From: karageorgiou@scsuc.ctstateu.edu (Voodoo Man : member XMAK)
Subject: Re: Confusions...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Southern Connecticut State University - Computer Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:59:00 GMT

In article <BuKnA6.23u@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>, cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes...
>From article <Sep13.195630.44234@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, by cc433336@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Constantinos A. Caroutas):
>> In article <4063@keele.keele.ac.uk> cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:
>>>
>>>No, there were legends to this effect which are uncheckable. Very few
>>>scholars now believe in the Dorian invasion and these Dorians were
>>>always, rather embarassingly, archaeologically invisible.
>> 
>> Neither their dialect was, nor their cities are invisible. They even
>> built a few in Cyprus... So, would you please name those "scholars"
>> of yours?
> 
>Now I did say the Dorian Invasion not the Dorians. It is these putuative
>Dorians who are invisible, not the cities of the classical period. For the
>invasion/non-invasion you could try inter alia Snodgrass, Renfrew,
>Chadwick. It might be a mistake to insist on the glories of Doric
>architecture after all Thucydides remarks you'd never have been able to
>work out the glory of Sparta from its paltry remains. BTW it is clearly
>the Lancastrians of Northern England who are the Spartans true
>descendents as you can see from the fact that the national dish of both
>groups was the Black Pudding. 
> 
> 
>> 
>>>Just a further thought, what about the ancient authors who say there was
>>>Macedonian language?
>> 
>> They meant dialect.
>> --
> 
>Well they had a funny way of putting it. See Bosworth, Eumenes,
>Neoptolemus and PSI XII.1284 GRBS 19 1978  for historical reasons why they probably meant separate
>language and perhaps even more interestingly a piece by Crossland
>published in the proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
>Macedonia on linguistic reasons why Macedonian can't be a Greek dialect.
>Even Hammond is forced to admit that the Macedonians spoke "a patois
>which was not recognizable as normal Doric Greek, but may [impt qualifier,
>Andy] have been a north-west Greek dialect of a primitive kind" 
> 
> 
>None of this of course has any bearing on the right of the modern
>Macedonians to their name.
> 
>Andy

	Question that comes to mind is , after Alexander the Great conquered
Asia, the language that was spoken was "KOINI" which was a simplified
version of Classic/Greek. By defualt hte language that a conquering army
speaks is not that of the adjutant scholars ( Only a Greek army ever had those
:-) but that of the average foot soldier. Does this mean that the average
foot soldier of the Macedonian army spoke Greek? Of course it does, if it wasn't
the case then there would be neither communication nor a Hellinistic period

One more time Mr. Andy
	You are not an objective observer. You attacked the greeks on the
Cyprus Issue ( sorry I couldn't answer to your previous post my terminal
emulator chocked ) , you are also attacking them on the Macedonia issue.

	What about the Greeks of constantinopolis that brought the ancient
teachings to Europe and caused the Rennaissance? Will you say something
about those too?


	As for the name of the Skopjeans. They came to the region at the
6th century A.D. Even if the ancient Macedonians were not Greek which of
course is not the case. These people have no right or claim to this name. 

	As for the Greekiness of the Macedonians how come they all had 
Greek names? Yet something else to chew upon.

Yeian & Eytyxeian
Angelos Karageorgiou
Peace = Eirini
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.yugoslavia