![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the examples of polyphonic Greek characters are illegible in Internet Explorer. They all need the polytonic template. -- rossb 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth isn't there anything about the pronunciation of ξ and ψ? -- Henri de Solages 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Iotacist ( talk) 00:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Iotacist ( talk) 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Why are φ and β listed as bilabial consonants, /ɸ/ & /β/? The text doesn't seem to suggest that there has been a transition from /pʰ/ and /b/ to /f/ and /v/ through /ɸ/ and /β/.
The evolution of the pronunciation of ει before a vowel and before a consonant is explained, but what about final ει? -- Henri de Solages ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
As a less learned visitor to this page I was confused by the time designations "late Roman period" and "early Byzantine period." Perhaps the first time these designations are used they should be explained by providing the century in parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.247.150 ( talk) 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It can only be on oversimplification to present a language spoken by people from Italy to India and from the Crimea to Egypt, and over a period of several centuries, often by non-native speakers, as having a defined pronunciation. Besides, the fricatization of Y in diphthongs is evident not from 1st C AD Egyptian records but already in archaic Greek inscriptions, where two or three different letters are being used in place of Y to indicate different pronunciations, at least one of which is the digamma, considered a fricative. Skamnelis ( talk) 11:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Since we are talking about Y diphthongs here, I repeat again does anyone have any ideas on the timing of their fricativization, or more precisely, if they had become fricative by the 1st century AD or if they remained semi-vocalic? Again, the [-ɸʷ, -βʷ] pronunciation which Horrocks notes as a transitional phase might be a good compromise. Please see my notes below. 2602:306:C439:3150:389C:BEA:91F3:13FA ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Do we think koine Greek used a geminate pronunciation for consonants written double? Q·L· 1968 ☿ 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Gignac does lists frequent examples of geminate simplification in the papyri. I have made note of this in the consonant discussion.
Iotacist ( talk) 20:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
This development can hardly be direct, can it? I'd expect it to go via [ø:] or [øy] or [ui]. Do we know anything about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.132.58 ( talk) 02:46, December 11, 2015
By the way, does anyone have any suggestions on the status of αυ/ευ in the 1st century AD (i.e. New Testament times)? I've been working on tidying up the previously un-cited biblical Koine chart on the Koine Greek page. It originally had these diphthongs pronouncing as the intermediate value of a semi-vowel /aw, ew/. Horrocks, on the other hand, consistently transcribes these as [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ] for New Testament Greek. Indeed, there are a several instances (counted six listed by Gignac) of confusions with αβ, εβ from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD (before the 4th century AD, when it is generally agreed that their fricativization was complete.) Now, Gignac does state that α(υ)oυ, ε(υ)oυ are more common before the 4th century, so the older values of /aw, ew/ or /aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ/ were probably more common. But in any case, is it still too premature to assume that this sound change was complete for at least some speakers? The labialized fricative could be seen as a compromise.
Also, one editor asked several years ago about a supposed uvular /ʁ/ value for ρ. He or she claimed to have taken this from a website, but no source was found and they switched it back to alveolar trill. I know nothing about Hebrew/Aramaic, but was wondering if this could be a Semitism. If so, which other phonemes could've been affected? Currently, I've edited the NT Greek chart to match a more standard Koine reconstruction by Teordorsson, but it would be nice to have something on a specifically Judaean dialect, if we can find anything on this (which unfortunately, I haven't...)
Iotacist ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The phonetic symbol [ʷ] denotes simultaneous labialization/lip-rounding. Sorry I wasn't clear about this above, but Horrocks proposes several intermediate stages in the shift of αυ/ευ to fricative pronunciations. The first stage was the second element in /au, eu/ closing to a semi-vowel /aw, ew/, probably along with the monophthongization of the other diphthongs. Increasingly narrower closure led to the bilabial fricative pronunciation, but still with lip-rounding, of [aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ]. Once labialization was lost, this became simply [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ]. It was only a matter of time before this shifted to the dental fricative phase of [af, av, ef, ev], as in Modern Greek. I was suggesting that since Horrocks's New Testament transcription is found at the bottom of the Koine Greek page with the more phonetically 'advanced' [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ] pronunciation, inconsistent with the more conservative reconstructed biblical Greek table above (which had /aw, ew/), and since it is assumed that this sound change was complete for some speakers (probably the lower classes first) as a few spelling errors with αβ, εβ appear in the Greek papyri in the 1st century, that the [aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ] pronunciation could be a reasonable compromise. Iotacist ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The beggining of the Greek sample reads:
τῇ κυρία ἀδ[ελ]φῇ Μανατίνῃ Πρώβ[ο]ς ἀδελφὼ χαίριν.
It’s transcribed:
[ti cyˈria mu aðelˈfi manaˈtini ˈprovos aðelˈfo(s) ˈçerin.
The [mu] part is missing in the original text (κυρία μου), or it was erroneously added in the transcription. Vincent Ramos ( talk) 18:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's something I have observed:
In koine-era transcriptions of greek, αι\ε and οι\υ are always merged, but ω\ο generally are not. The αι\ε merger shows that vowel length was already lost, so it seems that ω\ο had some time of qualitative difference maybe?
Greek | Coptic | Gothic | Slavonic | Armenian |
---|---|---|---|---|
ου | ⲟⲩ | 𐌿 | у | ու |
ο | ⲟ | 𐌰𐌿 | о | ո |
ω | ⲱ | 𐍉 | ѡ | ով |
α | ⲁ | 𐌰 | а | ա |
ε | ⲉ | 𐌰𐌹 | е | ե |
αι | ⲉ | 𐌰𐌹 | е | ե |
η | ⲏ | 𐌴 | и | է |
ι | ⲓ ⲉⲓ | 𐌹 𐌴𐌹 | і | ի |
ει | ⲓ ⲉⲓ | 𐌴𐌹 | і | ի |
υ | ⲩ | 𐍅 | ѵ | իւ |
οι | ⲩ | 𐍅 | ѵ | իւ |
Has any litterature explored this question?
Βώρδαρτ
>>> The merger of ω and ο is extremely frequent in Koine documents starting from the mid 2nd century BCE in Egypt; they represented one single sound, mid rounded back vowel, /o/, with no distinction of quantity or quality. The preservation of ω in foreign transcriptions was probably just a formality. As for the Coptic case, I just consulted the Wiki table on Coptic alphabet and it shows that ω and ο are used to represent the long and short /o:/ vs. /o/ in most dialects; I'd assume that this was because Greek transcription of Egyptian started in the 3rd cent. BCE, when Greek would've still maintained vowel length distinction.
--Iotacist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C2A0:9C50:E58F:C8E3:71A3:59E6 ( talk) 19:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is very interesting as an academic analysis, but it lacks quotations and isn't very suitable for an encyclopaedia in this form. Opzwartbeek ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the examples of polyphonic Greek characters are illegible in Internet Explorer. They all need the polytonic template. -- rossb 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth isn't there anything about the pronunciation of ξ and ψ? -- Henri de Solages 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Iotacist ( talk) 00:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Iotacist ( talk) 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Why are φ and β listed as bilabial consonants, /ɸ/ & /β/? The text doesn't seem to suggest that there has been a transition from /pʰ/ and /b/ to /f/ and /v/ through /ɸ/ and /β/.
The evolution of the pronunciation of ει before a vowel and before a consonant is explained, but what about final ει? -- Henri de Solages ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
As a less learned visitor to this page I was confused by the time designations "late Roman period" and "early Byzantine period." Perhaps the first time these designations are used they should be explained by providing the century in parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.247.150 ( talk) 10:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It can only be on oversimplification to present a language spoken by people from Italy to India and from the Crimea to Egypt, and over a period of several centuries, often by non-native speakers, as having a defined pronunciation. Besides, the fricatization of Y in diphthongs is evident not from 1st C AD Egyptian records but already in archaic Greek inscriptions, where two or three different letters are being used in place of Y to indicate different pronunciations, at least one of which is the digamma, considered a fricative. Skamnelis ( talk) 11:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Since we are talking about Y diphthongs here, I repeat again does anyone have any ideas on the timing of their fricativization, or more precisely, if they had become fricative by the 1st century AD or if they remained semi-vocalic? Again, the [-ɸʷ, -βʷ] pronunciation which Horrocks notes as a transitional phase might be a good compromise. Please see my notes below. 2602:306:C439:3150:389C:BEA:91F3:13FA ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
Do we think koine Greek used a geminate pronunciation for consonants written double? Q·L· 1968 ☿ 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Gignac does lists frequent examples of geminate simplification in the papyri. I have made note of this in the consonant discussion.
Iotacist ( talk) 20:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
This development can hardly be direct, can it? I'd expect it to go via [ø:] or [øy] or [ui]. Do we know anything about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.132.58 ( talk) 02:46, December 11, 2015
By the way, does anyone have any suggestions on the status of αυ/ευ in the 1st century AD (i.e. New Testament times)? I've been working on tidying up the previously un-cited biblical Koine chart on the Koine Greek page. It originally had these diphthongs pronouncing as the intermediate value of a semi-vowel /aw, ew/. Horrocks, on the other hand, consistently transcribes these as [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ] for New Testament Greek. Indeed, there are a several instances (counted six listed by Gignac) of confusions with αβ, εβ from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD (before the 4th century AD, when it is generally agreed that their fricativization was complete.) Now, Gignac does state that α(υ)oυ, ε(υ)oυ are more common before the 4th century, so the older values of /aw, ew/ or /aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ/ were probably more common. But in any case, is it still too premature to assume that this sound change was complete for at least some speakers? The labialized fricative could be seen as a compromise.
Also, one editor asked several years ago about a supposed uvular /ʁ/ value for ρ. He or she claimed to have taken this from a website, but no source was found and they switched it back to alveolar trill. I know nothing about Hebrew/Aramaic, but was wondering if this could be a Semitism. If so, which other phonemes could've been affected? Currently, I've edited the NT Greek chart to match a more standard Koine reconstruction by Teordorsson, but it would be nice to have something on a specifically Judaean dialect, if we can find anything on this (which unfortunately, I haven't...)
Iotacist ( talk) 21:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The phonetic symbol [ʷ] denotes simultaneous labialization/lip-rounding. Sorry I wasn't clear about this above, but Horrocks proposes several intermediate stages in the shift of αυ/ευ to fricative pronunciations. The first stage was the second element in /au, eu/ closing to a semi-vowel /aw, ew/, probably along with the monophthongization of the other diphthongs. Increasingly narrower closure led to the bilabial fricative pronunciation, but still with lip-rounding, of [aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ]. Once labialization was lost, this became simply [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ]. It was only a matter of time before this shifted to the dental fricative phase of [af, av, ef, ev], as in Modern Greek. I was suggesting that since Horrocks's New Testament transcription is found at the bottom of the Koine Greek page with the more phonetically 'advanced' [aφ, aβ, eφ, eβ] pronunciation, inconsistent with the more conservative reconstructed biblical Greek table above (which had /aw, ew/), and since it is assumed that this sound change was complete for some speakers (probably the lower classes first) as a few spelling errors with αβ, εβ appear in the Greek papyri in the 1st century, that the [aɸʷ, aβʷ, eɸʷ, eβʷ] pronunciation could be a reasonable compromise. Iotacist ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Iotacist
The beggining of the Greek sample reads:
τῇ κυρία ἀδ[ελ]φῇ Μανατίνῃ Πρώβ[ο]ς ἀδελφὼ χαίριν.
It’s transcribed:
[ti cyˈria mu aðelˈfi manaˈtini ˈprovos aðelˈfo(s) ˈçerin.
The [mu] part is missing in the original text (κυρία μου), or it was erroneously added in the transcription. Vincent Ramos ( talk) 18:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's something I have observed:
In koine-era transcriptions of greek, αι\ε and οι\υ are always merged, but ω\ο generally are not. The αι\ε merger shows that vowel length was already lost, so it seems that ω\ο had some time of qualitative difference maybe?
Greek | Coptic | Gothic | Slavonic | Armenian |
---|---|---|---|---|
ου | ⲟⲩ | 𐌿 | у | ու |
ο | ⲟ | 𐌰𐌿 | о | ո |
ω | ⲱ | 𐍉 | ѡ | ով |
α | ⲁ | 𐌰 | а | ա |
ε | ⲉ | 𐌰𐌹 | е | ե |
αι | ⲉ | 𐌰𐌹 | е | ե |
η | ⲏ | 𐌴 | и | է |
ι | ⲓ ⲉⲓ | 𐌹 𐌴𐌹 | і | ի |
ει | ⲓ ⲉⲓ | 𐌴𐌹 | і | ի |
υ | ⲩ | 𐍅 | ѵ | իւ |
οι | ⲩ | 𐍅 | ѵ | իւ |
Has any litterature explored this question?
Βώρδαρτ
>>> The merger of ω and ο is extremely frequent in Koine documents starting from the mid 2nd century BCE in Egypt; they represented one single sound, mid rounded back vowel, /o/, with no distinction of quantity or quality. The preservation of ω in foreign transcriptions was probably just a formality. As for the Coptic case, I just consulted the Wiki table on Coptic alphabet and it shows that ω and ο are used to represent the long and short /o:/ vs. /o/ in most dialects; I'd assume that this was because Greek transcription of Egyptian started in the 3rd cent. BCE, when Greek would've still maintained vowel length distinction.
--Iotacist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C2A0:9C50:E58F:C8E3:71A3:59E6 ( talk) 19:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph is very interesting as an academic analysis, but it lacks quotations and isn't very suitable for an encyclopaedia in this form. Opzwartbeek ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)