ἑλληνὶς γλῶττα - ancient Greek

[Oleksij]

Ποιός έβαλε την αρχαίαελληνικη γλώσσα εδώ ρε στόκε;

[KingHarvest]

ημερείστε, παιδιά μου! The merge makes sense as people who know Ancient Greek tend to know Latin, and Modern Greekers don't necessarily know Ancient Greek or vice versa.

[Dminor]

On linguistic grounds, it doesn't make sense at all. Do you think people wouldn't look for ancient Greek in the Greek forum?

[modus.irrealis]

But surely it should be Ancient Greek / Latin

[Oleksij]

On linguistic grounds, it doesn't make sense at all. Do you think people wouldn't look for ancient Greek in the Greek forum?

Obviously - both Ancient Greek and Latin are classics, but it makes more sense to keep an Ancient Greek thread in the Greek subforum, don't you think?

Προφανώς τα αρχαίαελληνικά και τα λατινικά είναι κλασικές γλώσσες, άλλα θα ήταν πιο λογικό να έχεις ένα αρχαίαελληνικό thread στο ελληνικό subforum, δεν νομίζετε;

[KingHarvest]

Yet, I think the point still stands that Latinists are more likely to know Ancient Greek than Modern Greekers (especially considering the moderator of the Greek forum doesn't know Ancient Greek whereas I do).

[Dminor]

In that case you can also make me moderator of the Greek forum, I know both ancient and modern Greek. If you do too, you could also be the moderator. But in fact, it doesn't matter who is the moderator; people can just as well help without having that status. Or do you really think people who know both Latin and ancient Greek won't find the Greek forum to help over there or viceversa? It is really nonsensical to group languages together in this way and not on linguistical grounds. Especially in this case, not only because they are in fact different stages of the same language, but also, even though you may deem people who know Latin more 'likely' than speakers of modern Greek to know ancient Greek as well, we actually have some people here who do know both ancient and modern Greek, such as myself. I hope this decision can be reversed, it hurts my eyes.

[KingHarvest]

If it bothers you that much, take it up with the higher ups. I didn't suggest the merger - I was asked if I could handle Ancient Greek in addition to Latin if the forums were merged.

[obler9]

Latin and ancient Greek together under the Vatican flag??

KingHarwest,

Seriously... I agree with people thinking Latin and ancient Greek can't be put in the same space.
Latin and Greek have not a real linguistic relation. Just it often happens they are studied at the same time because of the western classicist taste: but this is not a forum on the humanities; this is a forum on languages and Latin is a language, ancient Greek is an other one.
Neither ancient Greek should be placed in the same space with modern Greek... The most obvious thing it is to remake a distinct space on ancient Greek only: It should be even worse to put ancient and modern Greek together!

[KingHarvest]

Once again: I am not the one responsible for the merger. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the moderators who are in charge.

[Sean of the Dead]

Obler dear, Latin and Greek are both IE languages, so they are related linguistically, albeit a bit far.

[obler9]

Obler dear, Latin and Greek are both IE languages, so they are related linguistically, albeit a bit far.

sjheiss, please... You know what I meant. So we could make one forum on Italian and Norwegian because they're both IE languages.... or one forum on French and Swedish for the same reason.
The family is the same, but the branch is different: Latin is an Italic language, Greek is Greek: this is clearly what my poor English meant about "relations" between the two languages... Don't force me to point out obvious things.

[obler9]

Once again: I am not the one responsible for the merger. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the moderators who are in charge.

I had read that. But I talk with you in order to convince you to ask the other moderators to solve this problem, since you know them better and since they made you moderator for this forum.
At least show them this discussion started by various users.

[ILuvEire]

Neither ancient Greek should be placed in the same space with modern Greek... The most obvious thing it is to remake a distinct space on ancient Greek only: It should be even worse to put ancient and modern Greek together!

I agreed with everything else, but this. I don't think there are enough people interested in Ancient Greek to have its own forum, similar to Old English on the English forum.

[ego]

Thank God I wasn't here to see ancient Greek under the Vatican flag.

About the 'tsk' sound, it's rather a click, actually it's exactly the c! sound of Xhosa, Zulu and the Khoekhoe languages. Sometimes we execute it alone without any movement of the head. Denotes boredom usually, when you are too bored to say 'no' or even more your head, you just say c!.
I always thought it is a middle eastern thing, I am not sure but I think Arabs do it too

[InstantlyClassic]

1) Do you know what δυνητική ευκτική is in English? Something like "potential optative" I guess. There's also a potential indicative. I have a question about it. Does it have to be accompanied by ἂν always? I have seen clauses characterized as "potential optatives" even when ἂν was not present. When they were negative my guess was that μὴ was replacing it, but I have seen other clauses where no special particle was present. Like for example:
Οὐκ ἐποίησεν Ἀγασίας εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ ἐκέλευσα

2) According to my books, this is a 2d-class conditional clause, which expresses "a non-realistic and impossible hypothesis" and it should contain εἰ + past indicative in the hypothesis and potential indicative in the main clause.. So οὐκ ἐποίησεν Ἀγασίας is supposed to be "potential indicative".

3) So how do we distinguish potential optative and potential indicative from normal optative and indicative?

1] I think you’re right.

2] I’ve been taught that the protasis past indicative in such cases should contain ἄν.

3] A potential optative and indicative should be accompanied by ἄν in opposition to normal optatives and indicatives.

[rotzi]

Hi all,

I wonder what rule of Ancient Greek grammar justifies the following construction. I couldn't find an answer in Herbert W. Smyth's Greek Grammar (though I didn't flip through all the pages on syntax), so I'm posting here to get ideas from you.

Diog.Laert., Lives, 6.2.46: „Εἴθε καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν ἦν παρατρίψαντα μὴ πεινῆν.“
(rough translation: If only hunger could be chased away by merely rubbing one's belly.
see here for a source: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... hapter%3D2 )

What strikes me as odd is the fact that the sentence lacks a subject in the nominative. I would expect something like the following infinitive construction with an equivalent meaning:

* Εἴθε καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν παράτριψαι ποιοίη οὐ πεινῆν.

Is it a periphrastic form used in the original sentence? But what would be the subject?

Thanks a lot for any helpful hints.

Dominik

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

This is just a rarer meaning of εἰμί which can be used impersonally to mean "it is possible" (see meaning A.2.VI in the LSJ entry). That's why there's no subject (although maybe you could make a case for the infinitive being the subject).

* Εἴθε καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν παράτριψαι ποιοίη οὐ πεινῆν.

Just to mention, this has a slight difference in that you used the optative instead of the imperfect, so (at least in Classical Greek), your wish is about the future while the other one is an unattainable wish about the present. (Also you would have to have μὴ here instead of οὐ).

[rotzi]

Hi again,

thanks a lot. That leaves one question: why is the participle in the accusative (shouldn't it be nominative?), and why is there a participle at all (and not an infinitive)?

This is just a rarer meaning of εἰμί which can be used impersonally to mean "it is possible" (see meaning A.2.VI in the LSJ entry). That's why there's no subject (although maybe you could make a case for the infinitive being the subject).

...except that there is no infinitive here, but rather an aorist participle in the accusative.

Just to mention, this has a slight difference in that you used the optative instead of the imperfect, so (at least in Classical Greek), your wish is about the future while the other one is an unattainable wish about the present. (Also you would have to have μὴ here instead of οὐ).

Thanks for this hint!

[modus.irrealis]

That leaves one question: why is the participle in the accusative (shouldn't it be nominative?), and why is there a participle at all (and not an infinitive)?

πεινῆν is the infinitive here that's governed directly by ἦν. παρατρίψαντα here is the accusative because it goes with the implicit subject of that infinitive (and the subject of the infinitive is always in the accusative).

As to why there's a participle, I honestly think that's half the secret to understanding Ancient Greek . I know you were asking for the grammatical reason, but my experience is that Greek often uses a participle together with some other verb form where other languages I know would just use coordination. For example, I would say that this here is basically equivalent in English to "if only it were possible to rub your belly and not be hungry."