Talk:Attic Greek

message: This article asserts that there is no indefinite article in Attic Greek, but indeed the particle tis, ti functions as often as two different kinds of indefinite article as it does an interrogative pronoun. I may amend this myself if someone would kindly inform me how to use the Greek alphabet in Wiki.
All the Greek words and phrases need the Polytonic template adding to make them visible in Internet Explorer. I may get round to doing this myself some time. --rossb 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, why don't you? The sooner the better. And you are right about the particle. The concept that there is no indefinite article is so well established though that it might be better to present it as a periphrasis, a "work around". The definite article you know developed out of the demonstrative adjectives. There was no need for an indefinite article because Indo-European had no definite article. Once it came, in, then you had to invent a way to get indefinite again. Now, if you open the article for editing you will see some selectable Greek characters. The tis and the ti are enclitic so they do not take an accent. You might be able to do that part without the polytonic template. Best wishes.Dave 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I had some further thoughts on the indefinite article. The Greeks could also signify indefiniteness by leaving off the definite article. The first part of the gospel of John has "En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos". Most interpret "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." But that is not what it says. The last theos has no article and therefore might be indefinite. It might mean "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was a god." In fact that is the interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not Trinitarian. This is not the time or place for religion, but I just wanted to point out an instance of the indefiniteness of the deficit of the definite. You might ask "tis estin ekeinos;" "who is that man?" and get a wise-guy answer "anthropos" "a man".Dave 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polytonic template needed

message: Excuse me I don't want to offend anyone but the traditional order of cases when you list a Greek paradigm is Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative and Vocative. I'm sure there is plenty of room in the field for creative presentation but in this case the dictionaries give the nominative and then a second case, which everyone assumes is the genitive and in fact the author(s) of the dictionary assumes everyone assumes it is the genitive. Moreover the same order is traditional in Latin as well, except, of course, it adds the ablative. When we go down through our lists memorizing our paradigms, as everyone has to do, so we can perform our mental lookups (unless we are very skilled and can think in ancient Greek), it would not be too useful to have some students going haw, hay, taw; too teys, too; tow tey tow; ton, teyn, taw, etc., and others going haw, hay, taw; ton, teyn taw, etc.. Not only that but when the modern languages present what is left of their cases it is always in the same order: nominative, possessive, dative, objective.
Gosh I know the nominative and accusative are very similar and the vocative even more similar still but there is a tradition here and you can't depart from it without bringing down the taxis of the kosmos, so play along, will you? Thanks. I'll change those tables when I get a chance, but meanwhile maybe we should have a look at the next topic.Dave 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of cases

message: My guess is the author already perceived the problem with this topic and has halted work while he/she figures it out or else got discouraged and went away. What are we trying to do, type in a textbook in ancient Greek? Why not just buy one or go to the tutorials on the Internet? If you are going to learn Greek from Wikipedia you will be straining your eyes from looking at the screen all the time and not only that but it may not be convenient to carry around a computer so you can learn Greek from Wikipedia. I don't think we should be aiming at putting a textbook in here and it won't fit anyway, not by a long shot. Wikipedia can't do everything.
I've seen rough summaries of language features both on-line and in encyclopedias such as Britannica. We just want to give the ordinary person an idea of what Greek is like if he or she should want to learn any (a commendable task). So we will have to decide how much is too much. Not only that but let's not get carried away with the the fact that Attic has been a standard. This is supposed to cover Attic Greek as opposed to some other dialect rather than being a total course in ancient Greek.Dave 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper topic

message: I just discovered that the grammar part of this article is duplicated under Ancient Greek grammar. So, the proper thing to do it seems to me is go through here excising the duplicate materal that has to do with the ancient Greek language rather than the Attic dialect. That will leave more room to cover the dialect. So, most of what I have said in the discussion page is not really relevant in light of that intent. I will have to go through here slowly and carefully to get it more into a dialect article and cut out the duplication. This will take time, but feel free to jump in yourself.Dave 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Show stopper

message: I put this duplicate material here if anyone wants it.Dave 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Material

message: []
Someone put in a Stub indicator for this short article immediately after I wrote it.
But really, there's nothing more that should be said here.
Someone looking for this term should get an explanation of the term, and a referral to one or more articles in which the subject is dealt with in a larger context.
It also shouldn't be an automatic referral because Classical Attic is distinct (as a subset) from Attic dialect. A referral defines them as equivalents.
It's kind of like a Disambiguation page -- but disambiguation within one subject.
It should be just what it is:  a short article that defines a superset or subset of something discussed in another article or articles, and then gives you a link or links for further information.
This Classical Attic article is a sub-set example, for a super-set example, see Attic-Ionic.
:Would it be unsuitable to replace this with a redirect either to Attic-Ionic or Attic Greek? I see what you mean with the stub classification being kindof redundant, and thats why I am having a hard time with this article... A larger article on different forms of the greek language or Dialects of Ancient Greek with alot of redirects to it might be a better idea? Thoughts? I'm a bit of a mergist, and I don't really think that if a topic will never grow beyond a couple of sentences it needs its own article. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four '~' symbols in a row..., it adds the standard sig, just like this one: Usrnme h8er 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tranferred old discussion about ''Classical Attic'' 

message: Looks like hell on the article page. Every map I see in WP looks worse than the last, and usu. (not this instance) provides less and less info. 71.164.206.36 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: R is a vowel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.180.138 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please take note that 

message: I'd like to know more about "Ancient Attic literature as published today thus makes use of a number of such non-ancient features." Do any of the sources or readings specifically mentioned in the article discuss this in detail? I'd like to learn Ancient Greek at some point and the philological aspects of this topic fascinate me the most from what the article has covered of Attic Greek. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RareBookCollector (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the Byzantine transcriptions paragraph under the third heading "Alphabet". 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Attic Greek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102135107/http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/greek.html to http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/greek.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Alphabet" first states "it uses the letters Ψ and Χ with their classical values" and afterwards "It lacked the consonant symbols xi (Ξ) for /ks/ and psi (Ψ) for /ps/, expressing these sound combinations with ΧΣ and ΦΣ respectively." That seems to be a contradiction. I don't know the truth, so I can't edit.2400:4050:2EA0:A900:C1AE:14A5:ECCD:C18D (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of Ψ in the ancient attic alphabet