Talk:Ancient Greek grammar

Creation

Excuse me for not stating this in the edit summary when I created this article: but the text has been cut out from the main article, Ancient Greek. Please see the history page of that article if you want to contact its original author(s). Caesarion 10:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect-Perfective-Aorist

I agree with User:Jriddy about the terminology with respect to "Perfect"/"Perfective"/"Aorist". See Perfective aspect, which explains the ambiguity, and also compare the new article on (modern) Greek grammar, which uses "Perfective" in the same sense. In modern linguistic terminology (e.g. B. Comrie, Aspect), "Perfective" is typically distinguished from "Perfect" and used to describe categories like the Aorist. Lukas ^(T.|@) 06:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Greek language article series

Could people interested in this article please have a look at a discussion I instigated at Talk:Greek language, regarding a proposed restructuring of the whole series of Greek-related language articles. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there future perfect. (I'm not sure what your name would mean with regard to you!) I'm just coming on now with some knowledge of ancient Greek, less of modern Greek and some linguistics, and some experience of presentation.

I like your plan. Ancient Greek is not modern and vice versa even though there is commonality in basic words and some constructions. I for one will try to follow your plan. I see others have been doing that too.

I would certainly like to say on first encountering everything that your plan shows through. There is still a lot of work to be done, especially on getting the right topics in the right articles with as little redundancy as possible. But it seems to me, like water finding its way through a new channel, or nervous impulses through a new neural path, the job is getting done! It is important I think to have the appropriate links and what is more the appropriate intoduction to those links. Sometimes it is not enough just to say "For more information about ...". Anyway that is my take. Onward and upward.Dave 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of cases

The order of cases is nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative. Latin adds the ablative after the accusative. Some ancient languages such as Old English and some others generally have the same accusative as nominative and so they are put together: nom. - acc. That is only true in Greek of the neuter gender, so they are not generally put together, unless you are mentioning only the neuter. The current arrangement as of this date in this article is an innovation of presentation, an original work. So, unless given some excellent reasons, when I get to this article I am going to change it to the standard to avoid confusion.Dave 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

@Botteville: Actually in Britain and most English-speaking countries other than the United States, the order used is N(V)AGD. (The same order is used in British-produced grammars of Old English, German, Turkish, etc.) There is a good reason for this order when describing Greek in particular, namely that in Ancient Greek the nominative and accusative are often one thing, the genitive and dative another. For example, NA dual are τώ, GD are τοῖν; in neuter words, NA are different from the masculine, GD are the same as the masculine; in words like the article, θεά, θεός, ναῦς and πατήρ, NA are accentuated one way, GD another way. Therefore although the American order may have the advantage of being the original one, the British order has the advantage of clarity of description. (The NAGD order, by the way, is not an innovation of the writer of this article, but a tradition in Britain going back at least 150 years: see Benjamin Hall Kennedy.) Kanjuzi (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The issue seems to be reducing to difference between American and British English. These differences are inevitable. I have no solution except a committee to arbritate which one we should use and when and whether consistently, which seems incredibly convolute. Why should it be all one way? So, this small issue unfolds into a bigger one. I think I must pass. I asked for a reason. You gave a reason. As I am not working on the whole set, I stop here. Happy Britishing. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Graciously conceded! Kanjuzi (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the normal/Greek grammar play any role in this? Shouldn't the grammar that is actually used by Greece be referenced as well, so that people know that the American system is in fact the Greek one -- LightningLighting (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Labial and Velar Declensions

Where do you get that stuff? What happened to the third declension? Well, what about mater and pater and daimon and geron and polis and all the other material you find in the back summary of Chase and Phillips and most other beginning texts in the states? Are you in the states? Is this your work? Well, what I am really trying to say is, should we not stick to the basic concepts, an a declension, an o declension and a consonant declension or consonant declensions, using first, second and third to connect with Latin and all those texts that use first, second and third? I guess the bottom line is, it is not good to jump right into the more technical stuff without a sentence or two defining or pointing to the definitions of your terms. I would, for example, place links on terms such as labial. That way we can make this set of articles more of interest to the general reader, so he won't think he is so stupid he cannot learn Greek. As an example, I point to Buck, Greek Dialects. He starts out talking about consonant stems in general. Then he goes to s, i consonental, u consonental, missing digamma, irregulars. More of a flow there. More complete. Still, Buck is not very explanatory and elemental. Dave 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I too found this treatment of the third declension very lame. Moreover, I'd like to see someone more knowledgeable tackling with all the crazy divergence in phonetic nomenclature circling round the consonants, which will drive to tears any student dealing with the third declension in different grammars, particularly grammars in different languages. For instance, Georg Curtius puts daimon with the dentals; with Goodwin a whole other matter etc. Has any grammarian made something out of this mess?

201.19.179.56 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, unsat

This article is on the whole inaccurate, incomplete, disorganized. I've pointed out a few things before. The order of cases is not the standard. The consonant declension is rendered as the labial and the velar declensions as though they had something to do with labio-velars. Take a look at Smyth's grammar, will you? Then there is that absurd discussion about the perfect and perfective aspects. And, some of the Greek is in Greek letters and some in English. The article keeps getting longer and longer without any apparent plan.

We can't write a grammar here. There is not enough space! It seems to me what we want is one of those thumbnail sketches, which tell you what the language has and then gives a few examples. All of Smyth is on the Internet and also Goodwin. We need a good summarizer, someone who can pick out the essentials and compare it to other languages, such as Latin. This is not the place to rewrite Greek grammar. We want to summarize the standard concepts, not innovate a new grammar.Dave 01:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand you find the article a bit imbalanced. Some morphological discussion goes into extremes of details - on the other hand, those parts seem generally quite solid and knowledgable, so I'd be cautious deleting stuff from there. About the inconsistency you note about using Greek or Latin spelling, I guess you have a point. The thing about the perfect/perfective/aorist terminology seems okay to me. Please feel free to work on the article or make concrete, constructive suggestions what to change. Thank you! Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell are the rest of the consonantic third declensions? What's up with this mad treatment of the morphology? Have the people who worked here even been educated in Greek? This article is bad to the very commas. 201.19.212.228 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... so, fix it. No use bitching about other people's competence instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some problems

These are some problems I've found:

1. The only references to the Consonantic Declension (aka III Declension) are about the labial and velar... where is the rest (e.g. βασιλεύς, πειθώ, πατήρ, etc.)
2. No reference to "Attic declension": Μενελάως, for example, is a name following this particular form of Omicron-Declension (aka II Declension)
3. No references to ingresive/egressive Aorist (a concept mostly used in Aorist Imperative, in contrast to Present Imperative that it has a more continuous/progressive idea).

And surely there's more. --Neigel von Teighen 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Partic(ip)les

There doesn't seem to be much here in the way of syntax—in other words, the way the language works. My (admittedly rather hasty first) impression is that too much emphasis has been placed on morphology.

One feature in particular that I was looking for was the extensive use of participles, since this is very characteristic of Ancient Greek & more or less absent in the modern language. Simple examples would be:

τὸν Μῆδον ἴσμεν ἐλθόντα

("we know that the Mede has come"); or:

αἱ γυναῖκες τυγχάνουσι φεύγουσαι

("the women happen to be fleeing"); or:

ταῦτ' ἐποίησε (ὡς) νικήσων

("he did this to win")

Whole volumes, I know, could be written on the use of particles; but some mention of them, at least, should be made here. The commonest include good old μέν and δέ of course; but there are also γάρ, οὖν, γε, δή, τοι, κτλ.

I think that some discussion of these topics might breathe some life into what would otherwise remain a dead language! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This article lacks of these important things. --Neigel von Teighen 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

´´Labial-Velar Declension´´

I'm asking this purely out of curiosity, not to put anyone down. But where did people get this? Of course the third declension is not composed simply of labial and velar stems. Is this crazy division being taught anywhere, or reproduced in grammars? Did this come from some New Testament Greek primer? 201.19.135.117 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you've said that before. I have no idea who wrote those parts, I think they have been around for quite a while. The answer is still the same: so fix it. I haven't got the time right now and my knowledge of Ancient Greek is a bit sketchy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems it was introduced here [1], and the edit summary said "still incomplete", so perhaps that editor was planning to add some more later and then left it incomplete for some reason? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

English Translation in this page

The English on this page is poor enough to leave one wondering what is intended.

"When the subject of the infinitive is the same with (as) the subject of the verb(,) then the subject of the infinitive is formed with (in) the nominative (case),. (kill this run-on sentence!!) while (W)hen the subjects are different, the subject of the infinitive is formed with (in) the accusative case. When the subject of the infinitive is at (in the) nominative (case), most times it is (usually) omitted."

Perhaps the author doesn't realize that a verb can be in an infinitive form? What is the second verb to which he refers? When is the subject of a helping verb different from the infinitive? Perhaps I'm just confused and under-educated. If so, comments would be appreciated.

I'm going to do some very basic editing of the English grammar. I appreciate that this was written by someone whose mother-tongue is not English, but the English should be comprehensible.

-Heather Ceana

Capitalization of first letter of Greek sentences

It is the rule in Greek (unlike in English) for the first letter of a sentence to be lowercase (except, of course, when the first word is a name), and for only the first letter of a full paragraph to be capitalized. I have changed all the Greek sentences accordingly.

If other people think it would be more useful for the Greek in an English article to follow English capitalization, they may revert the change back. Erutuon (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is untrue. I've never seen it in my Greek textbooks, or any Greek book I've ever read for that matter. Not even in the Ancient Greek textbook.

LightningLighting (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

I'd say that calling case-endings "suffixes" is a bad idea. While in English there is littler to no difference between a suffix and a case-ending (because most of the inflection has been lost altogether), in other languages there is a very clear distinction between 'a suffix' and a 'case-ending' (or 'an inflection').

In fusional/inflecting languages, a suffix is a stable element that is either or not added to, e. g., nouns. A case-ending is always there (in IDE, at least). So maybe we should have some second thoughts about that.

Cheers, Rokas --RokasT (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Specific infinitive

Article reads: 'The specific infinitive is applied in every tense and is translated in English as a dependent clause, optionally introduced by "that...".' How it is translated into English is a quirk of English grammar, unrelated to Greek grammar. For example, English allows "They consider Socrates to be wise", but not *"They say Socrates to be wise". --macrakis (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the text and added the example that you suggested. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

8th. Century

In the 8th. century B.C., Greek had ablative, locative and instrumental endings, not merely meanings, in a few words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.34.29 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Asper before e, i, o?

Spiritus asper only before υ and ρ? What then about hepta, holos, hippos and other vowels? Did the über-old Greex forget asper before ε, ο and ι? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was poorly worded. What was meant was not that all instances of spiritus asper occur with υ and ρ, but that all instances of υ and ρ occur with spiritus asper. I've reworded the passage, hopefully to clarify it. Thanks for pointing out this problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"exist but are incorrect"?

This has been left in my talkpage:

‘Question

Hi, about this edit [2], could you explain what your source means by saying that some forms "exist but are incorrect"? From the perspective of descriptive linguistics, that sounds like almost a contradiction in terms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)’

I agree that there is a point in this question. One of my references says that ‘the forms τά and ταῖν are considered incorrect for the feminine dual’. I could state that in the same way, but thus someone would ask ‘by who?’. One solution would be not to mention such forms until we have more sources. FlavianusEP (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the concepts of "correct" and "incorrect" are not categories of serious analysis in modern linguistics. I would even go so far as to say that any source that uses them, without some qualifying context, is ipso facto not a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We could end this discussion with the proposal that the phrase “exist but are incorrect” must be changed to just “exist”. I my humble opinion, only the forms τῶ and τοῖν should remain on the table, since they were the preferred ones - the other book I have at my disposal does not even mention τά and ταῖν.FlavianusEP (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal Criticism

I guess a lot of work has gone into the article, and I'd sincerely like to applaud and thank everyone for the effort, but still there are some things to consider:

• Wikipedia is not the place to have a comprehensive grammar of a language. Maybe you should find a cutoff point, how much level of detail is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and write an in-detail Wikibook?
• Please have a look at the official Style Guide some day. Especially in regard to structure, the current article is rather complicated and also uses some quite unconventional markup constructs.

--BjKa (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any WP policy against comprehensive content, as long as it well organized and in articles of reasonable size (see Wikipedia:Article size). But certainly there is room for breaking off some of the detailed content in the article into separate articles using the "main" template to connect them, e.g. {{main|Infinitive in Ancient Greek}} (which I'd agree is far too detailed for the main Ancient Greek grammar article). --Macrakis (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@BjKa: I second Macrakis's point. There's no prohibition against comprehensiveness; in fact an essay linked from the page above says Wikipedia is in fact supposed to be comprehensive (WP:COMPREHENSIVE). But to read around your words, you're right that the article is too wordy and detailed. It needs summarizing and splitting. — Eru·tuon 01:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@BjKa: @Macrakis: @Erutuon: I quite agree. This article is too long-winded in places and goes into unnecessary technical linguistic discussions, when it is supposed to be merely an introductory article covering the main points of Ancient Greek grammar. Moreover, despite being around for ten years now, it seems to be completely unbalanced; for example, it goes into detail about breathings and accents, but omits to mention the basic fact that Greek uses its own alphabet. In my view, the detailed sections on the infinitive constructions and the different uses of the participle should go in separate articles. What we should aim for, I suggest, is a brief introduction that outlines the main points, written as it were perhaps for an educated person who has perhaps never studied Greek but would like to know something about it, rather than for someone who has already learnt some Greek and would like to study the finer points. Also, parts of the article are written using the writers' own ideas, without reference to standard grammars; and some of the examples are invented rather than taken from ancient authors. It goes without saying too, of course, that since this is an introductory article, all the Greek examples should be accompanied by a transliteration. – Kanjuzi (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now removed the infinitive and participle sections and put them in separate articles. They still need editing, even so. However, the main article is now much more consistent and lighter. I have also added a few paragraphs to fill in gaps. It has been difficult to write anything worthwhile about the Greek verb without overlapping too much with the article Ancient Greek verbs, which, because it has good examples, is easier to follow. However, you can judge for yourselves and make adjustments if necessary. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Syntax

Moved from the "cleanup" section at the top of the page (added by User:84.161.62.213:

• A note on possession would be nice. Is it like "[substantive] [substantive in genitive]" (like: door house's), "[substantive] [article in genitive] [substantive in genitive]" (door of the house's), "[substantive in genitive] [substantive]" (house's door)?
• A note on placing adjectives would be nice. Is it like "[adjective] [substantive]" (big house) or "[substantive] [adjective]" (house big)?

Sounds like a good idea, although the article lead says it's about morphology, not syntax (like many traditional grammars). --Macrakis (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes on the infinitive

I have deleted the overly-detailed notes on the infinitive. Though everything in them may be correct, they have no business here in a general article on Ancient Greek Grammar. I suggest that if the author wishes, he should put them in a separate article on the Ancient Greek infinitive. Even as it is, this article goes into far too much detail about, for example, exactly which verbs can govern an infinitive; but with the addition of all this extra highly technical material, it becomes absurd. Kanjuzi (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I have similarly deleted the overly-technical notes on various rare uses of the participle. I suggest these should go in a separate article if required. I note also that the material seems to come from the author's own observations, without being referenced to any standard textbook. Kanjuzi (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Number of tenses

The view expressed in the article that there are 'four' tenses in Greek (that is, lumping the Present and Imperfect into one, and the Perfect and Pluperfect into another) is unorthodox. Goodwin (1894, p. 91); Smyth (1920, p. 107); Coderch (2012, pp. 101-2) all say there are 'seven' tenses; and Abbott & Mansfield (1977 [1893], p. 102) give six tenses (not including the Future Perfect). I suggest that the formulation given in the present article is confusing for people wishing to know about the basics of Greek and should be rewritten. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that is very odd. I suppose it is listing the tenses that occur in most of the moods besides the indicative. It should, however, list all seven tenses, and perhaps give a table of which combinations of mood and tense exist. — Eru·tuon 20:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. That sounds a good idea. Kanjuzi (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Corn or wheat

An anonymous editor insists that "corn" is not a correct translation of σῖτος, but that it should be "wheat". However, it is only in America that "corn" means "maize". In the rest of the world it means grain of various sorts. LSJ [3] in fact do not give "wheat" as a translation of σῖτος (which could include barley as well as wheat). So I think "corn" should stand. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC) – No, σῖτος doesn't really mean "wheat or barley". There are perfectly good words for "wheat and barley", namely πυροὶ καὶ κριθαί. It's like saying that "fruit" means "apples" or "bananas". Apples and bananas are kinds of fruit, but the word "fruit" does not mean "apples". There is nothing wrong with the word "corn", which has been used in English for centuries to mean grains of different kinds. When you read of "corn" in the Bible (e.g. Psalm 4:7), do you suppose it is referring to maize? Kanjuzi (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh, I wasn't aware of the wider semantic range of the Greek word. Using "corn" is misleading for North American readers (if not Southern Hemisphere; Wiktionary doesn't indicate what the sense of the word is in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa), who are likely a huge portion of people reading the page, since the population of North America is much greater than that of the British Isles. I would suggest using "grain", which after all is the first gloss given in LSJ. (They later use "corn" in translations of quotations.) — Eru·tuon 19:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wiktionary says corn refers to maize in Australia. — Eru·tuon 19:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Erutuon and I add that we go by reliable sources such as ancient Greek dictionaries which supply the translation as primarily "wheat" or "grain". I used a reliable source for that and that should basically be the end of the story since we go by RS and not our analysis about bananas or what have you. Dr. K. 20:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bible dictionary: "Wheat or grain", from Bible Hub: Short Definition: wheat, grain Definition: wheat, grain.. Dr. K. 22:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Kanjuzi pointed to the LSJ, which is an Ancient Greek lexicon and a reliable source. It explains that σῖτος is a general term for cereal grains, not a specific word for wheat. It also has other meanings. (I had to correct the Wiktionary article, which had an incorrect definition.) Anyway, this is a lot of discussion to have on the one-word translation of a single word that appears once in the article. — Eru·tuon 23:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Erutuon, I can see that. But the dictionaries I presented establish that the leading definition is "wheat", "grain". Dr. K. 23:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I don't understand what you mean by "leading definition". Could you explain? — Eru·tuon 23:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition which most commonly appears in dictionaries. Dr. K. 00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Okay, I see. Well, I would like to reject the first dictionary you linked to, because it seems to be just a user-created resource, not a reliable source. The second, Strongs, doesn't actually say "wheat, grain" in the definition line. (It actually says "a generic term for any edible grain – typically wheat(BAGD), but sometimes barley, etc.") "Wheat, grain" just seems to be a listing of the most common words used to translate σῖτος in the New American Standard Bible. (Look at the NAS Exhaustive Concordance: it seems to be saying that "wheat" is used to translate σῖτος 12 times in the NASB and "grain" is used 2 times. Hence the ordering "wheat, grain".) So "wheat, grain" is not a definition, just a list of translations used in a particular English version of the New Testament. — Eru·tuon 01:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We can argue this ad infinitum. Being a Greek word, it will obviously be a translation, not a definition in the strict sense of the term. The fact remains that the translation "wheat" "grain" seems to be used more often than the alternative "corn". Therefore, it is the most common translation of the word sitos. That you found one reference that is not RS, it is neither here nor there. Because there are many more RS that say the same thing. Now I hope we can put this pointless discussion to an end. And no more pings please. I watchlist the pages I discuss topics in so I will reply should I choose to do so. Thanks. Dr. K. 02:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no more pings. I did it as a courtesy, but it is not necessary. I am not convinced by what you say, but there is no need to go into it further. — Eru·tuon 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns?

Why is there no section about Ancient Greek Pronouns? There is a pretty big part of the grammar missing this way.Merijn2 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't see them discussed anywhere, nor do I see a link to a place where they would be discussed. This definitely seems like an unusual omission, especially given the presence of so many other details. I suspect they might have disappeared in the course of some reorganisation of the articles.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's true, it's a big omission. It's also a big subject: there are personal, intensive, reflexive, demonstrative, interrogative, indefinite, reciprocal, negative, relative, and indefinite relative. It's a whole subject in itself! Kanjuzi (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

ACI

Our article Accusative and infinitive mentions Greek but gives no information. It should probably have a Greek section before the Latin section. Are there any Greek scholars here who would feel up to doing that? Doric Loon (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)