Proto-Greek

can anyone here tell me Proto-Greek and Myceanean Greek belong to Satem group or belong to Centum? Thanks

prosk said:

can anyone here tell me Proto-Greek and Myceanean Greek belong to Satem group or belong to Centum? Thanks

Click to expand...

Welcome to Eupedia, prosk!

Greek (wether we are talking about Proto-Greek, Mycenaean Greek or Classical Greek is irrelevant to the question) is a "Centum" language.

but sir , how can Greek be a Centum language when it's cognate languages(such as Amenia Slavic ) are all Satem languages ?

prosk said:

but sir , how can Greek be a Centum language when it's cognate languages(such as Amenia Slavic ) are all Satem languages ?

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by "it's cognate languages" - Greek is after all an Indo-European language, and as such it has cognates with all branches of Indo-European, regardless of wether they classify as Centum or Satem languages. To give you some examples of words that are subject to the Centum/Satem division in several Centum (Greek, English, Welsh, Latin) and Satem (Lithuanian, Armenian, Russian, Sanskrit):

"dog"
- Greek "kyon"
- English "hound"
- Welsh "ci"
- Latin "canis"
- Armenian "shun"
- Lithuanian "šuo"
- Sanskrit "sva"

and of course, the word for "hundred" (after which the division is named):

- Greek "hekaton"
- Latin "centum"
- English "hundred"
- Welsh "cant"
- Lithuanian "šimtas"
- Russian "sto"
- Sanskrit "satam"

what I mean " cognate languages"is Graeco-Aryan of course .
[h=1][/h]

prosk said:

what I mean " cognate languages"is Graeco-Aryan of course .

Click to expand...

That is the Linguistic connections, that for some can be used to show many things, among them origin, proto forms etc,

Ιt has to do with many things except the split to K and Sh.

grammar Syntax etc, forms of infinitive, syllaber system, isotones etc

By that we see that homerick Greek are connected with Aryan, so we find a step, a level closer to PIE etc etc,

Hettit language which is estimated at 2000 BC about was neither Centum neither Satem,
That can explain a lot,

Yetos said:

That is the Linguistic connections, that for some can be used to show many things, among them origin, proto forms etc,

Ιt has to do with many things except the split to K and Sh.

grammar Syntax etc, forms of infinitive, syllaber system, isotones etc

By that we see that homerick Greek are connected with Aryan, so we find a step, a level closer to PIE etc etc,

Click to expand...

The interesting point is that there are some phonological similarities between Greek and Iranic (Aryan), notably the development of initial *s- to *h- (note that this also applies for Armenian). However, on the flip side, this doesn't apply for the other branches of IE that are Satem (Indic, Balto-Slavic), which retain PIE *s- instead. Likewise, Greek being a Centum language doesn't have the so-called "RUKI" law, by which *s > *sh at specific positions (this holds true, however, for Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Indo-Iranic).

My opinion is that either the Indo-Iranic hypothesis is invalid (which on the other hand has very strong arguments for it too, so that would be surprising - indeed the hypothesis has almost unanimous support), or perhaps these Graeco-(Armeno)-Aryan innovations are the result of some late-PIE sprachbund.

Hettit language which is estimated at 2000 BC about was neither Centum neither Satem,
That can explain a lot,

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Hittite by itself could be labeled a "Centum" language, however, the Luwian language is more Satem like. Because of this the Anatolianist Melchert proposes that Proto-Anatolian had all three velar series (just like PIE), as opposed to the Centum languages (plain velars + palatovelars merged) or the Satem languages (plain velars and labiovelars merged, and labiovelars developed into fricatives).

so what is "one hundred" in Proto-Greek and My-Greek?

I was looking last days about the word king emperror

in Homer we find the word ΑΝΑΞ anax in female ανακις -anakisa (k+s=ss) anassa anatta (compare thalassa-thalatta)
αναξ
ανακ-ος (ανακτ-ος)

in Aryan (I think also in Kurdish) exist the word for queen anahitta

the word anax existed also in classical Greek, but starts to fade in late Hellenistic, while the term remains in ανακτορον anaktoron = palace.
in Byzantine is replaced by αυτοκρατωρ (shelf-power. self-state). emperror

the words used by Myceneans is aga (compare an-akas) in Iranic we find the word acha,

yet smaller kings are mentioned as ga-si-reus as I read in this forum, hoping to be correct
so possible the ga is what we find later as aga or an-aka

the reus which reminds us the -rix -regi -rois etc is another story.
i wonder why myceneans used both words anax and reus to a title,

may I remind you that βασιλευς (king) is an army ruler mainly, which rules with a help of a council of elders, priests, and judges.
ανακας (emperror) is a king that has all powers, military and laws on him, except the high priest. (as we see in Antigone Sophocles)

the same word I think in Indo-Iranian is Sach Saha

so the word from East to West goes
Indo-Iranian Sach
Persian Acha
Mycenean aga (a-wa, αγα,)
Saxon?*

but in Greco-Aryan linguistic approach is
Aryan anah-
Greek anak-

*
Interesting case is the word Saxon,
if the word is connected with the word Aχαιοι (achaian) then it is possble to means Kings

There is no such thing as Proto-Greek. Greek is a religious language, CREATED for the purpose of liturgy and religious writings, and never been a vernacular language on the first place.
Also, Linear B is not a syllabic language, but just some ideograms. All 200 signs are just ideographic signs and they do NOT possess any phonetic value.

Sory,

Mycenean
wa-na-ka FanaX

http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄναξ



also can be found in Homer, Xenophon, Sophocles Herakleitos and others.

it is a famous moto from Antigone Sophocles
afraid the gods more than the king (anaka)


now Sophocles has nothing to do with religion, but with theatre,
Xenophon has nothing to do with religion but with writting history,

the rest is your known imagination of an Albanocentric world.

If ancient Greeks spoke Albanian as you say, then why no theatrical act is in Albanian (if existed that time in Illyria) so simple people to understand it?

I agree with Yetos answering Zeus: only a religious language: from what sources???
concerning aspects of languages classification, I have the feeling that principally Centum/Satem division is a relatively late enough phonetic-ethnic evolution and that the links between greek, armenian and indo-iranic languages is old enough when the ancient I-E was spoken by first elite (new?)comers along Black Sea shores - the I-E was transmitted to different background people with different pronounciation habits - I don't know enough about baltic languages but what I think I know is that in proto-slavic population the habit was strong: not only the principal trait of satemization, it's to say palatization of stops, took place in ancient slavic, but the habit continued to produce effect (as in Oïl french, but very stronger and very earlier) and subsequent palatizations occurred in slavic languages: I don't know for other satem ones and I regret it -

MOESAN said:

I agree with Yetos answering Zeus: only a religious language: from what sources???

Click to expand...

It is a known fact that throughout history the clergy has held a ruling position, and has differentiated themselves from the common people. The knowledge and education was a privilege only to the clergy, who were at the same time the rulers. One of the most known rulers in the history are the so called "Romans", whose elite as any other theocracy is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group. They were using an excellent Greek, in the law courts, in the political debate, in the speeches, in the liturgy, in the administrative, rhetoric and esthetics and especially in religious literature and inscriptions, BEFORE the so called Latin was fully developed, and used beside the ""Greek"" language. This is the reason we find Greek, in every Roman "path":



which is nowhere to be proven as a vernacular language.

Zeus10 said:

It is a known fact that throughout history the clergy has held a ruling position, and has differentiated themselves from the common people. The knowledge and education was a privilege only to the clergy, who were at the same time the rulers. One of the most known rulers in the history are the so called "Romans", whose elite as any other theocracy is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group. They were using an excellent Greek, in the law courts, in the political debate, in the speeches, in the liturgy, in the administrative, rhetoric and esthetics and especially in religious literature and inscriptions, BEFORE the so called Latin was fully developed, and used beside the ""Greek"" language. This is the reason we find Greek, in every Roman "path":

which is nowhere to be proven as a vernacular language.

Click to expand...

I wonder are the signs of roads 'Clergy language'?

Concerning that Half of Italy.
Half of Balkans,
Minor Asia,
Levantine
Parts of Middle East
Egypt.
Parts of France (Marseille spoke Greek 600 years before Romans, and even today Greek are spoken there)
Parts of Spain (Murcia, Emporion)
Most of Black sea, from Pontus to Crimea.
spoke Greek as 1rst or 2nd language after local for more than 400-who knows, years what do you expect Romans to do?

HOW ROMANS SHOW THEIR GLORY, and supreme AND INSPIRE FEAR TO A NON ROMAN POPULATION. IF NOT ALSO SPEAK TO A KNOWN LANGUAGE?

besides that time mainly had 3 alphabets (Persian, Greco-phoenisian, Greco-Latin (Cyme's))


part b).

Clergy and education,

IF GREEK WAS A CLERGY LANGUAGE?
THEN WHY EACH WRITTER USES ITS OWN DIALECT?
DON"T CLERICS TEACH THEM 1 LANGUAGE?

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HAVING DIALECTS AND LOCAL IDIOMS MEANS THAT GREEK WAS A VIVID LANGUAGE, AND NOT A CLERGY LANGUAGE


C).

the position of priest in ancient world,

Lets see Homer and its myceneans

AGAMEMNON and Achileus took by force, the daughters of Apollo's high priest in Iliad.
clearly a no fear of priests society,

In Odysseus also, limited priests, but many gods.

Athens and κυλωνειον αγος
in the revolts against Thyrrenians we see many times to slain priests, and after that in Democracy we see not a word about Priests,
in Aristotle's Athenean constitution, we Don't even find the word Priest.
MEaning that in Athenean democracy Priest was like a working class

Sparta,
εφοροι, Eforians (priest and rest) lived outside the city, why? if Priests were a rulling class won't they live inside the city, especially in the center?
Leonidas takes 300 men and goes to war against the priest's commands. why?

Phillip the Makedonian
Many times we see the 'respect' Phillip gave to the priests, He used them to sign treaties, but always broke them, he gave them in purpose wrong informations, why?


CAUSE ANCIENT GREEKS SPEAK AND CHALLENEGE THE GODS, FEAR THE GODS, RESPECT THE WIZZARDS (oracles), BUT NEVER AFRAID OF PRIESTS.

so how come priests were a rulling class in Greek world?




Lets go to Byzantines,
Yes Priests in Christianity manage to be a rulling class, they inspire the fear by killing millions of Greeks with the help of Roman emperrors. (Codex Theodosianus, religia illicata)

but lets see if Greek was a clergy language in Byzantines.
in the main Greek speaking areas of East Roman part yes Liturgy was in Greek, But did they force the Slavs to learn Greek so to become Christians?
did they force the Arabic Christians of palestine to learn Greek? did they force the Christins of Egypt or Antioch Syria to learn Greek so to have a liturgy?

NO,in Fact the oposite, they were the 1rst who translate the bible in many other non greek languages and they Help in the creation and formation of Slavic languages and Alphabet.

So if Greek was a Clergy language, Why Clerics did not force Slavs and others to Learn Greek, so to become Christians?

Modern Greece.
following the steps of Grand fathers, from the revolt of 1700' (Orlov's etc) Greeks never listen priests, it is not funny how many Greeks are expelled by priests cause they revolt against Ottomans.
for your Information Υψηλαντης Ipsilantis, The revolt spirit, and the first who raise the flag is still expelled by priests, and when he died he was burried in Vienna, outside Greece, showing the priests that he is not afraid them.

The only Clergy language in Europe was Christian Latin (313-) until the days translation of bible and liturgy was done to the Catholic area churches.
Except Etruscans, THERE WAS NO THEOCRATIC STATE IN ANCIENT EUROPE BEFORE CHRISTIANITY

In modern Europe, Russians are the most in numbers and Deutsch is second,
Yet majority of Europe speaks English, does that allow us to say that English is a Clergy language in a Hundred years?
Today in each country after local language all labels and signs of streets are in English.
Does This makes English a Clergy language?






YES in ARABIA ALL SIGNS ARE ALSO IN ENGLISH.
SO CLERGY IN ARABIA SPEAKS ENGLISH, AND ISLAMIC LITURGY IS IN ENGLISH.
by following your theory, that is why English is so spread all over the world,
cause it is a Clergy language?

is that logic to you?

English and Francais and Spanish are wide spoken all over the world, not due to the colonies that they had? but thanks to 'Religion language' ?
Montreal in Canada speaks Francais due to religion, and Zulu in south Africa learn English or Dutch as second language due to religion?

I agree with Yetos here, as a whole - greek seams having been a 'lingua franca' for trade more than a religious language: latine was a religious language and became the language of (religious) intellectuals in the Middle Ages because at that time the only instructed people was under the strong control of catholics- state = church at that time - but even at that stage, latin was not the language of folk and never became to be -
and let's remember that Roman Empire has not always been a religious state exportating its believings , not at its beginning when greek was the 'intellectual elite' s language - Roma relied more in military force than in religious power (individual religion, not a state one)-

Interestingly, Proto-Greek (when reconstructed based on Greek dialects and Mycenean) seems to have been very close to archaic Indo-European: [Google: Andrew Garrett 2006: Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology]

Satemization then seems to have been an areal phenomenon: it is argued that it and the RUKI-rule happened in different order in Aryan and Balto-Slavic. Also centumization seems to have been a secondary phenomenon: it happened in Hittite only after the Proto-Anatolian stage.

it would prove ancient greek was not the result of a 'second hand' indo-europeanization -

MOESAN said:

I agree with Yetos here, as a whole - greek seams having been a 'lingua franca' for trade more than a religious language: latine was a religious language and became the language of (religious) intellectuals in the Middle Ages because at that time the only instructed people was under the strong control of catholics- state = church at that time - but even at that stage, latin was not the language of folk and never became to be -
and let's remember that Roman Empire has not always been a religious state exportating its believings , not at its beginning when greek was the 'intellectual elite' s language - Roma relied more in military force than in religious power (individual religion, not a state one)-

Click to expand...

Church or trade language, diplomatic, administrative, working or intellectuals one, the so called "Greek" language, always appears as a vehicular language. It has been documented as a religious language on the very start:



and kept the same appearance in the secular literature, widely considered "Ancient" which "misteriously" has been writen many-many centuries after, like this oldest Iliad copy, which belongs to the 10-th Century AD.



or like this other "ancient" text:

Zeus10 said:

Church or trade language, diplomatic, administrative, working or intellectuals one, the so called "Greek" language, always appears as a vehicular language. It has been documented as a religious language on the very start:

and kept the same appearance in the secular literature, widely considered "Ancient" which "misteriously" has been writen many-many centuries after, like this oldest Iliad copy, which belongs to the 10-th Century AD.

or like this other "ancient" text:

Click to expand...

AND AGAIN THE

STRIKES AGAIN WITH FALSE DOCUMENTS


Tell us Zeus10
from what time is that documents?

WHY YOU ?
DO YOU GET PAYED BY SOMEONE?


TELL US NOW FROM WHAT TIME- CENTURY ITS THE PHOTOS YOU POST?

ARE THEY ANCIENT GREEK?

NO, SIMPLY YOU ARE ΤΡΟΛΛΙΓΚ, KNOWING THAT ONLY FEW KNOW GREEK, AND PROVIDING PHOTOS GREEK TEXT FROM MORE THAN 2000 EXELIXIS OF GREEK,


WHY YOU POST BYZANTINE TEXTS AS ANCIENT GREEK?
DO YOU GET PAYED FOR PROVIDING WRONG INFORMATION?
OR YOU JUST

?

TELL US WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE?


THE START OF GREEK LANGUAGE IS MYCENEAN and Greco-aryan
THE 1RST WRITTING ARE FROM HOMER AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ALBANOCENTRIC THEORY that albanian is the mother of all IE languages,
THE PHOTOS YOU SHOW US ARE AT LEAST 2000-2500 YEARS AFTER MYCENEAN, when Greek were spoken all over the known world,


STOP ΤΡΟΛΛΙΝΓΚ, Nobody believes you,
even those who do not know Greek,

Look at the text you show us,
ARE THESE LETTERS ANCIENT GREEK ALPHABET?
Tell us are they ancient Greek alphabet?
Show us your linguistic knowledge, as you show us your ΤΡΟΛΛ skills



SHOWING US BYZANTINE TEXTS AS ANCIENT GREEK DOES NOT HONOR YOU


Meaning that you do that, either in purpose, either due to ignorance, choose and answer us

At least can you translate us the txts?


WHY YOU BAPTISE A BYZANTINE TEXT AS ANCIENT?


Providing theories based on wrong information and evidence,
Facultation or hiding of documents,
is a lie that shows either Ignorance, either purpose-propaganda, either that ugly green creatures that hold a wooden bat.



PS






PS 2

AT LEAST ANSWER US A QUESTION,
ARE BYZANTINE GREEK, PROTO-GREEK?



PS 3
ALL THE DOCUMENTS YOU PROVIDED IN POST ARE CHRISTIAN, AND ONE IS TRANSLATION OF 70,

TELL US PSEUDO-ZEUS10 WERE ANCIENT GREEKS CHRISTRIANS?




PS 4

you say that last text is ancient,
why don't you give us the source, the author, the book name, where it was found,
WHY?

Cause it is not ancient


simply you know few know ancient Greek, and you facultate and provide documents of Byzantines or Christians, as ancient Greek.

If I give you Iliad in Homeric language then you will understand what was Proto-Greek, which surely has nothing to do with Albanian which is a 'Northern Language'
Just search the word ΑΥΤΑΡ in Homer and modern Greek παραυτα,
until you answer me and write it in English and Albanian to see the difference among Greco-Aryan and North Languages ΟΥ ΧΑΙΡΕΙΝ, ΔΙΚΗΣ ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΟΥΣ ΜΕΝΟΥ, ΝΕΜΕΣΙΝ ΠΡΟΣΜΕΝΟΥ, ΟΣΩΝ ΛΑΞΕΥΣΑΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΕΣ ΘΕΟΙ.

the above is in stone, at 6th Century BC
we clearly the word ΑFΕΘΛΑ (Moern Greek ΕΠΑΘΛΑ) which is simmilar with Thessalian AFEΘΛΩι (IA 328 Museums code) and the Pamfylian Language according (Collitz 1267 evidence) AΓΕΘΛΑ

As you see GREEK WAS SPOKEN AND WRITTEN BEFORE CHRISTIANS,
AND WAS NOT A RELIGION LANGUAGE, CAUSE IT HAS DIALECTS, IT IS A VIVID LANGUAGE
A FAMILY LANGUAGE that came FROM THE BIG FAMILY OF GRECO_ARYAN
spoken even in Pamfylia


Funny, you just make my day, better ask for someone to calm down the incoming ΕΡΙΝΥΕΣ, cause your Sacriledge is a challenge Θεοις τε και Ανθρωποις.
I wonder, do you live in ΕΡΙΣ house with ΑΡΑΝΤΙΔΕΣ?

What the... seriously Yetos, stop that! No matter how much you may or may not disagree with a discussion other, there's no justification to insult a board like that. You're receiving an infraction for this one.

And for Zeus, I think that he is simply making an untestable hypothesis. He argues that the language actually spoken by the ancient Greeks was a completely different one from the language in literature. This spoken language, of course, is entirely unattested. Because it is unattested, there is no way to test this, and indeed, according to occam's razor, this hypothesis is entirely unnecessary unless one has the foregone conclusion such a language must exist despite the absence of evidence. But, I have a set of straightforward questions that will help clarify this:

1) Zeus, do you believe that the comparative method is fundamentally flawed?

2) if that is the case, how do you incorporate other Indo-European languages? How do you apply your ideas to non-Indo-European languages and language families?

3) do you believe into a conspiracy in the academia to cover up things?