 |
 |
 |
|
 |
This chapter sets forth the diverging practices in the pronunciation of "Ancient Greek" and outlines the justification of the site's main title.
When it comes to the pronunciation of ancient Greek, there are two main schools of practice:
To distinguish the two schools, different names have been used for the two pronunciations, the most common having been iotacist (from the pronunciation of Η, as well as of Υ, ΕΙ, ΟΙ, ΥΙ, as [i], i.e. in the same way as Ι, iota) or Reuchlinian (from the name of its first and most prominent non-Greek advocate, Johannes Reuchlin, a.k.a. Ἰωάννης Καπνίων) for the former and etacist (from the pronunciation of Η as [ɛː] and of its name as [ɛːta]) or Erasmian (from the pen name of the first scholar who - allegedly - attempted to systematise the alternative pronunciation, the Dutch scholar known as Desiderius Erasmus, whose original name was - fittingly - variably "reconstructed" as Geert Geertsen, Gerrit Gerritszoon and Gerard Gerardzoon) for the latter. Other names have also been used to describe the two pronunciations, but these are often derogatory, disdainful or arrogant and this "name-calling" is usually driven by the bitter rivalry between the two schools, as will be explained below.
As pointed out, this distinction mainly relates to practice, namely the way ancient-Greek texts are read aloud. The main reason for using either pronunciation is undoubtedly convenience:
However, a further argument that is often put forward is that of "correctness": the fervent followers of the latter vehemently reject the former as incorrect, degenerate or even... barbariccf. BLAS70, p. 7, "Die Sprache eines Homer oder Platon nach derjenigen der Syrer des dritten Jahrhunderts oder der verkommenen Byzantiner umzuwandeln, wäre die reine Barbarei|It would be pure barbarism to transform the language of a Homer or Platon according to that of the Syrian of the third century or of the degenerate Byzantines" and assert that their pronunciation of ancient Greek is (almost) identical to that of [insert your favourite Greek, from Achilles to St. Basil the Great].cf. BLAS70, p. 39, "Unsere [d.h. die deutsche] Aussprache ist in allen andern Punkten des Vokalismus [außer ΕΙ, ΕΥ und den so-genannten "langen Diphthongen"] fest genug begründet als die wenigstens annähernd wahre und echte nicht etwa nur der homerischen Zeit, sondern der gesammten Blütezeit der griechischen Nation|Our [i.e., the Germans'] pronunciation constitutes the, at least approximately, true and genuine in all other matters of vocalism [i.e., articulation of vowels and diphthongs other than ΕΙ, EΥ and the so-called "long diphthongs"], not only of the Homeric times, but rather of the entire heyday of the Greek nation" Similar religious zeal has been exhibited by the apologists of the former, who have occasionally ascribed ulterior motives to their opponents.cf. PAPA89, p. 714, "Διὰ πάντα ταῦτα οὐδέν παράδοξον ὅτι οἱ Ἐρασμικοὶ κόπτοντες μᾶλλον ἤ λύοντες τοὺς δεσμοὺς τοῦ προβλήματος ἐνόμισαν ὅτι εὗρον τὴν ἐπὶ Περικλέους καὶ Πλάτωνος φωνὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἐνῶ οὐδέν ἄλλο ἐποίησαν ἀληθῶς ἤ ἠνάγκασαν τὸ νεκρὸν γράμμα ἑκόν ἄκον νὰ λάβῃ παρ’ Ἀττικοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησι τὴν γερμανικὴν προφοράν|For all these [reasons] it is not curious that the Erasmians, slicing rather than unloosing the [Gordian] knot of the problem [at hand], believed that they discovered the Greek voice of the time of Pericles and Plato, whereas they did nothing more than to force the dead letter of the Attics and the other Greeks to unwillingly assume the German pronunciation.". This attitude of both sides is best expressed by Geldart (GELD70, p. 7): "Mutual disgust is the natural result of so great a disparity. When we hear Greek spoken by Greeks, we find it hard to believe that this jargon, as it seems to us, has any relation with the language we used to learn at school. On the other hand, the Greek who is not well acquainted with the origin and history of the controversy on Greek pronunciation, is liable to the mistake that a deliberate insult is intended by those who substitute for what are to him, at any rate, the harmonious sounds of his mother-tongue, a pronunciation which, however euphonious in itself, must sound to him at best like the hideous distortion, the ghastly caricature, of a familiar voice."
Menardos aptly observes (MENA98, p. 10 and 15) that the debate has been conducted in the same manner as the dissension between East and West about the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit (an obvious reference to the dispute between Greek and German scholars in the 19th century) or according to the religious spirit of that era (referring to Erasmians vs. Reuchlinians in the 16th century and alluding to the Protestant Reformation). Indeed, this feud is, in more ways than one, reminiscent of the way religion works: one is born or brought up in a certain religious environment and subconsciously adopts the corresponding religion and then tries to prove (first to himself, then to the infidels) the correctness of a belief that was not the product of a conscious effort to discover the truth.
It is for these reasons that, instead of the established terms for referring to the two pronunciations
| iotacist/itacist | vs | etacist |
| Reuchlinian | Erasmian | |
| modern Greek | German | |
| received | scientific | |
| authentic | reconstructed | |
| historical | un-greek |
I venture to use a parallel from the world of religion:
Orthodox vs Catholic
Since the (present-day) Greek pronunciation has not been imposed on the Greek speakers or devised by anyone, but it merely follows the established tradition, it deservedly qualifies as Orthodox (ορθόδοξη = conventional and unoriginal, strictly keeping to traditional doctrine, lit. of the right creed). Since the non-Greek pronunciation is virtually adopted by the entire world but Greece, it may fittingly be called Catholic (καθολική = universal). The fact that the argumentation has escaped from the world of science into the world of faith, is manifest in that the correctness of a candidate pronunciation (mainly the Catholic) scheme is evaluated by means of its acceptabilitycf. BLAS82, p. 5, "...die Griechen selbst, welche jetzt, nachdem auch im Rußland die deutsche Aussprache angenommen, in der That das einzige Volk sind, welches noch den Itacismus pflegt|…the Greeks themselves, who now, after the German [sic] pronunciation has been accepted also in Russia, are in fact the only people that attends to the itacism", as if scientific truth were a matter of plebiscite (unless of course we are talking about the... Ecumenical Councils)!
This distribution of "creed" is a fairly recent development (of the last few centuries) and the product of five centuries of debate.
In order to trace the events that led to this dichotomy, we have to go back to the entity behind all schisms, the Roman Empire. Although politically united (most of the time), it was linguistically divided between the Latin-speaking west and the Greek-speaking east (Greece proper and the former Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander’s successors). In the words of Gibbon: "the east was less docile than the west to the voice of its victorious preceptors [...] The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues, of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. Nor was the influence of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and conquest, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. [...] Such was the division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages. [...] The two languages exercised at the same time their separate jurisdiction throughout the empire: [Greek] as the natural idiom of science; [Latin] as the legal dialect of public transactions." (GIBB45, pp. 103-106)
It should be noted that the term "Greek" refers to the standard form of "evolved Attic", often called "Koine" (=common), that virtually wiped all Greek dialects off the map and unified them into one common language.cf. BROW83, p. 23, "as far as our evidence goes, the Koine was remarkably uniform throughout its area of use". This Greek was the language of the new (tadaaam...) religion, Christianity: the New Testament was written in Greek (although a few books may have originally been written in Aramaic) and the Church was predominantly Greek speaking.cf., A. P. Stanley’s “Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church”, London 1911, "...the tongue, not of Rome, but of Greece, was the sacred language of Christendom. ... The early Roman Church was but a colony of Greek Christians or ‘Grecized’ Jews. The earliest Fathers of the Western Church wrote in Greek. The early popes were not Italians but Greeks.", from DOWL15, p. 17).
The Western part of the Empire eventually collapsed after being overrun by the relentless waves of (mainly Germanic) barbarians and was thrown into the dark Middle Ages divided into a handful of backward states. It appears that Latin, being the language of the (western) Church, served as the common official language and was the subject of any studies, if at all. The remaining (Eastern) part of the empire soon shed the redundant administrative Latin (Greek was established as the official language of the Roman Empire during the reign of Heraclius, 610-641 AD) and survived for a further millennium, approximately the same time that it took the medieval western kingdoms to come out of oblivion and attain a high cultural and literary level.
The study of Greek (i.e., all works of antiquity written in one of the Greek dialects), as is obvious from the above portrayal of the situation in medieval Europe, was limited to the more civilized regions (even if it was a case of the one-eyed ruling the blind), namely the Greek-speaking (Eastern) Roman EmpireThe conventionally applied term "Byzantine" is an inappropriate anachronism from the use of which I will desist. and later the Islamic Empire. Almost until the demise of the Greek-speaking Roman Empire, the Germanic states of western Europe were oblivious to the very languagecf. ALLE87, p. 140, "In 1267 it was remarked by Roger Bacon that there were not five men in Latin Christendom acquainted with Greek grammar. ... In 1360 Petrarch could still count only eight or nine Italians who knew Greek", not to speak of Greek studies.
The misfortunes of the last remnants of the Roman Empire, which was overwhelmed by nine centuries of struggle against Avars, Bulgars, Slavs, Persians, Arabs, Rus, Pechenegs, Cumans, Normans, Crusaders, Bulgarians, Serbs and, eventually, Turks (1453 marks the fall of its capital, Constantinople, and 1461 the fall of its last spin-offs, Mystras and Trapezus), benefited the Greek studies in the West, since there was an ever increasing influx of Greek scholars from the waning Roman Empire, who brought with them the century-old tradition of Greek studies, as well as their... accent (which does not appear to differ, at least significantly, from the modern-day pronunciation)!
The successors of the deceased emigrant scholars were exclusively Westerners (note that the few literate Greeks, that is to say Greek-speaking Romans, in the Ottoman Empire were almost guaranteed a place at the court of the Sultan or some local Pasha and had no incentive to pursue higher education), who were equipped with the Latinate tradition of the West, the knowledge of their mother tongues and a few guidelines from their Greek teachers. Most of them adhered to these guidelines and became devout Orthodox (i.e., pronounced the Greek texts in the way they were taught).
Some, however (Antonio de Lebrija, Girolamo Aleandro and Teobaldo Mannucci, a.k.a. Aldus Manutius, are typically credited as pioneers and, thus, play the role of the... Catholic John the Baptist), became suspicious of the "strange" rules for reading the Greek texts and observed "some inconsistencies" between the Orthodox pronunciation and the testimony of ancient (Greek, as well as Latin) texts. These objections were summarised in and made popular by a surreal dialogue (ERAS28, wherein a... lion and a... bear discuss how to correctly pronounce Latin and Greek!) composed by the great Prophet of Catholicism, the aforementioned renowned scholar Erasmus, who thus laid the foundations of the Catholic pronunciation. Even though the dialogue’s protagonistsIt is not clear, at least to me, if they are two humans named VRSVS and LEO or a real bear and a real lion. Menardos (MENA98, p. 14) submits that they are real animals and that the reader cannot assert whether the author is jesting or speaking seriously. agree that their... cubs should be educated in accordance with the new proposals, it appears that Erasmus never suggested or at least insisted that... young humans should be taught the Catholic pronunciation.
The establishment of the Catholic pronunciation was the feat of the... Catholic St. Paul and St. Peter, Sirs John Cheke and Thomas Smith, who introduced the Catholic pronunciation to Cambridge University. After a foolish prohibition by the still predominant Orthodox Establishment (which, as always, had the exactly opposite effect), the new pronunciation spread throughout Europe (for one, compared to the Orthodox pronunciation, it was easier, more consistent and closer to the native western tongues and there was no reason to oppose it: its adversaries were either dead or rayahs).Chatzidakis (CHAT02, p. 287-288), submits in that respect that "Ἄν τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἔθνος μὴ ἔπιπτε τηλικαύτην πτῶσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐξηκολούθει ἤτοι νὰ πρωταγωνιστῇ ἤ τοὐλάχιστον νὰ συμβαδίζῃ τοῖς ὲν τῇ Ἑσπερίᾳ λαοῖς ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ, τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ ἐν τῷ πολιτισμῷ, οὐδέποτε θὰ ἐτολμᾶτο τοιοῦτὸ τι καὶ οὐδέποτε θὰ κατεφρονεῖτο ὁ τρόπος καθ’ ὅν τοῦτο ἀπήγγελε και μετεχειρίζετο τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γλῶσσαν, καθ’ ὅν τρόπον οὺδεὶς ἀλλογενὴς σήμερον τολμᾷ ν’ ἀναγινώσκῃ τὰ τοῦ Σαίξπηρ ποιήματα ἄλλως ἤ ὅπως ἀναγινώσκουσιν αὐτὰ οἱ σημερινοὶ Ἄγγλοι, εἰ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν χρόνων τοῦ ποιητοῦ μέχρι σήμερον ἡ Ἀγγλικὴ γλῶσσα σφόδρα ἠλλοιώθη|If the Greek nation did not suffer such fall [i.e., the demise of Constantinople], but continued to lead or at least to keep step with the nations of the West in art, science and civilisation, never would anyone dare anything like that [i.e., to pronounce Greek differently] and never would the way in which it [i.e., the Greek nation] pronounced and used its own language be scorned, much in the same way that no alien [i.e., non Brit] today dares read Shakespeare's poems differently from the way read by contemporary Englishmen, although from the days of the poet [i.e., Shakespeare] until today the English language has changed considerably".
From then on, ancient Greek has been the playground of Western linguists, who proposed all kinds of weird features for its pronunciation, such as aspirate consonants, pitch accent and even "voiceless vowels"cf. Allen’s reference to THUM88 in ALLE87, p. 54, note 107, which is an etymological oxymoron (as is i.a. evident from its Greek translation "άφωνα φωνήεντα"), as if taken out of a Quantum-Physics handbook or the theology of the Holy Trinity, wherein the vowels at the same time do and do not have voice (yes, I know it is an established term and that voiceless sonorants are attested in some languages, but it still sounds absurd)!
The heir of the language, the Greek-speaking subjects of the Sultan, had no say in the verdict. In essence, the West was de facto appointed as Regent to the throne, the prince was declared a bastardcf. BLAS70, p. 8, "Wohl sind die Neugriechen und waren die Byzantiner μιξοβάρβαροι|The modern Greeks are and the Byzantines were no doubt half barbarians"; it appears the sentence was excised from subsequent versions of the book and replaced by more "19th-century-politically correct", but still sarcastic language, cf. BLAS82, "Vorwort", "Die Polemik habe ich auf ein sehr geringes Maß beschränkt, und habe namentlich auch gegen die modernen Griechen, die an dieser Frage ein nationales Interesse haben oder zu haben glauben, nicht polemisieren wollen|I have significantly confined the polemics and I did not want to fight particularly also against the modern Greeks, who have or think that they have a national interest in this matter", emphasis mine. and was utterly ignored by the perennial Regent. However, the prince did at some point come of age both spiritually (Greek Enlightenment) and physically (Greek Revolution) and was at least reluctant to accept a verdict in absentia.
We thus enter the next phase, which is characterised by the pursuit of a national identity by two newborn political entities, the Greek and German states. The Greek intellectuals were faced with a series of difficult questions:
This was kind of a "no-brainer", since the former guaranteed the sympathy of Romantic Europe and a high prestige, while the latter was coveted by virtually everybody (cf. "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", "Roman Catholic Church", "Romania", "Romansch language") and was denied to the Empire by the West (cf. the use of the terms "Greek Empire" from Charlemagne on and "Byzantine Empire" from Hieronymus Wolf on).
Lacking a serious study of the language in its medieval stages, the origins of the current language were uncertain. An Aeolo-Doric hypothesis was formulated, which essentially postulated that the modern language was a direct descendant of all other ancient-Greek dialects but Attic/Ionic. The definitive answer was (said to have been) provided at the end of the 19th century by G. Chatzidakis, who linked modern Greek and ancient Attic by way of Hellenistic Koine and Roman Greek.
This was the toughest issue of all and it took two centuries to resolve. The debate started before the Revolution (1821-1828) and was paused due to it. As an interim (and almost eternal) solution, Katharevousa (καθαρεύουσα=puristic or purifying, a product of a 2000-year old Atticism) was used as the official language, whilst mopping up the everyday language, Dimotiki (δημοτική=demotic or vernacular).
Occupied by these more serious issues, it did not seem so important to answer the question of how the ancient language was pronounced. However, the reaction to the western verdict was skepticism rather than a "warm welcome". Some (e.g., K. Oikonomou and later Th. Papadimitrakopoulos) formulated objections and occasionally argued against the Catholic pronunciation with a fervour that perhaps was due to a feeling that, together with their pronunciation, their very national identity was also at stake.
On the other hand, the German linguists were flourishing and made progress in discovering some laws that governed the evolution of the Germanic languages and in laying the foundations for a unified treatment of the language family that is now known as Indo-European. The discovery of formal rules (termed "laws") in a still virgin field probably gave them a sense of omnipotence and nothing could stand in their way. They claimed|as it cannot be verified, e.g., by the discovery of inscriptions or other testimonies, it will forever remain a claim|300 to have reconstructed a Proto-Germanic Language and then a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) Language and even proceeded to translating Aesop’s fables into PIE.cf. AITC04, p. 177, "No one nowadays has the confidence of the 19th-century scholar who attempted to translate one of Aesop's fables into Proto-Indo-European!" In some cases, it was evident that they were working with an ulterior motive in mind, that of inventing a glorious past for the German nation or of highlighting the German grandeur (as indicated by the terms "Indo-Germanic" for the more PC later "Indo-European" and "deutsche Aussprache [des Griechischen]|German pronunciation [of Greek]" for the Catholic pronunciation), as if the Germans from Martin Luther on had not achieved enough to be regarded with admiration by the rest of the world.It appears that, at that time, noble lineage was still more important than any achievement, but, as became evident in the middle of the next century, this mentality had terrible repercussions on humanity; cf. JANN97, "Preface", note 1, "P. Kretchmer's recent volume 'Einleitung in die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache' (Göttingen, 1896) is [...] virtually an attempt to fix the original seat of the Aryan (Indo-Germanic) race in Europe and particularly in Germany (p. 60)".
The clash of these two schools produced the fiercest debate between the opponents of the two pronunciations. On the Catholic side, the most prominent advocate was Blass, while the Orthodox side is rather represented by Papadimitrakopoulos. However, it appears that the dogfight suddenly ceased and this is credited to the person that introduced comparative linguistics to Greece, Georgios Chatzidakis, who sided with the Catholics in the theoretical aspects (i.e., how ancient Greeks spoke) and (apparently) with the Orthodox in the practical aspects (i.e., how Greeks should read ancient texts).
In the meantime, the Catholic pronunciation was being "refined" elsewhere in the world, particularly in Britain, where a number of guidelines (ARNO08) about "The [once more, yet not definitely] restored pronunciation of [all?] Greek and Latin" were issued around the turn of the century. Due to "imperfect restoration" (e.g., use of [d͡z] for Ζ), compromises for "practical reasons" (e.g., use of, surprise surprise, [θ] for Θ), blatant disregard of the accent (despite having to go into great pains to write it, since I do not believe they were writing in capital letters) and, mainly, the phonology of everyone's mother tongue, Greek was essentially pronounced by transliteration into the Latin alphabet (at least in mind) and then in accordance with the rules of the respective local language. MenardosMENA98, p. 15, "καθένας έκοπτε απ’ αυτό [δηλ. την Αττική προφορά] και του προσέθετεν ό,τι του ήρεσε, σύμφωνα προς τας μελέτας του, την καλαισθησίαν του και την ευκολίαν του. Τοιουτοτρόπως με μερικούς λίθους του Παρθενώνος εκτίσθη ο νέος πύργος της Βαβέλ.|everyone was cutting off from this [i.e., the Attic pronunciation] and was adding to it according to one's liking, studies, aestheticism and convenience. Thus was built the new tower of Babel with a few stones from Parthenon." describes the situation as the new tower of Babel built with a few stones from the Parthenon, while Caragounis, paraphrasing Hirsch, names it "a chaotic democracy of un-Greek pronunciations of Greek, each conceived according to what is deemed natural in the speaker’s own tongue" (CARA95, p. 154).
It is, therefore, not much of an exaggeration to say that the Catholic pronunciation is also Protestant in nature, not only because it started with a protest against the (then universal, i.e., "catholic") Orthodox pronunciation received from the Greek speakers, but also because it rather reflects the current mosaic of Protestant Churches|I will not, however, venture in yet another metaphor.
The current Catholic creed was encapsulated by St. Augustine of Catholicism, Prof. W. Sidney AllenDespite his renown, his biography eludes the Internet and it was only due to his obituary(link no more working; no mirrors) that I learned who he was. I later discovered a full biography (LYON06), providing much more details., in a 1968 handbook (and then 1974 and 1987), in which he presents a full phonological model, summarises the evidence for and explains away all data (e.g., inscriptional) against the proposed model.
An awkward situation is observed in modern day Greece, where the mélange of Orthodoxy and Catholicism has produced yet further heresies.
Under the weight of foreign opinion, numbers and prestige, Greek academia has succumbed to the Catholic creed (they generally acknowledge the "correctness" of the Catholic pronunciation), but for all practical reasonscf. ELIA99, p. 125, "Για τους Νεοέλληνες θα ήταν αδιανόητο να χρησιμοποιούνται δύο διαφορετικά είδη προφοράς, μια για τα κλασικά κείμενα και μια για τα μεταγενέστερα και τα νεοελληνικά|For the modern Greeks it would be unthinkable to use two different kinds of pronunciation, one for the classical texts and one for the modern-Greek ones" or Ιωάννης Σταματάκος, "Θὰ ἦτο ἑπομένως μωρία ἐκ μέρους μας νὰ δημιουργήσωμεν ἡμεῖς μεγάλας δυσκολίας παραδεχόμενοι τὴν Ἐρασμιακὴν προφοράν, καθ' ἣν στιγμὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχαιότητος ἤδη εἶχεν ἀρχίσει ἡ ἐξέλιξις τῆς προφορᾶς πρὸς τὴν σημερινὴν πραγματικότητα. Διότι διὰ τοὺς ξένους ἡ Ἐρασμιακὴ προφορὰ δὲν ἀποτελεῖ ἐπανάστασιν, ἢ μᾶλλον ἀνατροπήν, ὑπαρχούσης καταστάσεως. Ἀντιθέτως εἴς τινα σημεῖα συμφωνεῖ πρὸς τὴν προφορὰν τῆς Ἐθνικῆς των γλώσσης, ἐν ᾧ δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς σημερινοὺς Ἕλληνας τὸ πρᾶγμα εἶναι διάφορον: ἡμεῖς προφέρομεν κατὰ ἕνα τρόπον τοὺς φθόγγους καὶ τὰς λέξεις τῆς Νέας Ἑλληνικῆς, θὰ ἦτο δὲ πολὺ δύσκολον νὰ συνηθίσωμεν νὰ προφέρωμεν κατὰ διάφορον τρόπον τοὺς ἰδίους φθόγγους (καὶ σχεδὸν τὰς ἰδίας λέξεις), ὅταν εἰδοποιήσωμεν τὸν ἑαυτόν μας ὅτι πρόκειται νὰ ἀναγνώσωμεν ἀρχαῖον κείμενον, δηλ. κατὰ παραγγελίαν, οὐ μόνον δὲ δύσκολον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄσκοπον, καὶ ἑπομένως ἀνόητον|It would, therefore, be a folly on our part to introduce great difficulties accepting the Erasmian pronunciation, since the evolution of pronunciation towards the modern reality had begun already in antiquity. Because for the foreigners the Erasmian pronunciation does not constitute a revolution, or better an overthrow, of an established situation. On the contrary, in some points it agrees with the pronunciation of their national tongues, whereas for us, the contemporary Greeks, it is a different matter: we pronounce in a particular way the sounds and the words of modern Greek; it would thus be very difficult to get used to pronouncing in a different way the same sounds (and almost the same words), when we realise that we are about to read an ancient text, namely upon demand [?], not only [would it be] difficult but also pointless and, hence, foolish." from WIANPR. The soundness of these arguments will be discussed in the section on the practical pronunciation of "Ancient Greek". the same (i.e., Orthodox) pronunciation is used in the Greek educational system for reading Greek of all eras. Greek academia, thus, qualify as Uniates (acknowledging "papal" supremacy but retaining their own "liturgy"). The catholic pronunciation is taught in the Greek universities, when dealing with ancient-Greek phonology, but (I guess) only as a prerequisite for general linguistics. I have not heard of the Catholic pronunciation being used in any ancient-Greek class in any Greek university.
The rest of the population are not at all concerned with immaterial issues, such as
"How did ancient Greeks pronounce their Ζ’s?"
and (other than the occasional "βῆ βῆ" of Κρατῖνος in some high-school classes) never hear of the Catholic pronunciation, much in the same way that most Americans/etccf. the testimony of an American that learned the American pronunciation of Greek before learning the... Greek one, "Καὶ ποῦ νὰ ξέρω ὅτι ὑπῆρχε ἄλλη προφορὰ ποὺ νὰ χρησιμοποιεῖται σήμερα; Ἂν κι εἶχα δεῖ αὐτὴ τὴν ταινία μὲ τὸν Anthony Quinn, οἱ Ἕλληνες γιὰ μένα ἦταν κάτι ἱστορικό, σχεδὸν φανταστικό, μὲς στὶς σελίδες τῶν βιβλίων, καὶ ποτὲ δὲν ἀμφισβήτησα τὴν προφορὰ ποὺ εἶχα μάθει. ... Ἀλλὰ σὲ τέτοια κατάσταση εἶναι πολλοὶ Φιλέλληνες, ποὺ ἀγαποῦν μιὰ Ἑλλάδα ποὺ ἔχουν φανταστεῖ διαβάζοντας τὸν Ὅμηρο καὶ Εὐριπίδη, καὶ οὔτε σκέφτονται (it doesn't even occur to them) ὅτι ἡ γλωσσικὴ παράδοση ζεῖ ἀκόμα στὴ σημερινὴ Ἑλλάδα μὲ μιὰ προφορὰ ποὺ ἔχει ἀλλάξει ἀπὸ τὴν «ἀρχαιότητα» καὶ ὅμως ἀξίζει νὰ τὴ γνωρίσει ὁ δυτικὸς φιλόλογος.|And how could I have known that there was another pronunciation that was in use today? Even though I had seen that movie with Anthony Quinn, the Greeks for me were something historical, almost imaginary, in the pages of the books, and I never questioned the pronunciation that I had learned. ... But many Philhellenes are in such a [similar?] situation, that they love a Greece they have imagine while reading Homer and Euripides, and it doesn't even occur to them that the linguistic tradition still lives in modern Greece with a pronunciation that has changed from «antiquity» but is still worth (for the western scholar) studying.", including some linguistscf. CARA95, p. 151, "One scholar thought that what he called the Modern Greek pronunciation was the pronunciation that the Greeks applied to the Dhimotiki [the "vernacular" or "popular" form of the language]", are oblivious to the Orthodox pronunciation, even for contemporary Greek. There are also among the Greeks a few, so to say, "Born-agains", who are such devout converts to Catholicism that they try to proselytisecf. Γ. Χατζηδάκις, "Καιρός εἶναι πλέον νὰ λήξῃ ἡ τῶν ατόπων ὑπεράσπισις, νὰ πεισθῶμεν δὲ πάντες ὅτι καὶ περὶ τούτων ὡς καὶ περὶ παντὸς ἄλλου ἡ ἀλήθεια πρέπει να λέγηται καὶ ὅτι οὐ μόνον δὲν βλάπτει ἀλλά κατ’ ἀλήθειαν καὶ τιμᾷ καὶ σώζει|It it time to end the defense of the unreasonable, to convince ourselves that for this, as for any other, matter the truth should be told and that not only does it not hurt but indeed honours and saves", emphasis mine, from ELIA99, p. 124. or even scorncf. Χ. Φουνταλής, "Classic Greek would sound rather alien to contemporary Greeks, but don’t ever say this to them! It is an issue that most Greeks, even educated ones, ignore. [...] If any (non-Greek) scholar attempts to pronounce classic texts in the reconstructed pronunciation, that, to Greeks is tantamount to sacrilege", emphasis mine. their infidel brethren. However, I have not yet heard of any Greek pronouncing any Greek text with the Catholic pronunciation in a public Orthodox environment (though I am not so sure it hasn’t happened; there will always be some show-off who would try to impress the youngsters with a conspiracy plot). Catholicism in present-day Greece is, most of the times, just another case of elitism (go for trends that are not known to the general population, e.g., savoir-vivre, opera, wine-tasting, you-name-it, and then belittle the "uncultivated masses" for their ignorance).
|
|
|
|
|