Talk:Koine Greek phonology

message: 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)
replies: text: This should be fixed with my latest edit. Rnabet 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polytonic template needed. 

message: Why on earth isn't there anything about the pronunciation of ξ and ψ?
--Henri de Solages 17:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I notice some reconstructions over at Wiktionary presenting a short-lived spirant pronunciation /xs/, /ɸs/. Anyone want to fill in if this checks out or not? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I highly doubt that ξ and ψ ever pronounced /xs/ and /fs/.  That would mean that ξ and ψ were double consonant versions of the aspirated stops χ and φ, so would have gone through the same evolution  as /kʰs, pʰs/>/xs, fs/>/ks, ps/ with the Byzantine rule that there can't be two fricatives or two stops next to each other via dissimilation.  However, most standard analyses of Greek phonology I've seen argue that ξ and ψ have always pronounced /ks, ps/.  Anyways, usually I would think that an /s/ would block the aspiration process; the /kʰs, pʰs/ pronunciation just seems rather difficult.  Geoffrey Horrocks took Old Athenian spellings of ΦΣ and ΧΣ as implying the prevention of aspiration.Iotacist (talk)Iotacist  —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  /s/ is commonly redundantly [+aspirated] (cf. e.g. the earlier Greek shift *s > h, or *sP > Pʰ in Tsakonian), so it's entirely possible for ξ and ψ to have been phonetically [pʰs], [kʰs] but phonemically simply unmarked for phonation: /Ps/, /Ks/. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is, though, is it commonly believed that ξ and ψ went through the change of /kʰs, pʰs/>/xs, fs/>/ks, ps/?  If so, adding in discussion about these should at least be considered, but only if someone can find a sufficient source presenting reasonable evidence.  If not, we have no basis to add in a section for these.  Like I said, beyond Wiktionary I haven't (yet) seen anyone argue for the pronunciations of /kʰs, pʰs/ and /xs, fs/.
Iotacist (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, rereading Horrocks's short statement on the ΦΣ/ΧΣ spellings, it seems that to him the /s/ element was thought of as at least taking the place of or similar to aspiration, c.f. Horrocks (2010: 40)  I take back my remark that /pʰs, kʰs/ are difficult pronunciations, which they are not.  Nevertheless, he still does transcribe these consistently as /ps, ks/, as does nearly everyone else besides Wiktionary.  Surely they had found something.  On the other hand, if ψ and ξ were considered aspirates, subsequently fricativized, some of the evidence in Byzantine times (apart from outcomes in the modern language) for the dissimilation development of /fs, xs/>/ps, ks/, /sθ, sx/>/st, sk/, /fθ, xθ,/>/ft, xt/, etc.––i.e. υσ/ψ confusions (ἔπαψε for -υσε, 813)––is discounted because writers would identify υσ with ψ (/fs/?) anyways.  If anyone knows of any serious arguments for the /kʰs, pʰs/>/xs, fs/>/ks, ps/ pronunciations, please sat so as this deserves consideration.  
Iotacist (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ξ,ψ 

message: 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/.
:I've no competence for greek but, if this can help a bit, in present Mongolian, the pronunciation of в seems to be switching from [β] to [v], specially in the capital city Ulaanbaatar. The switch has already affected в's followed by a consonnant, but never the final в's. The в's followed by a vowel seem to be pronounced [w]. в is traditionnaly described as bilabial, which seems to be the traditional pronounciation in all cases. --Henri de Solages (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The intermediate bilabial fricative stages /ɸ/ and /β/ are considered hypothetical, but are still very probable.  I have read another possible transitional phase for φ, and for that matter the other aspirates θ and χ as well, in Horrocks.  He points at the possibility of a short-lived affricate pronunciation of /pf, tθ, kx/, before these lost their plosive element.  They would be especially prone to simplify to /f, θ, x/ following /s/ or /f/ (or /φ/: the second element of the αυ/ευ diphthongs, please see my question on these at the bottom), or a cluster with another aspirated plosive i.e. φθ, where the pronunciations of /spf, stθ, skx/ or /fpf, ftθ, fkx/ would be difficult.  Anyways, we did note on the page that they ultimately resulted in /f/ and /v/.  Iotacist (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Plosive and former plosive consonants' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ει 

message: Do we think koine Greek used a geminate pronunciation for consonants written double? Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question. From my reading of W. Sidney Allen's Vox Graeca, I don't know the answer. Clearly geminate pronunciation was lost sometime between Classical and Modern Greek, but I haven't read anything discussing when it happened. There might be spelling clues like the clues to the loss of vowel length. — Eru·tuon 04:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Geminates

message: 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
: Yes.  It probably did go through the intermediate phases of [øi] > [ø(:)], c.f. Horrocks (2010: 162).  Already added this in.  
: Iotacist (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally suspect it was already monophthongized to a long vowel  in Classical Attic, parallel to the monophthongization of , but that doesn't seem to be generally accepted. Allen says it may have been  in Thucydides's time, but he doesn't say it with much conviction, unfortunately. — Eru·tuon 23:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more likely that the monophthongisation of  ran in parallel with that of , so it would have started with the values  and  respectively in the 2nd century BC, well after the classical period (although intermediate values  and  or  for the classical period are not altogether inconceivable, I suppose). The monophthongisation of  was likely quite early, as early Homeric manuscripts already seem to have had it; as Iotacist says, basically. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree that such was probably the case with the Attic vernacular in the 4th century BC.  Teordorsson (1978) suggests that the Boeotian dialect wasn't so advanced after all, and that a highly progressive dialect was already spoken in Attica: one which completed monophthongization and dispensed with vowel length distinction.  Some of his other claims, on the other hand, seem too advanced though, like that  had already merged with .  But an  value for oι is very plausible in Hellenistic times.  However, the diphthongs   were the first to monophthongize.  If I can recall, this was quite early in the 8th-7th centuries BC;  then acquired the values for which they are best known as : perhaps an overestimation.  
By the way, does anyone have any suggestions on the status of  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 .  Horrocks, on the other hand, consistently transcribes these as  for New Testament Greek.  Indeed, there are a several instances (counted six listed by Gignac) of confusions with  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  are more common before the 4th century, so the older values of  or  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  value for .  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)

text: what do you mean by ? Does the  denote an unusual lip setting or what? Mr KEBAB (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Impressive, thanks! Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Although the pronunciation  for 'ayin may have existed in Biblical Hebrew, both it and Aramaic also have an alveolar tap or trill, so a replacement with a uvular fricative does not make sense as a Semitism. The pronunciation you seem to have in mind – of resh as  – is a peculiarity of Standard Modern Hebrew and a result of Yiddish influence, where it ultimately arrived via German. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [oi] > [y:] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Koine-era transcriptions and vowel distinctions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies