m clean up, replaced: {{WPGR| → {{WikiProject Greece|, {{WP Languages| → {{WikiProject Languages|, {{WPMA| → {{WikiProject Middle Ages|, removed: |nested=yes (3) using AWB (7649)
|
→ISO code: new section
|
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
some of the loanwords included dont have a certain origin so im not sure if they are good for showcasing the different languages that influenced greek...both alb louloúdi and slav gouna eg have been thought of as latin loans into greek also..perhaps they should be replaced by words that have certain origins (like loutsa<alb llucë puddle of water and kounadi/kounavi<slav kuna marten)..[[Special:Contributions/87.202.7.244|87.202.7.244]] ([[User talk:87.202.7.244|talk]]) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
some of the loanwords included dont have a certain origin so im not sure if they are good for showcasing the different languages that influenced greek...both alb louloúdi and slav gouna eg have been thought of as latin loans into greek also..perhaps they should be replaced by words that have certain origins (like loutsa<alb llucë puddle of water and kounadi/kounavi<slav kuna marten)..[[Special:Contributions/87.202.7.244|87.202.7.244]] ([[User talk:87.202.7.244|talk]]) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== ISO code == |
|||
This article refers a "gkm" ISO code, but that doesn't seem to be valid. The link to SIL does not provide valid documentation either. [[User:Malafaya|Malafaya]] ([[User talk:Malafaya|talk]]) 23:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translationofMittelgriechische Sprache from de.wikipedia. |
Isn't the Greek used in the Liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church essentially Medieval Greek?72.24.129.97 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Constantinus Porfirogenitus I found τούμβικας and not τού βικας, I don't know if it is relevant, just adding some info. Bruno Gripp 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suffixes
* -aton: Μαγιστράτον, μανδάτον, δουκάτον etc.
* -atos: Αμυγδαλάτος, καρυδάτος, κυδωνάτος, πιπεράτος etc.
* -arios: Νοτάριος, σχολάριος etc.
* -poullos/poullon: Κομητόπουλλος, Τουρκόπουλλος, Αρχοντόπουλλον, Φραγκόπουλλον etc.
* -isios: Καστρήσιος, κολονήσιος, βουνήσιος etc.
* -anos: Δέκανος, Πάγανος etc.
* -alion: Μανουάλλιον, Μενσάλλιον, τριβουνάλιον etc.
Are these all definitely suffixes of Latin origin? 201.21.96.49 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those forms had pre-existed in Greek but obtained a wider use via contacts with the Latin language. For the Greek -arios and -isios see names such as MakariosorMilesios etc; popularised due to resemblance with the Latin -arius and -isius. In Greek -atos had existed in most super-relative adjective forms (e.g. tritatos, presbytatos) but its use was extended to nouns via Latin contact where -atus was popular. Same with the Greek -aton (e.g. automaton), similar to the Latin -atum. Same with the Greek 'alion' e.g. alion, analion, idalion, eupalion etc, or '-anos' e.g. ouranos, melanos, amechanos, stephanos; becoming extended through contacts with Latin. The -poullos I think is the only hellenisation, coming from -pullus. As FPS noted, many, if not most, of the words you cited have actually got a Latin root. Miskin 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed chaotic thread deteriorating into nastiness. Everybody please stop the sockpuppeting allegations and leave each other alone. Mind those mastodons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]
The Anc.Gr. superlative ´-atos (unstressed, as in presbýtatos) is one thing; the Mod.Gr. derivational suffix -átos (stressed, as in piperátos) is another. The first is autochthonous, the second certainly a borrowing from Lat. -atus or its Romance reflexes. I don't think anybody was denying the latter, and I don't think anybody meant to equate the two. If anybody thinks the innovation of the second is somehow causally linked with the pre-existence of the first, as Miskin's wording may have implied, you're welcome to bring sources for that. Could be, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this feature interesting, but under what "restricted" circumstances did this mutation happen? Is there a source? I want to learn more about this. - Gilgamesh 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to insert text into another article using Medieval Greek, but I can't find a lang template for it... There appear to be only Modern Greek and Ancient Greek templates. SHould someone make a Med Gr template, or should I use one of the other existing ones?
Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval greek language starts 1100 CE and ends near 1700 in a period of intense cultural changes. Your dates are out of context my friends and this article inaccurate. Cambridge sources and the greek Lexicon of medieval language by Kriaras do agree on the above mentioned dates --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant when text is contradictory to source provided in the article? I'm refferinng to link provided into the article. Cambridge is irrelevant as source? It's also provided as link into the article. Anyway have a lokk into Oxford's perspective with a simple course description and maybe you ll find out what I'm talking about here--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually The Koine is the direct ancestor of medieval and Modern Greek.
Francis T. Gignac
Francis T. Gignac "Greek" The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press Inc. 1993. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Hellenic Open University. 23 October 2008 --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover Historiography and real literature reform are happening during 11th and 12th centuries... Before that atticism was in use identified with byzantine patriotism. From Francisco R. Adrados History of the greek language pp 388-389. See also Beck p. 48.
Later on Conquest of Constantinople and futher mixes with latin language created this idiom you are describing in the article. --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματείας (1100-1669)" roughly translates to "Medieval Greek Demotic Literature" covering the first written sources of the emerging Modern Greek. That article noting "The start of the period of the Greek language known as "Modern Greek" is symbolically assigned in the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453), although strictly speaking it has been shaped since at least the 11th century." So the work probably covers the Greek written by writers such as Michael Glycas and Theodore Prodromus, the Greek recorded within the Acritic songs. Those works are covered in Modern Greek literature.
Medieval Greek actually attempts to cover the language used in written sources like the Strategikon of Kekaumenos and the Alexiad. They are not particularly similar. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the phonology part of this article describe the language of Alexiad? I don't think so. Anyway, boundaries for literature and language don't necessarily coincide. But if they do, then again the periodization proposed here has a great problem. --Flyax (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..is disputed?150.140.225.175 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates!! Ofcourse Medieval Koine is a common misconception reproduced in the internet because of this lemma--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am obliged to report this: the Vocabulary and Phonology sections of this article are simply a translation from The book History of the Greek Language - Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας by Nikolaos Andriotis. I've just found the book, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment. --Flyax (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Flyax for bringing this to our attention. I've removed the sections for the time being. I too would like to see some sample of just how close it was to the original. If something can be salvaged we can still bring it back. I don't think we need to use the big hammer and delete the article in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I can see from the Greek text is the addition of the Latin origin for some words. Nothing more. I could e-mail you a scanned copy of 2 or 3 pages, I guess. Even if you can't read Greek, at least you will be able to discern the number of examples put in with exactly the same order. So, If you want me to do so, please send me an e-mail via wiki. --Flyax (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, use the "big hammer". Both remaining paragraphs (History, Evolution from Ancient to Medieval Koine) are nothing else but a translation from the same book. The damage seems to have been made three years ago and all the edits made since then didn't change the basic fact that this article, as a whole, is a copyvio. --Flyax (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really I think that some people should do their homework better before wiseassly destroying other people's hard work. My main sources on this article were the following: First, the lectures of Andriotis (translated from Greek), secondly 'Histoire du grec moderne' by Henri Tonet (translated from French), and thirdly Britannica's article on 'Byzantine Greek'. Unfortunately I never got to finish the article, so much of the text that dominated was in fact from Andriotis. The book in question (history of the Greek language) is a compilation of the author's university lectures on the Greek language, which were unpublished and in the public domain at the time of their writing. The lectures were compiled and published into a book after the author's death. On the other hand, the article that you destroyed was most certainly not a copyright violation on the simple grounds that eventhough a translation, it was an original transation, not one ripped from an already published source. Copyvio would have been to either dump in the original source or one of its published english translations, uncited and unquoted. This is something that I could not have done anyway because a) this is english wikipedia and b) in my knowledge there is no english translation of this work. If the translation is original work and the original source is explicitely mentioned, then there's no question of copyvio, it's as simple as that; if you don't acknowledge that then you have a lot more of detective work to do in wikipedia. At a time when there was no article for medieval-Byzantine Greek and only a redirect for Koine Greek, I actually took the time and put in the effort to create something by providing wikipedia with an original and faithful translation of a very reliable source. And what did you do? Years later, on your 5th edit in wikipedia you destroy it. Koine Greek too started off almost as a mere translation but then after many people's contributions, it became a great article. This is what would have happened with this article too if you had actually cared to contribute rather than be a wiseass. I mean you didn't even make an effort to change the text around and make it less scandalising for you or whatever, which is what wikipedia copyvio policy suggests as a first step. But of course, it's easier to destroy than to create. Miskin (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone disagrees with the deletion of the previous article, there is no need to use offensive remarks. It's very easy to prove what is and what isn't a copyvio. I'm sure that an administrator could send to anyone interested a copy of the deleted article and I am willing to send via e-mail some scanned pages of the book. The similarity is obvious, in my opinion, but since I am not anything more than a "wiseass", we'll find someone else to judge it. --Flyax (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for once don't find this to be copyvio, else I would have never posted it, but this is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about how things should be done in order to ameliorate wikipedia as well as respect the people who have put an effort to achieve its development. Of course there is similarity with the original text, I've already stated that it was a close translation from two or three paragraphs of the book's section on the topic, that was never a secret but an article initiation. For once I find it offensive to have my efforts labeled "surprise and disappointment" and then removed and replaced with a copyvio tag, translating isn't an easy thing to do but deleting is, so for me this is wiseassness. Really it would take 5 minutes to just change it around (which is what wikipedia advises to do) instead of trying to prove a pointless point. Or if you don't have those 5 minutes then you should have -at the time- contacted the editor of the article and/or an administrator instead of blanking out the page. If I had ever got the chance to finish the article by integrating the information from Britannica and Tonet, then the article wouldn't have resembled its untranslated form so much. I didn't get the chance to do it at the time, and no-one else contributed except Iblardi so the article got stuck with the initial edit from Andriotis' book. So if you had ever contacted me I would've fixed it at once. I can accept being accused for a bad translation but not for plagiarism. Removing one's edits in the way you did to your "surprise and disappointment" is really offensive to the person who devoted time and effort to make a contribution to wikipedia. I will repair the article within the next week. Miskin (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's now quite clear what happened. So, I hope that the previously deleted edits will be removed again. I also want to say that I have confidence in user Miskin's skills and willingness to contribute constructively to the newly started article but I expect an apology for their offensive words. --Flyax (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a problem. That phonological history (progression of sound changes) was extremely informative and enlightening. We need to reconstruct all that. As you could tell from my userboxes, I don't give an expletive about copyrights. But even if we have to abide by them, there must be a way the conceptual data can be digested if it was true history. The wholesale deletion of this data is...just grievous. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still disputed for the above mentioned reasons --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be cool & useful, a sample of words first attested in Medeival Greek: buzi(on)?, poungion? etc. In Romanian there is pungă (bag, the most common Romanian word for bag), which according to the 2002 NODEX is from New Greek punghi, while buzi(on) is the source of buzunara, Ro. buzunar (pocket, the most common Romanian word for pocket, in fact I can't find or think of a synonym). Alex (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some of the loanwords included dont have a certain origin so im not sure if they are good for showcasing the different languages that influenced greek...both alb louloúdi and slav gouna eg have been thought of as latin loans into greek also..perhaps they should be replaced by words that have certain origins (like loutsa<alb llucë puddle of water and kounadi/kounavi<slav kuna marten)..87.202.7.244 (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article refers a "gkm" ISO code, but that doesn't seem to be valid. The link to SIL does not provide valid documentation either. Malafaya (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]