Michael/Mickey/Mikey, Rafael/Rafe, Atticus, Celia/Lia, Haralambos/Charis/Harry/Charissa, Sicily/Cicely, Coralia/Lia, Cora, Ida, Phaedra/Phaedron/Phaedon, Julius/Julia/Julian, Kimon/Kye, Molly, Polly, Cosmas/Cosmo,Dionysus//Dion/Dionne, Kyriakos/Kyriaki/Kyra,Stylianos/Stelios/Stella, Gerasimos/Gerry/Gerard/Gerhard/Jerry/Gere, etc., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.14.145 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All-too-obvious statement

"Since [the 2nd milennium BC] Greek has been spoken uninterruptedly in Greece." Well, if I were a Valley girl, I'd say that's like... duh! I mean: okay, scenarios can be conceived in which a languages disappears from its homeland to reappear later, such as language revival or popular remigration. But these are so rare that the mere fact that a language which we all know is still spoken in its homeland has been spoken there ever since it arrived is too trivial too mention. So hadn't we better remove it? Steinbach (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That statement was probably added to counter neo-Fallmerayeresque arguments (encountered among the extreme left in Greece and among the far right in neighbouring countries), which in their most extreme form suggest that natural spoken Greek died out at some point and was only revived after the Greek state was established. I don't object to removing it though, if you agree that Wikipedia should not be indirectly shaped in such a way by the most fringe of theories.--Ptolion (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, such statements are relevant (although crafted slightly differently) when there is a written continuity (or near-continuity) of a language in a place (as with Egyptian) for four millennia. And, in Europe, except for languages such as Basque, there is not general continuity between the current national language and what was being spoken there four millennia ago. While the awkwardness of the statement is apparent, there are possible linguistic insights to the statement and it does point out that Greek is not like other European languages with respect to its continuity in place. (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Interestingly enough, Josef Yahuda, a Hebrew linguist, spent 30 years studying the Greek and Hebrew language and came to the inescapable conclusion that Hebrew and Arabic have ancient Greek as their foundation. Has anyone else studyied the link? It would be a phenominal historical revelation if this could be proven by other linguists.

What remains to become a feature article

What remains we nominate this article as a featured one. Crazymadlover. —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC).