Talk:Proto-Greek language

message: 86.93.208.34 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of the first paragraph is a paradox and contradiction

message: This text was constructed by the Indian scholar S.K. Sen, and it is supposed to be a proto-Sanskrit text based on old Indic *PIE roots.  I (sort of) translated it hastily into Ancient Greek, taking a liberty or two (i.e. using ρηξ, a Latin-derived Byzantine neologism, because the probably pre-Greek βασιλεύς has supplanted the IE-derived equivalent).  Please feel free to contribute, especially in the items I have question-marked:
To, régho:n ?e ?est. So nputlós ?e ?est. So régho:n súxnum éwelt.
Kwo kwe re:ks eeto. Kwos apaids eeto. Kwos reeks huion gwoleto.
Πο(τέ), ρηξ ήτο.  Ος άπαις(?) ήτο. Ο ρήξ υιόν εβούλετο.
Once, there was a king. He was childless. The king wanted a son.
So tósyo gHeutérm prksket: “Súxnus moi gnxyeto:m!”
Ος τούτου χυτήρα ηρώτα (?): "Υιός μοι γένοιτο!"
He asked his priest: “May a son be born to me!”
So gHeuté:r tom réghonm ?e wewkWet: “Ihgeswo deiwóm Wérunom”.
Ο χυτήρ τωι ρήγαι είπε: "Ίκεσο θεόν Ουρανόν"
The priest said to the king: “Pray to the god Varuna”.
So régho:n deiwóm Werunom xúpo-sesore nu deiwóm ihgeto.
Ο ρήξ θεόν Ουρανόν υφεώρα(?) νυν θέον ίκετο.
The king approached the god Varuna to pray now to the god.
“KludHí moi, pxtér Wérune!”
"Κλύθι μοι, Πάτερ Ουρανέ!"
“Hear me, father Varuna!”
Deiwós Wérunos diwósyo ?e ni-gWext.
Θεός Ουρανός κατά δίος ήκε.
The god Varuna came down from heaven.
“KWid wélsi?” “Wélmi súxnum.”
"Τι βούλεσαι?" "Βούλομαι υιόν"
“What do you want?” “I want a son.”
“Tod ?éstu,” wéwkWet louqós deiwós Wérunos.
"Τούτο έστω," είπε λευκός θεός Ουρανός.
“Let this be so,” said the bright god Varuna.
Reghnós pótnix súxnum gégone.
Ρηγός πότνια υιόν γέγονε. 
The king’s lady bore a son.
----
IMHO this is about 50% intelligible by any Greek and almost fully intelligible to an educated Greek Chronographos 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
:very nice! now do it in Proto-Greek (mainly inserting the labiovelars and the spirants). The king could be the wanaks (in Sanskrit, the vanij). dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
::Hey, Mr. Lazy Boy, am I to do everything around here? :-P Chronographos 8 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know, I can read ancient Greek (of course, the translations help). Decius 8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
::I am not at all sure about nputlos, húpo-sesore and prcscet.  I may have also mixed up some Datives and Accusatives.  The rest was pretty darn straightforward - including χυτήρα 
= (libation) pourer = priest.  Chronographos 8 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
According to my references, ancient Greek boulomai (boule) is from PIE *gwel, 'to throw, reach', while the PIE equivalent is from PIE *wel, 'to wish, will'. Different roots, but equivalent form and meaning. Decius 8 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
:I think to reach fits just fine, "What to reach?" still makes sense, despite being gramatically incorrect. -- HawkeyE 06:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
::the point is that the words are supposed to be cognates, which in this case they are not. dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  I'm afraid this will have to stand as license poetique.  Chronographos 10:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the first sentence in proto-greek. Notice also that βούλεσαι is not greek but is probably close to proto-greek: *gwoolesai>*βούλεσαι>*βούλεhαι>*βούλεαι>βούληι     -which is the attested form--66.183.163.115 04:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A very old story

message: I agree with you, dab, it's not well done at all.  Of course I see the point in including it, if it's the only such reconstruction by an known scholar.  Still I'd dare say you'd do a better job reconstructing it yourself.  Chronographos 10:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: of course, but it would need to be a published reconstruction, I suppose; in any case, the point of including it is to show the evolution of our understanding of Proto-Greek. Schwyzer couldn't have done any better in 1939. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Chronographos 10:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Athenaioi we would have to reconstruct as Astanwasyoi, but even that is weird, since the Proto-Greeks would not have had any Luwian loanwords (not to mention the paradoxon of addressing Proto-Greeks who have not even set foot on the Greek peninsula as Athenians :) -- maybe we should something Homeric to project back, rather. OR, I know -- since I have just been picking on Nixer over at Talk:Proto-Indo-European_language  for inserting his own (re)constructions without explanation. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read that Athana was a Luwian loan?  I was under the impression that it was a non-PIE substrate loan.  Chronographos 13:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: we cannot be certain, of course, but see the etymology at Athena. I would not be surprised, incidentially, if Luwian had a strong influence, at least, on late Eteocretan. dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not very convincing.  Sounds even less plausible than the "N'eith" etymology in Bernal's "Black Athena". Chronographos 14:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I was wondering about that Luwian etymology myself: how strong is this Luwian etymology, what is the evidence for it, etc. From what I know, classical Athena was not associated with the sun in any notable manner (as the Luwian etymology would have it). Pre-classical, I would need to see the evidence. ---Decius 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence, it's etymology by lack of evidence: She was around since the Mycenaean times at least, she has no known equivalent in IE theology (i.e. wise warrior virgin daughter of Dyeus Piter), no apparent IE etymology, therefore she must have been a loan (by a process of elimination) Chronographos 14:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Afrocentrists? Oh, noooooo, you poor thing .... :-P Chronographos 14:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: just don't repeat the "Decius" mistake and blunder over there mockingly; I think he is rather sensitive, and we are just beginning to get along :P dab (ᛏ) 15:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In the case of Talk:Pelasgians, it was no blunder. From the way the etymology is phrased in Athena, I suspect the information was taken from this site [http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/e023, which is not a good site to take etymologies from.  ---Decius 15:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New text

message: Enkyklios, with changing treyes to trees, you seem to claim that invervocalic y was already lost in Proto-Greek, while so far we have stated it was lost between Proto-Greek and Mycenaean. Is this a statement you wanted to make, and, are you sure? dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not sure. As a matter of fact we only know that it was lost somewhere between Proto-Indo-European and Mycenaean. The question is if Proto-Greek is more archaic than all Greek dialects in this respect. It may be, but we simply cannot know. I prefer to reconstruct Proto-Greek as the probable common denominator for all Greek dialects. A compromise would be a parenthesis: . Enkyklios 14:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trees

message: Enkyklios, I am glad for the update, but we need an explanation of the notation; in particular, what is ç? Maybe do a table of phonemes further up under "phonology"? dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact ç is explained in the note beyond the text as a voiceless approximant. I know that this notation is not standard in the handbooks of IE and Greek lignuistics, but is perfect IPA. Enkyklios 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sample

message: The following paragraph inserted by 195.35.105.38 has been deleted:
: Petralona Archanthropus’ Skull
: The first proof of native intelligent human presence in Greece came with the discovery of Petralona Archanthropus’ Skull, in Chalcidice in 1960. The skull has been dated to be at least 70,000 years old, by two German scientists: the anthropologist E. Breitinger and the palaeontologist O. Sickenberg. Extensive research on the issue has been done by the anthropologist Dr. Aris Poulianos of Moscow University, who claims this discovery obsoletes the Indo-European theory. 40th anniversary since the discovery of Petralona Archanthropes' Skull Interview with A. Poulianos
The palaeanthopological evidence has no relevance for the discussion of Proto-Greek and does not belong here. Whatever credentials Poulianos may have as an anthropologist, he is certainly not an expert on historical linguistics, as it is obvious from his comments in the interview. Even if we were ready to accept his hypothesis of a genetic continuity from palaeolithicum until the present time (most anthropologists aren't), it does not necessarily follow that there was a linguistic continuity as well. We don't know what language that poor Archanthropus fellow spoke. Unless Poulianos can detect a fossilised Proto-Greek paradigm somewhere in the skull, the remains cannot possibly prove that the Greek language is authochthonous rather than a later import from the northeast or the east. Enkyklios 12:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the presence of a skull means merely that human populations came and went, maybe with the opportunity of mixing.   As you seem to be suggesting, Greek is a fairly new language, arising independently, all by itself, without having been influenced by other peoples in the area, whether by mixing or by accident?  216.99.201.33 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Archanthropus case 

message: Shouldn't the reconstruction of ὅτι be ʍokwid instead of çokwid?
Isn't [ç] a fricative? Someone could argue that *sy would sound more like a [ɕ]. Is there a character for describing unvoiced [j]?
--Kupirijo 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approximants in proto-Greek 

message: Many sound-changes are listed in the phonology section.  It would be really useful to see at least one example of each change, especially as it isn't clear to non-specialists (like me) exactly what each change consists of.  For example, does "Aspiration of /s/ -> /h/ intervocalically" mean that VSV -> VHV or VSV -> VSHV, or what?  
The discussion of sus "sow" and dasus "dense" is unclear to me.  Are sus and dasus the same in PIE and PG?  If so, state this.  If not, give the form of each word in each language.  Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples would be useful in the "phonology" section

message: Wow, thanks guys!  But could we get a phoneme chart for vowels and consonants like all other language>phonology articles have, even the reconstructed ones?  Please keep the historical linguistics rules, though.
35.8.248.47 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phomeme Chart

message: How many kinds of stress were there in Proto-Greek?
Is there any evidence for the existence of tonal stress, pitch stress, or syllabic stress in Proto-Greek?
The main article could be improved if an entire paragraph were spent on the rise of stress in Greek, and the functions of grave, circumflex, and acute stress in the language.   216.99.219.35 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Stress in Proto-Greek 

message: Hello all. I can see you are all very knowledgeable on the topic. Could you suggest some sources for studies on Proto-Greek? Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.110.119 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also looking for any published work on the subject, especially a reconstructed lexicon. --Victar (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If these changes are "complete in Mycenaean", it really should be explained why they are not reconstructed to have occurred by PG, then. (As is currently done for the *sm > (m)m change.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound changes between Proto-Greek and Mycenaean 

message: None of the links of the sources say anything about Proto-Greek being spoken in Albania, but Alexikoua added the region in his map. So after checking page 56 of Georgiev it seems that it was spoken in coastal areas i.e not all of southern Albania, so if he adds Georgiev back he should exclude those areas. Georgiev says "up to Aulon", which means that Aulon is the northermost area.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is clear on this issue: it says "up to Aulon" excactly what the map shows. It doesn't include areas north of Aulon/Vlore. What we should consider is that this is a reconstruction by Georgiev, based on linguistic criteria: especially on toponyms: I have also included the Pindus and Ceraunian mountains regions per his definition of the Proto-Greek area [] Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless I've moved the borders south at some parts, although the northernmost part of Pindus remains that way outside the area.Alexikoua (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexikoua's map 

message: The source/meaning/purpose of the "Modern" column in the Proto-Greek Reconstruction chart is mysterious to me. What is the source? Dmoerner (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Late reply to this, but I've actually gone ahead and removed the whole section. Since the original Schwyzer reconstruction appears to be heavily outdated, while the "modern" one seems to be a self-made one devised by a Wikipedian, and thus WP:OR (though no doubt quite competent and knowledgeable ), there isn't really much benefit in having either of them. (Plus, the whole idea of taking "famous lines from classical literature" and projecting them back into the language of a much earlier time period is dubious in itself. It's a bit as if you wanted to demonstrate what Middle English was like, and did that by taking lines from, say, Beatles songs, "translated" back into the forms of Chaucer). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Modern Proto-Greek Reconstruction? 

message: According to the article, the accentual restrictions of later Greek, and the circumflex accent, are all later developments that did not occur in Proto-Greek. But the article doesn't say much about the developments that did happen. Or did nothing at all change between PIE and PG? CodeCat (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of the accent 

message: Although my time  is quite limited (lots of real life obligations)and I cannot comment in extenso, the Greco-Armenian connection put forward in the early 1920' or 1930's (really can't check it out and sincerely don't remember right now exactly when or by whom this was proposed; was it Pedersen?) has been seriously assailed some 2 decades now and is no longer considered as plausible as it used to be (to say the least). When it comes to the notorious phylogenetic trees, Proto-Greek has also been proposed as a sibling or ancestor of almost all of Paul Kretschmer's so called Balkan Sprachbund languages including the hottly debated but still spurious Ancient Macedonian, as well as  Phrygian, Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian and whatnot. Such seductively attractive hypotheses are mighty interesting but alas they do not belong in this article given the current poor state of attestation of all these extinct and largely epigraphically unattested languages (barring the Phrygian language all others are mostly known only indirectly through dubious onomastica, anthroponymy & toponymy). So, let's keep it simple for the time being. Everyone interested in the vagarities of these languages can easily check the relevant links. I will come back with more precise and up to date literature to resolve any doubts in due time. The Greco-Armenian hypothesis needs a lot of refurbishing to start with. Thanks everybody in advance.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Tzimas (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 November 2014‎
You know, 3000 BC is pretty close to late PIE anyway, and nobody disputes Greek and Armenian both grew out of that. Afaik, "Greco-Armenian" as a hypothesis is doing quite well, but it isn't really that exciting, because it boils down to some degree of "prolongued contact" over a couple of centuries after whatever cutoff you prefer to set on "late PIE". The idea here is, of course, that Armenian is substantially derived from Phrygian. Otherwise, as you say, we have really nothing to go on for the "Armenian" side of the equation. Armenian was exposed to some rather weird substrate and/or superstrate influence, but its core it may very well derive from Phrygian. 
Of course, the topic belongs on Greco-Armenian, and this page should only briefly mention the point. It should also not place undue weight on a random paper from 2003 doing some things with Swadesh lists. This was interesting as a "proof of concept" back in 2003, but it hardly replaces 200 years of philologists' research. --dab (𒁳) 19:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Greek, the Greco-Armenian connection etc.

message: Some post-Proto-Greek sound changes are discussed here. They should be moved to either , , or , depending on when they occurred. And eventually, though this is a more involved project, they should be described briefly in History of Greek, along with the sound changes of all other periods of Greek.
Also, does anyone know sources for the sound changes between the time of Mycenaean and Ancient Greek described in this article? I need some to add to Ancient Greek phonology, and to allow me to describe them in more detail. — Eru·tuon 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving description of Post-Proto-Greek changes 

message: , could you please be more careful in your edits on Talk? You have inserted garbage text into other editors'  comments in Talk on a couple of occasions:
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-Greek_language&diff=974035063&oldid=974033356
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-Greek_language&diff=prev&oldid=974011260
Please clean those up and be more careful in the future. --Macrakis (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for noticing that , I was surprised when I find out that my comments had been altered.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Talk

message: I've had to take the article back to the last version before the latest edits, because much older and newer bibliography, abandoned theories and the current consensus were mixed up as equally plausible and the idea that IE languages were spoken around 3,200 BCE in the Balkans was reintroduced.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be more precise why you consider those edits by B.Bronson and Demetrious as nonsense. As I see you removed several reliable sources on the subject that discuss the subject and are quite recent ones. [] Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also something completely wrong in this edit [] though the removal conserns Early Helladic III, the editor in question explains his removal as there was no IE language spoken in Early Helladic.... I. I assume a sencere apology of the said editor is needed here.Alexikoua (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and thank you for your help Alexikoua (at least somebody here recognizes and respects good-faith edit contributions). Blue Branson (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-Greek substrate had the same problem. I see no issue with providing alternative views, but they shouldn't be portrayed as the academic consensus.  Alcaios (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: As I said on Blue Branson's talk page: "Dating the coming of Proto-Greek to the late 4th millennium BC is simply improbable from a linguistic point of view. This would imply that Proto-Greek had been 'separated' from other non-Balkan IE languages for at least 2,000 years (!) before the earliest attestation of a Greek dialect (Mycenaean), whereas comparison with the contemporary Vedic Sanskrit language shows that it cannot be the case." Alcaios (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: (Posting by banned user removed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts by typing two dashes and four tildes following it.  I guess you're a beginner at Wikipedia.  You should read WP:CONSENSUS before making any aspersions about its use in Wikipedia.  We cite sources in Wikipedia, whether you like it or not.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (Posting by banned user removed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: It is good stuff my dude. Change my mind. Konami Vortex
:Since you're probably another manifestation of a banned user, I'll let Future Perfect perform his admin magic on you.  But in the faint chance that you're not a banned user sockpuppet, it's not our job to convince you to remove your questionable edit that is not based on consensus, it's YOUR job to convince us that your edit really is "good stuff" (which is doubtful at best).  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good stuff 

message: Hello. Regarding the last rv (diff), just noticed that  was added back in the 28th of February by 95.42.25.28 (diff), and its reasoning was . Yet in the said article, it is clear that there is a modern consensus of Ancient Macedonian being classified as either a dialect of Ancient Greek or a distinct Hellenic language that was closely related to Ancient Greek. In either case, a descendant of proto-Greek (also known as proto-Hellenic). Thus i believe that the "according to some views" should either be changed to "according to most views" or be entirely removed and remain like it was prior of the 28th of February; something which better compliments the respective Ancient Macedonian language article. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is more a matter of terminology. Some linguists consider a Hellenic family, which then split into a Greek and a Macedonian branch. If Proto-Greek is considered only the ancestor of the former (with the ancestor of both being termed Proto-Hellenic), then it's not the ancestor of Ancient Macedonian. But there are also those who consider Greek and Hellenic synonyms, and include Macedonian in the definition. So perhaps the sentence could be reworded to show that it's not so much about how linguists treat Macedonian, but more which term they use for which point in the tree. Rua (mew) 20:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually just noticed that it was in a parenthesis pertaining to Ancient Greek dialects; totally forgot about it. Thus an elaboration was justified, but it could be presented more accurately. What i propose to better compliment the respective article is . In terms of the terminology, there appears to be inter-article consistency. For example, look at the Hellenic languages, which presents Greek and ancient Macedonian (if not a dialect of the former; hence the ? in the infobox) as its members, and proto-Greek as their proto-language. The lede of this article also includes "Proto-Hellenic" as an alternative title, pertaining to this broader grouping. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better wording, Demetrios1993.  However, replace the semi-colon after "ancient Macedonian" with an m-dash.  The semi-colon indicates a break after "Macedonian", not a clarification.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Macedonian 

message: The quote of R.D. is not correct: "Robert Drews (1994) dates it to c. 1900 BCE." In the quoted p. 14, R.D. is not describing his own position, but Blegen's. 2804:4EC:1258:B000:91EF:925E:6FE2:1421 (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Drews on the coming of the greeks 

message: "Nothing in that article deals with the linguistic dating of Proto-Greek." - Future Perfect at Sunrise
:paper discusses people *and* language. no sense marginalizing geneticists when the page cites 'linguistic dates' from historians and archeologists.
::"The article is NOT about linguistic dating. It mentions that its dates are similar to linguistic dates, but that is not a DISCUSSION of linguistid dating" - TaivoLinguist
:::stop screaming please. 1st, 'discussion of linguistic dating' is arbitrary because the paper is relevant, verifiable and reputable. 2nd, the page keeps 'historical dating' and 'archeological dating' that the arbitrary 'discussion of linguistic dating' criterion would discount. 3rd, no sense excluding genetic science just because it's not *your* science.
::::"Non-linguistic evidence is circumstantial evidence. Don't force your way and get consensus in the talk page first." - Austronesier
:::::1st, direct proof of proto-greek has not been discovered so both linguistic reconstructions and non-linguistic evidence are circumstantial by default. 2nd, the paper, reputable and verifiable for this encyclopedia, is relevant to scientific discussions on proto-greek. 3rd, if the clemente et al. paper is excluded, then why are west (historian), drews (historian) and blegen (archeologist) kept?
2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  clemente et al.