Wiktionary talk:About Greek

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Forms of Greek[edit]

As I understood the term, Ancient Greek encompassed all forms of Greek up until Medieval, including Koine and Classical, but I am certainly no scholar, you may want to check this. The Wikipedia article on Ancient Greek has the name of the period from 900-600BC as Archaic. Also, you may want to include Mycenaean Greek as well, as we have a category for it just for Linear B inscriptions. One final note, I don't know if this deserves mention, but Classical Greek has a number of dialects: Doric, Attic, etc. At this point, these are only noted when there is a regional variant, such as in ἀπό. Cerealkiller13 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ancient/Mycenean/mediaeval/dailects: I have modified this slightly
  • In order to simplify this page I think that perhaps there should be a separate About Ancient Greek page - each should refer to the other.
    Saltmarsh 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If I get some time (and inspiration), I'll try and write up such a page. One minor comment about what you have right now, I don't believe all of Classical Greek derives from Mycenaean. I'm not positive about this, but I think scholars currently think that Mycenaean was an early dialect of Greek, which a dialect or two (specifically Arcadocypriot) may have come from. But I don't think Attic or Doric came from Mycenaean. Again, not positive on this, just going off of Wikipedia. I really should take the time to read some scholarly literature on this. Cerealkiller13 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This wasn't the place for the history of Greek! - so I've removed refs to Mycenean. Thanks —Saltmarsh 06:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a new ref to Mycenean Greek —Saltmarsh 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Romanisation[edit]

The history looks great, as do the POS sections (which I see have been greatly expanded). I think the most important thing it needs now is a pronunciation and Romanization section. Cerealkiller13 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have 'completed' the Romanisation section now - Pronunciation (or the writing down thereof) I will have to leave to others. —Saltmarsh 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Katharevousa[edit]

Katharevousa: a learned, archaising form of modern Greek (as it is defined by Browning 1983?) perhaps defines it - not a separate language. Can we, for the time being, accommodate it within (modern) Greek in the way that καρβονικόν/καρβονικό are treated, ie:

  1. The katharevousa form is entered as a normal Greek word with the context labal "katharevousa", with the "form of" extension to the definition. Question: could this layout be improved. This format could be achieved via a template for later improvement.
  2. the katharevousa form should be listed on the "modern" form's page under "Synonyms". Is it a synonym? It was previously there as an alternative spelling, do we need a different header?
  3. Since all words will be in the category "Katharevousa" we can run with this for a while to see if anyone comes up with a better idea.
Saltmarsh 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the Browning definition; it's not in his Medieval & Modern Greek that I can find (and the absence of a subject index in the book doesn't help). Horrocks (1997, §17.3) characterizes katharévousa as "the 'corrected' written language", with greater archaism brought into the language as a result of a belief in "the 'ideal' of ancient Greek perfection". The way we treat this sort of thing in English is to use the {{archaic}} tag. The same could be done here. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that it was in use up to the mid-70's, I don't know how archaic it can be considered (although certainly it's a dead dialect). While not opposed to the use of the context tag, I'd like to see terms labeled explicitly as belonging to Katharevousa as well. Labeling them only as archaic does not provide enough information in this case. (BTW in case it's useful to other readers, a not too bad summary of the history of the language issue is here belongs to mogreeklanguage.html (Peter Mackridge, so that's a respectable source).) ArielGlenn 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(1) the Browning def I give is in the Glossary towards the back of the book.
(2) I agree that labelling as archaic is not enough.
(3) an apology - I only just notice that καρβονικόν is a noun and καρβονικός (now edited to καρβονικό) an adjective) an adjective, not a good example! —Saltmarsh 05:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
καρβονικόν is actually an adjective and it corresponds 100% to καρβονικό. In fact, most neutral nouns and adjectives in -ο have katharevousa forms in -ον (e.g. αγαθό-αγαθόν (noun and adjective (neutral of αγαθός)), μήλο-μήλον (noun), παιδικό-παιδικόν (adjective, neutral of παιδικός etc etc, but, only παιδιάστικο)--Flyax 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Τhere is also the Category:el:Dated that complicates things. See αγών, which is a katharevousa form and a dated one. One category should be enough though. --Flyax 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We are going to need to be able to mark dialects anyways; after that words might get other context labels as necessary (colloquial, dated, etc). I agree that having a dedicated second "Dated" category under el seems excessive. ArielGlenn 11:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already starting hosting additional Katharevousa pronunciations in entries for Ancient Greek words, if that helps. They are essentially modern Greek phonology with formal features as I have studied them to be, including modern sandhi being partially scaled back so that plosive-plosive and fricative-fricative clusters are possible. - Gilgamesh 13:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good - since there are already multiple forms there. —Saltmarsh 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that isn't so good. The proper thing to do is to have a separate section for the Katharevousa word under L2 header "Greek" and move there the pronunciation. Hosting the Katharevousa pronunciation in Ancient Greek section might lead to confusion about the nature of that "language", which clearly belongs to Modern Greek. --Flyax 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I could easily adjust the templates to exclude the Katharevousa altogether, without changing all the articles' texts. However, my understanding was that Katharevousa is an archaism, and is an appropriate standard by which to show how modern Greeks pronouncing ancient words, right? I mean, how does a modern Greek pronounce Classical Greek? (BTW, I hope my logic leaps are not strange or bizarre. Despite my best efforts, I have no common sense. Common sense would seem to imply abstract thought, and I'm a specific thinker without inate abstract intuition. Sorry for the inconvenience.) - Gilgamesh 05:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to widen this discussion to the community - there must be other languages with similar forms? —Saltmarsh 06:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Gilgamesh poses an interesting question: How does a modern Greek pronounce Classical Greek? This question however involves all classical words, even those that haven't survived as a katharevousa form, and can be answered without a reference to katharevousa. Maybe a simple change in the template would be suitable, e.g. replacing the word "Katharevousa" with "non-erasmian contemporary pronunciation" or something like that. --Flyax 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could change the templates easily... But that label is very long-winded. What about something just one or two words maximum? Maybe "Greece/Cyprus Contemporary" or "Greece/Cyprus"? Ehh...I don't know what's both adequate and as appropriately concise as "Classical", "Koine" and "Byzantine". (BTW, I mark the principal Greece/Cyprus difference by doing [(s)s] etc. for doubled consonants and [t(ʰ)] etc. for doubled voiceless plosives. The parts in parentheses are kept in Cyprus, but ignored in Greece. I know there's a further difference between northern Greece εντ=[ent] and southern Greece εντ=[ẽd], but I figured that micromanaging this for Classical Greek words would be overkill. Feedback on that?) - Gilgamesh 12:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you seek for different pronunciations, then it's likely that you'll find lots of them. A peloponessian pronunciation and a thessaliotic one and a macedonian one ... there is no end to that and this is (I think) beyond the scope of Wiktionary. Even for English words we don't have more than two of them. So, as long as we discuss about the Ancient Greek section, one contemporary pronunciation would be enough and, in my opinion, the "non-erasmian" label is quite clear. --Flyax 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose at some point folks might want to include the Erasmian pronunciation (since variants of that are used in teaching Ancient Greek these days in a number of countries). If so, there may be a template {{Contemporary (Erasmian)}} someday, and we won't need to characterize the current Greek pronunciation as non-erasmian. In the meantime, maybe we can use {{Contemporary (Greek)}}, and explain in a glossary someplace what that means, just like the other terms. Is that short enough? ArielGlenn 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's OK with me. Some explanation will be necessary, whatever the label is. --Flyax 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I can't reflect every dialect (that can be a pipe dream), but it still seems to make sense to me to keep doubled consonant articulations in parentheses in respect to those major dialects that preserve gemination: Cyprus and (if I recall correct—I may be wrong) the Dodecanese. Afterall, if major dialects preserve certain distinctions, then the language continuum as a whole can't be said not to distinguish them, regardless of how it's spoken in Athens alone. It's like how American English dictionaries still distinguishing cot/caught, merry/marry/Mary, whales/Wales, horse/hoarse, etc., even though most of the common dialects merge them and their distinctions are often learned only with age and experience by those people who came from the merging dialects. Using parentheses to indicate additional nonuniversal pronunciation detail makes it a bit clearer that some people in the same language include the parenthesized content, and some people do not. - Gilgamesh 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is of course up to you to decide what to put in the Ancient Greek entries. But maybe distinguishing between pronunciations in modern dialects is best done in the Modern Greek entries? Many Ancient Greek words will be there anyways, with the monotonic spelling. Just a thought, ArielGlenn 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. My wisdom (which I have before disclaimed is not common sense) would be to reflect it both in Classical and Modern, as there seems to be a clear overlap, with the exception that Classical entries are spelt polytonic, and Modern classically-spelt entries are spelt monotonic. Afterall, polytonic spelling was still strongly prescribed during Koine and Byzantine times, but Koine was very clearly a monotonic period. - Gilgamesh 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

format of greek translations in english entries[edit]

(See also the conversations at User talk:Atelaes and User talk:ArielGlenn.)

This is not a big deal, we should just settle on something so it can be standardized.

From a reading of WT:AEL, one would get the impression that Greek entries should look like

Right now we have varying usages. The vast majority of entries do look like that. But some also look like

  • Greek, Modern ...

and others are in subtables with the Ancient Greek entry like this:

If EncycloPetey is right and language names should appear uniformly the same then that means not marking entries as Modern. (I am sympathetic to that view because everyplace else, we do not use "Modern" as a modifier; Greek in this wikt means Modern Greek.) And, personally, I am biased against the subtable format because it's easier for me to work with the XML dumps when the entry is on one self-contained line. Apparently, there is no policy about this overall. Opinions, please? (And I am putting a pointer to this at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek since this affects those folks too.) ArielGlenn 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to pull in User:A-cai and any other Chinese editors on this, as it may affect them too. The basic argument the last time this issue was raised was twofold: (1) we don't use "English, Old" or "Saxon, Low", and also (2) we want the ISO template names, L2 language headers, and names of languages appearing in translations section to all match in order to make bot-work much, much easier. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
EncycloPetey is most logical - as he says: we say Old English, Low Saxon so perhaps Ancient Greek? The example I gave elsewhere of "Romanian Cyrillic" and "Romanian Roman" was not a good one - like "Serbian" and "Uzbek" and possibly "Chinese", these are two entries for the SAME language in different script - although I am unsure about "Apache". —Saltmarsh 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Apache is a language group, with Plains Apache and Western Apache as distinct languages in that group. Interestingly (and relevant) is that the language of Plains Apache is also known as Kiowa Apache, but Kiowa is a different language altogether. As a result, we could not use a main header of "Apache" with bulleted items for "Kiowa", since that would lead to confusion about which language was intended. Likewise, we don't have "Gaelic, Scottish", but instead use "Scottish Gaelic". --EncycloPetey 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that this is now wrapped up? And that in future we should have:
Saltmarsh 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. If so, I will get back to work on my cleanups. I wish any of the AG crowd had weighed in (or at least indicated they'd read this), however. ArielGlenn 11:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

template:polytonic[edit]

In Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2007/June#template:polytonic, it was noted that {{polytonic}} shows Ancient Greek characters with breathing, accents etc. uses {{polytonic fonts}} (Palatino Linotype, Athena, GentiumAlt, Gentium, Arial Unicode MS, Tahoma, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Code2000), while {{Grek}} uses {{Greek fonts}} (Athena, Gentium, Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Code2000). Is it important to keep the Greek and Ancient Greek fonts separate or can they be merged? Rod (A. Smith) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never used {{Grek}}. (Should I be?) I don't know that (modern) Greek needs special handling. I do notice this template used (oddly enough) in AGr etymologies, though rarely. An example is at abyss and seems to be a recent addition by User:Williamsayers79... ArielGlenn 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Many common modern Greek fonts do not support polytonic characters. The polytonic template supports fonts that are commonly pre-installed on most people's computers. This ensures that a piece of polytonic text appears all in the same font. Compare Ουρανός vs. Οὐρανός (Ouranós). The common fonts Tahoma and Palatino Linotype support polytonic, but fonts like Arial and Times New Roman do not. - Gilgamesh 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have left any use of non-standard fonts to polytonic Ancient Greek which I seldom write. For νέα ελληνικά I have always done what I have done here, relying on the Wiki system to produce a usable display. Which it does. —Saltmarsh 10:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that (computer) fonts developed for polytonic use typically (though not always) have a very different look than most fonts for use with Modern Greek. (Rod was asking about this off-wiki.) This may be a side effect of the fact that it is mostly classicists who use the polytonic computer fonts. ArielGlenn 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for all of your feedback. It seems {{polytonic}} is here to stay, and {{Grek}} needs to remain separate. I have documented each on their talk page. Rod (A. Smith) 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments about this "About" page[edit]

My understanding was that the About language pages, were to spell out WT:ELE exceptions for a particular language.


While this page is pretty fantastic, I think it belongs at Help:Greek. I don't see anything readily apparent about it, that diverges from WT:ELE. (But then, it is very long, so TLDR applies.) And if there are minor points that do diverge from WT:ELE, they probably should be brought in line.


Now, I know I haven't paid much attention to the About... pages myself, particularly lately. But can someone please tell me why this is so completely different from how these pages are supposed to function? Did everyone just get carried away creating a great (really, really great, by the way,) Help: page, in the wrong place?

--Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa! I will see about moving it. —Saltmarsh 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hang on! Wiktionary:Language considerations implies that this may be the right place, random individual pages say:

  1. Wiktionary:About Persian says ... a comprehensive guideline for creating entries for Persian words.
  2. Wiktionary:About Serbian says ... mainly an instruction on how to format articles on Serbian words (more precisely, how to format the Serbian section of an entry).
  3. Wiktionary:About Latin says ... to provide guidelines both for creating Latin ... entries.

As for length - IMHO potential editors need to find as much as possible in ONE place. On too many occasions I have got tired of searching "Help" and said "sod it, that'll have to do!" —Saltmarsh 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IPA ε and ο[edit]

I've noticed that, in Modern/Contemporary Greek pronunciation, I tend towards indicating the pronunciation of these vowels [e] and [o], while other editors prefer [ɛ] and [ɔ], and maybe a few use [ɛ] and [o]. But as I have been instructed, these middle vowels are neither strictly close mid ([e] and [o]) nor open mid ([ɛ] and [ɔ]), but just plain mid. Since there are no dedicated IPA vowel symbols for these articulations, [e̞] and [o̞] (lowered from close mid) or [ɛ̝] and [ɔ̝] (raised from open mid) are used. However, since the close mid and open mid are allophones anyway in Modern/Contemporary Greek pronunciation, it seems simpler just to use the archetypal mid vowel symbols, [e] and [o], and mark varying actual articulation to natural allophony. Wikipedia's Modern Greek phonology article does this. (Not to mention that α can be seen indicated anywhere from [a] to [ɐ] to [ɑ]—the articulation seems to be more central at [ɐ], but the archetypal symbol [a] is traditionally used in broad transcription.) - Gilgamesh 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary talk:About Greek/Pronunciation, please continue there —Saltmarsh 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Declension tables[edit]

I was surprised to notice that in declension tables for nouns and adjectives the accusative (αιτιατική) case is above the genitive (γενική):

                 Singular          Plural
Nominative        ο αδελφός       οι αδελφοί
Accusative      τον αδελφό      τους αδελφούς
Genitive        του αδελφού      των αδελφών
Vocative            αδελφέ           αδελφοί

Is there a reason for that? Greek school books (and all Greek grammar books as far as I know) follow this scheme:

                  Ενικός         Πληθυντικός
Ονομαστική        ο αδελφός       οι αδελφοί
Γενική          του αδελφού      των αδελφών
Αιτιατική       τον αδελφό      τους αδελφούς
Κλητική             αδελφέ           αδελφοί

If there isn't an explanation, I'll proceed to edit the tables. --Anastasios 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I for one don't care. The Ancient Greek declension templates are already Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative. - Gilgamesh 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have already edited the templates so as to follow the scheme the most usual in Greek grammar textbooks. However, it seems that the creator of the original templates had a different opinion, but for some reason missed this discussion. So, I would like to apologize for not having waited for a longer time. --flyax 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As the original creator that's fine. I was always in two minds about this - Triandafyllidis puts them in the "new order", but it is quite old, Holton et al the most comprehensive grammar available - at least in English - uses the original order, which matches that used traditionally when I learnt Latin and German in the dark ages, so I thought I was following an up-to-date layout. So my apologies for making a fuss, as a discussion obviously did take place. —SaltmarshTalk 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Which one is right?[edit]

I found a very detailed online text of the pronunciation of Modern Greek, and it contradicts some of the things in the text Ariel Glenn sent me. This online source claims that articulations [li] and [ni] never exist in modern Modern Greek pronunciation under any circumstances, and that they are articulated [ʎi] and [ɲi]. It also suggests that [mʝ] is not viable—that it's necessarily [mɲ] instead. However, it does agree with the text I was given in that palatalized [ŋɡ] etc. becomes [ŋɟ] rather than [ɲɟ]. Still, I wonder if it still isn't actually [ɲɟ], but that velar and palatal articulations are so close as to fool most people into thinking it's still [ŋ]. (Afterall, the palatals are articulated usually in the presence of [ʝ], but palatals can still exist even without direct contact with it, and in those circumstances directly before palatals could be easily confused for velars.) Also, I have observed that while μβ and νδ are enunciated with fricatives (even as far that the μ in μβ is pronounced [ɱ]), γγ is enunciated with a plosive ([ŋɡ]), making me wonder if γγι as [ŋʝ] sounds the same as [ɲ] in people's ears, necessitating γγι as [ŋɟ]. - Gilgamesh 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In these enunciated wave recordings, I'm hearing [ɲɟ], not [ŋɟ]. The difference is subtle, but he's nasalizing against the hard palate, not the soft palate. All palatal consonants are articulated against the hard palate. The velum, which is the soft palate, are where all velar consonants are articulated. The fact that the two palates are in such close articulative proximity is precisely why they're so difficult in practically any language to distinguish in direct proximity. - Gilgamesh 11:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

About "li" and "ni": the academic approach of P. Mackridge is very clear. There are two ways to pronounce them, not one. The /li/ and /ni/ pronunciation is the more usual and "the palatalization of n (and l) before i is not considered to be a sign of careful pronunciation, even though it is a feature of most of the chief Modern Greek dialects". Anything else is simply not true. I don't know why the author of the above mentioned web-page insists on an such an absurdly absolute statement. There is also another comic mistake in this webpage: Please, never try saing /zbr'oxno/ in front of sophisticated people! They will not laugh at you, of course, but you are not going to impress them. Finally, let me tell you something more personal: I was born and raised in Athens, and I say always /Nikos/ and /Eleni/. My wife was born and raised in southern Peloponnisos and says /ɲikos/ and /Eleɲi/. I can't remember how many times we have laughed and teased each other about this small detail. Now, despite the fact that we live in Peloponnisos, our daughters say /ni/, not /ɲi/. A few days ago, our little daughter came home after her first day in school saying: "Daddy, my teacher, she says ɲi!"

About ([ŋɟ]) etc: I don't know what you hear in the recordings. I hear what it seems to me to be a regular ŋ. Finally, since there is a commonly accepted phonetic transcription of these combinations, there is nothing else for us to do than following it ([1]) --flyax 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears you are quite correct. And since you also seem to speak so clearly, maybe you can make your own various ogg recordings someday? :3 - Gilgamesh 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You were born and raised in Athens? Are you an Arvanite? :3 I also wonder, out of sheer personal curiosity (and entirely outside the scope of Standard Demotic Greek as covered here in Wiktionary), do you know much about the Mani dialect? I read somewhere that even though pre-20th-century Old Athenian (where ξύλο = [ksˈulo]) is extinct in Athens, Megara, Aegina, Cyme, etc., that [ksˈulo] is not extinct in the traditional dialect of Mani. Is this true? - Gilgamesh 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not an Arvanite and I don't know much about dialects. I don't speak so clearly either (I say (['aɟelos]) even though I know that that the proper pronunciation is ([aŋɟelos]). Nevertheless, we'll see how it will be possible to add some recordings to the Greek entries, some day. --flyax 09:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

About [ksˈulo] in the traditional dialect of Mani, it seems you are right. A few decades ago some aged people still used it. Not any more I'm afraid. --flyax 12:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I read somewhere that nasal elision is common in Athens. I wondered if you were an Arvanite because I'm fascinated by the richness of the ancestral diversity of modern Greeks, and how many people had grandparents or great grandparents who spoke other languages (and some of their young descendants today still know them). Arvanites fascinate me especially because their language was the chief language of Athens and most of southeastern Greece before 1900, and a lot of native Athenians still have grandparents who know it, but Arvanites largely just speak Greek today. See w:Arvanitika#Geographic distribution and the two map images. On the other hand, I also read that Greeks from all over also gathered in Athens after it was refounded as a Greek city in the 19th century, and many more came after the Treaty of Lausanne population exchanges. I understand that there are some politics associated with these issues, but I don't care much about them—the sheer richness of it and all and all the twists and turns that took place is what's fascinating. ^_^ That's part of the reason I got into studying Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Byzantine Greek and Modern Greek comparatively in the first place—the ways the different time periods contrast, and the way cultural centers moved and at times even completely abandoned their traditional points of origin. (Attica was rehellenized twice. During earlier Byzantine times, much of Greece Proper had fallen into decay and became steadily mostly Slavic-speaking, and then was recolonized by Byzantine Greeks from Sicily and Anatolia. Then southeastern Greece, which had become Arvanitic-speaking, was rehellenized in the 19th century. My mom fascinatedly commented, "Are there any Greeks of ancient Greek ancestry left?") Greece and the northeastern Mediterranean region are history's rainbow, and it's all so fun to study. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I revised Wiktionary:Ancient Greek Romanization and Pronunciation again to match the templates and our discussions. How is it? - Gilgamesh 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK with the exception of "γγ" which is pronounced as [ŋɣ] in words as συγγραφέας, έγγραφο and as [ŋʝ] in words as εγγεγραμμένος. --flyax 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Eee... So basically, when ν+γ come together at the end of a prefix? I'll add a note. - Gilgamesh 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the new templates {{grc-ipatok-n-g}} and {{grc-ipatok-n-gj}}. They are only different from {{grc-ipatok-ng}} and {{grc-ipatok-ngj}} in Contemporary pronunciation, as this distinction was not yet necessary in Byzantine which still had [ŋk] and [ŋɡ]. I've changed some relevant articles related to the two other templates to point to the new coda templates. Παγγαῖος (Pangaîos) and Παγγαῖον (Pangaîon) are the only ones so far affected. - Gilgamesh 07:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is not a rule about that. In compound words with γῆ the pronunciation is /ŋɡ/ or /ŋɟ/ :( So it's actually /Paŋɟ'eon/, έγγειος is /'eŋɟios/. With γένος it's even stranger: συγγενής /syŋɟen'is/ but /εγγενής /eŋʝen'is/!!! So, the only thing you can do is to search for the pronunciation of each word here. I'm sorry that I cannot make it more easy for you. --flyax 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you've gotta be kidding me. o.o Ugh...so ideosyncratic. XD Okay, I'll see what I can do. - Gilgamesh 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the words back. I also updated the notes for that digraph. In Contemporary pronunciation, in numerous irregular cases, is pronounced [ŋɣ] and [ŋʝ] respectively. Please consult (and preferably cite) a reputable Modern Greek pronunciation source for each word concerned. - Gilgamesh 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Review of About Greek[edit]

I have come back after a break - on reading About Greek I find that some bits are slightly obscure. I do not wish to be too proprietorial about the page, never-the-less I have noticed some changes which I think should be made. It is difficult to list all of these in advance, but I hope anyone with an interest will tell me if I make an inappropriate change or make something more unclear! —Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-started this endeavour —Saltmarshαπάντηση 11:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wish to change the recommended templates for the definitions in non-lemma noun forms from the Template:inflection of to the Template:nominative of family. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion has been rejected - refer to the relevant text in the document for guidance.—Saltmarshαπάντηση 11:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Partial move to Help:Greek[edit]

Connel MacKenzie suggested above that help with creating Greek entries sould be more correctly located in the Help namsepace. Although I argued against it at the time - no-one else expressed an interest - I intend to do this without delay, the effect can always be reversed if there are later objections. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is now November - this has not happened since other About pages are located in this namespace. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 11:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Passive verb entries[edit]

All monolingual Greek dictionaries (that I've seen) do not list passive verbs separately - but as forms of the active verb.
The question is should the headword line:

κουράζω • (kourázo)   simple past: κούρασα (koúrasa)

become:

κουράζω • (kourázo),   simple past: κούρασα (koúrasa),   passive: κουράζομαι (kourázomai)

Saltmarsh (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It does make sense to include the passive form into the headword line, so I agree to such a change. On the other hand, several passive verbs have distinct meanings and need definitions. Dictionaries in print present these (passive) definitions under the main (active) lemma but I am not sure this is the best solution for us here. --flyax (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I would expect that eventually all passive forms should have separate enties with definition and conjugation. I have the problem of deciding exactly what the passive form "means" (and lack time to do the job properly)- hence entries like θερίζομαι, which should eventually have the missing data added. Saltmarsh (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
For starters, I know next to nothing about modern Greek, so my comments here should be taken with a grain of salt. However, in Ancient Greek I'm trying to get away from inflection information in the headline. We've moved away from having the verbal principle parts in the headline, and relegated them solely to the "Inflection" header, and I'm quite happy with the results. Simply put, the headline just didn't have the space to properly address all of the different forms and variants, and I feel that it works better to have all of that information under a dedicated header. I started putting the active, middle, and passive forms in the headers of the collapsible tables (a project I still need to finish), and I think it provides a nice overview at a glance. I'm also considering removing inflectional information from the headlines of nouns and adjectives, but haven't gotten around to making that transition yet. Print dictionaries put that information in the initial line because they have it nowhere else, whereas we have the space to have a dedicated section with complete inflections. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of separate collapsable tenses with 1st person form in their headers (past forms could then disappear from headword line AND separate tense tables would make the population of conjugation sections happen a bit quicker!). The past term could then disappear from headword lines. At present having these two forms visable there will encourage editors to write the forms down and then hopefully create entries form them. Saltmarsh (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree with flyax. I will welcome adding (of course optionally) the passive form in headword. This will give a "note" to reader that such a form exists and maybe this is what (s)he is looking for. But the inflection should go to the separate lemma, together with all "passive" meanings. Even if, in some cases, may simply "redirect" to the active (such as: passive form of xxx). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken that on board and modified {{el-verb}} to accept a passive form to be seen at ντύνω (dýno). The template now accepts named arguments (past, past2 & passive) — the 'old' positional arguments should be phased out.
I had problems developing a full set of conjugation templates - due to the diversity of paradigms! And am trying out -Atelaes's suggestion of using separate tense tables - and see how I get on. ντύνω (dýno) shows an example. Saltmarsh (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)