Talk:Attic Greek

Polytonic template needed

This article asserts that there is no indefinite article in Attic Greek, but indeed the particle tis, ti functions as often as two different kinds of indefinite article as it does an interrogative pronoun. I may amend this myself if someone would kindly inform me how to use the Greek alphabet in Wiki.

All the Greek words and phrases need the Polytonic template adding to make them visible in Internet Explorer. I may get round to doing this myself some time. --rossb 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you? The sooner the better. And you are right about the particle. The concept that there is no indefinite article is so well established though that it might be better to present it as a periphrasis, a "work around". The definite article you know developed out of the demonstrative adjectives. There was no need for an indefinite article because Indo-European had no definite article. Once it came, in, then you had to invent a way to get indefinite again. Now, if you open the article for editing you will see some selectable Greek characters. The tis and the ti are enclitic so they do not take an accent. You might be able to do that part without the polytonic template. Best wishes.Dave 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I had some further thoughts on the indefinite article. The Greeks could also signify indefiniteness by leaving off the definite article. The first part of the gospel of John has "En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos". Most interpret "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." But that is not what it says. The last theos has no article and therefore might be indefinite. It might mean "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was a god." In fact that is the interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not Trinitarian. This is not the time or place for religion, but I just wanted to point out an instance of the indefiniteness of the deficit of the definite. You might ask "tis estin ekeinos;" "who is that man?" and get a wise-guy answer "anthropos" "a man".Dave 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of cases

Excuse me I don't want to offend anyone but the traditional order of cases when you list a Greek paradigm is Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative and Vocative. I'm sure there is plenty of room in the field for creative presentation but in this case the dictionaries give the nominative and then a second case, which everyone assumes is the genitive and in fact the author(s) of the dictionary assumes everyone assumes it is the genitive. Moreover the same order is traditional in Latin as well, except, of course, it adds the ablative. When we go down through our lists memorizing our paradigms, as everyone has to do, so we can perform our mental lookups (unless we are very skilled and can think in ancient Greek), it would not be too useful to have some students going haw, hay, taw; too teys, too; tow tey tow; ton, teyn, taw, etc., and others going haw, hay, taw; ton, teyn taw, etc.. Not only that but when the modern languages present what is left of their cases it is always in the same order: nominative, possessive, dative, objective.

Gosh I know the nominative and accusative are very similar and the vocative even more similar still but there is a tradition here and you can't depart from it without bringing down the taxis of the kosmos, so play along, will you? Thanks. I'll change those tables when I get a chance, but meanwhile maybe we should have a look at the next topic.Dave 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper topic

My guess is the author already perceived the problem with this topic and has halted work while he/she figures it out or else got discouraged and went away. What are we trying to do, type in a textbook in ancient Greek? Why not just buy one or go to the tutorials on the Internet? If you are going to learn Greek from Wikipedia you will be straining your eyes from looking at the screen all the time and not only that but it may not be convenient to carry around a computer so you can learn Greek from Wikipedia. I don't think we should be aiming at putting a textbook in here and it won't fit anyway, not by a long shot. Wikipedia can't do everything.

I've seen rough summaries of language features both on-line and in encyclopedias such as Britannica. We just want to give the ordinary person an idea of what Greek is like if he or she should want to learn any (a commendable task). So we will have to decide how much is too much. Not only that but let's not get carried away with the the fact that Attic has been a standard. This is supposed to cover Attic Greek as opposed to some other dialect rather than being a total course in ancient Greek.Dave 04:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Show stopper

I just discovered that the grammar part of this article is duplicated under Ancient Greek grammar. So, the proper thing to do it seems to me is go through here excising the duplicate materal that has to do with the ancient Greek language rather than the Attic dialect. That will leave more room to cover the dialect. So, most of what I have said in the discussion page is not really relevant in light of that intent. I will have to go through here slowly and carefully to get it more into a dialect article and cut out the duplication. This will take time, but feel free to jump in yourself.Dave 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate Material

I put this duplicate material here if anyone wants it.Dave 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nouns

Attic Greek nouns have three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter) and five cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative). There are three major divisions of noun declension: the "First Declension", more aptly called the alpha-declension, which in Attic is divided into five subdivisions; the "Second Declension", or omicron-declension (also known as the thematic declension); and the "Third Declension", an umbrella grouping of a large and reasonably diverse assortment of consonant-stem paradigms.

Alpha Declension

The alpha declension is predominantly, but not exclusively, feminine. Nouns belonging to the alpha declension have stems ending in alpha, short or long. In certain circumstances the alpha may change its length or become eta.

In the table below of feminine nouns there are three examples: long-alpha stem (ᾱ-stems), short-alpha stems (α-stems), and a stems which can end in eta (η-stems).

	Feminine
	ᾱ-stems (χώρᾱ 'land')			α-stems (Μοῦςα 'Muse')			η-stems (τῑμή 'honor')
	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	χώρᾱ	χώρᾱ	χώραι	Μοῦσα	Μούσᾱ	Μοῦσαι	τῑμή	τῑμᾱ́	τῑμαί
Vocative	χώρᾱ	χώρᾱ	χώραι	Μοῦσα	Μούσᾱ	Μοῦσαι	τῑμή	τῑμᾱ́	τῑμαί
Accusative	χώρᾱν	χώρᾱ	χώρᾱς	Μοῦσαν	Μούσᾱ	Μούσᾱς	τῑμήν	τῑμᾱ́	τῑμᾱ́ς
Genitive	χώρᾱς	χώραιν	χώρῶν	Μούσης	Μούσαιν	Μουσῶν	τῑμῆς	τῑμαιν	τῑμῶν
Dative	χώρᾳ	χώραιν	χώραις	Μούσῃ	Μούσαιν	Μούσαις	τῑμῇ	τῑμαιν	τῑμαῖς

The short alpha stem is not present in masculine nouns, thus only ᾱ-stems and η-stems are declined.

	Masculine
	ᾱ-stems (ταμίᾱς steward)			η-stems (ποιητής poet)
	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	ταμίᾱς	ταμίᾱ	ταμίαι	ποιητής	ποιητᾱ́	ποιηταί
Vocative	ταμίᾱ	ταμίᾱ	ταμίαι	ποιητά	ποιητᾱ	ποιηταί
Accusative	ταμίᾱν	ταμίᾱ	ταμίᾱς	ποιητήν	ποιητᾱ́	ποιητάς
Genitive	ταμίου	ταμίαιν	ταμίῶν	ποιητοῦ	ποιηταῖν	ποιητῶν
Dative	ταμίᾳ	ταμίαιν	ταμίαις	ποιητῇ	ποιηταῖν	ποιηταῖς

Omicron Declension

Nouns in the omicron declension can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, though they are predominantly masculine and neuter. Masculine and feminine nouns are declined alike.

	Masculine and Feminine stems (λόγος 'word')			Neuter stems (δῶρον 'gift')
	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	λόγος	λόγω	λόγοι	δῶρον	δώρω	δῶρα
Vocative	λόγε	λόγω	λόγοι	δῶρον	δώρω	δῶρα
Accusative	λόγον	λόγω	λόγους	δῶρον	δώρω	δῶρα
Genitive	λόγου	λόγοιν	λόγων	δώρου	δώροιν	δῶρων
Dative	λόγῳ	λόγοιν	λόγοις	δώρῳ	δώροιν	δῶροις

The Article

Attic Greek has only a definite article, which declines with its noun. It does not have an indefinite article which can be translated as "a(n)," "some," or "a certain." Frequently proper names take the definite article.

The definite article in Greek admits certain constructions that are now found in familiar modern European languages. A common construction is a definite article followed by a definite article in the genitive, the noun in the genitive, and finally the noun of the first article. For example: τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔργον. Literally "the (of the man) deed", the English sense is "the deed of the man." This sort of construction is a relic of the definite article's earlier status -- clearly evident in the Homeric texts -- as a demonstrative pronoun. Attic also makes frequent use of this sort of construction with prepositional phrases and even with adverbs (e.g., αἱ νῦν γυναῖκες, literally "the now women", i.e., "modern women"). The demonstrative force is so strong that the noun can often be dispensed with altogether: e.g., οἱ μετά τινός, literally "the (MASC. PL.) with someone", i.e., "the comrades of" so-and-so.

The definite article is declined thus:

	Masculine			Feminine			Neuter
	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural	Singular	Dual	Plural
Nominative	ὁ	τώ	οἱ	ἡ	τά	αἱ	τό	τώ	τά
Accusative	τόν	τώ	τούς	τήν	τά	τάς	τό	τώ	τά
Genitive	τοῦ	τοῖν	τῶν	τῆς	ταῖν	τῶν	τοῦ	τοῖν	τῶν
Dative	τῷ	τοῖν	τοῖς	τῇ	ταῖν	ταῖς	τῷ	τοῖν	τοῖς

Verbs

Verbs have three numbers (singular, dual, plural), three persons (first person, second person, third person), seven tenses (present, imperfect, aorist, future, present perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect), two aspects (simple (or aorist) and continuous), three voices (active voice, middle voice, passive voice), and four moods (indicative mood, imperative mood, subjunctive mood, optative mood). Note that the aorist construction is more than a tense: with the augment it is a tense and an aspect: past simple; without the augment (as is the case for participles, infinitives, and imperatives) it signifies simple aspect only.

Tranferred old discussion about Classical Attic

[[1]] Someone put in a Stub indicator for this short article immediately after I wrote it.

But really, there's nothing more that should be said here.

Someone looking for this term should get an explanation of the term, and a referral to one or more articles in which the subject is dealt with in a larger context.

It also shouldn't be an automatic referral because Classical Attic is distinct (as a subset) from Attic dialect. A referral defines them as equivalents.

It's kind of like a Disambiguation page -- but disambiguation within one subject.

It should be just what it is: a short article that defines a superset or subset of something discussed in another article or articles, and then gives you a link or links for further information.

This Classical Attic article is a sub-set example, for a super-set example, see Attic-Ionic.

Would it be unsuitable to replace this with a redirect either to Attic-Ionic or Attic Greek? I see what you mean with the stub classification being kindof redundant, and thats why I am having a hard time with this article... A larger article on different forms of the greek language or Dialects of Ancient Greek with alot of redirects to it might be a better idea? Thoughts? I'm a bit of a mergist, and I don't really think that if a topic will never grow beyond a couple of sentences it needs its own article. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four '~' symbols in a row..., it adds the standard sig, just like this one: Usrnme h8er 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Map

Looks like hell on the article page. Every map I see in WP looks worse than the last, and usu. (not this instance) provides less and less info. 71.164.206.36 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take note that

R is a vowel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.180.138 (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Question on the Byzantine transcriptions paragraph under the third heading "Alphabet".

I'd like to know more about "Ancient Attic literature as published today thus makes use of a number of such non-ancient features." Do any of the sources or readings specifically mentioned in the article discuss this in detail? I'd like to learn Ancient Greek at some point and the philological aspects of this topic fascinate me the most from what the article has covered of Attic Greek. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RareBookCollector (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit war

---

Note: different subdiscussions have been after the fact moved around and separated into different and separated subsections in order for the former to be readable. User signatures or the page history can provide the actual time, order, etc, in which comments had been initially written. Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

I reverted the latest addition without prejudice (I didn't even read it). Per WP:BOLD, when edits are challenged, they should be justified here, rather than edit warring. I reverted so that, hopefully, that will happen. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanatos666, don't start up the edit war again. You just got off a block for 3RR. Read our policies: It is always up to the proposer to justify their edits. If you're true to your sources, and your sources are good, you shouldn't have a problem. Ask for a third party to comment if someone's being unreasonable. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Invoking and/or interpreting at will wiki-rules is imo pretty lame; it's a game that I could play too but which I chose not to. Have you got anything of essence to add as far as the actual content is concerned?!? Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Thanatos, accusing people of bad faith is not likely to get you what you want. My gut reaction is that if this is how you act, then you probably have nothing intelligent to say, and I'm sure others will have the same reaction. Lfdder is usually pretty sensible in their edits, and if they say they don't follow your reasoning then they may be right that our general readership won't either. If you're sure you're right and that the rest of us are too dull to see it, then there are various avenues that you can take – see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've had enough of this so let me put it bluntly:
I don't give a fuck about your gut reaction...
I repeat:
Have you got anything of essence to add as far as the actual content is concerned?!?
Or have you come here to just act as Lfdder's proxy?!? ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 07:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth is any of this even here, in this article? If we must have a discussion about the relevance of the Cypriot syllabary in the chronology of Greek writing, let's have it where it belongs, at Greek language. But what has any of this to do with Attic? Seems like somebody blindly copied a whole passage about the history of Greek writing into this article from somewhere, a long time ago, and then Thanatos666 randomly chose this passage to latch his Cypriot thing onto. Neither Cypriot nor Linear B nor the whole story of what the "earliest" forms of Greek writing were belong in this article. The whole section needs to be rewritten and slimmed down; the only thing it ought to be dealing with is the difference between the old Attic alphabet and the classical Ionic one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've rewritten the "alphabet" section, which was of horribly poor quality. Only then did I become aware that that wasn't actually the section Thanatos wanted to add his Cypriot stuff in, but the "origins and range" section. But I would concur with Lfdder and Kwami that that material doesn't fit in there either. The only reason to mention Linear B in that section is in order to explain why we don't know more than we do about the development of dialects between Mycenean times and the time of attested Attic. The existence of Cypriot is completely orthogonal to that issue (even if Cypriot syllabary somehow bridged the temporal gap between Linear B and the alphabet, it was so locally restricted it can tell us nothing about the general development of dialectal divisions during that time period.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting that section. — Lfdder (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Writting after multiple edit conflicts; I had replied but then they happened again and again, I even lost a reply or two. So I'm gonna reply only here, and in brief or anyway brief-er than the previous total:
The section is introductory to Greek so even if the Cypriot stuff are indeed something "completely orthogonal" to Attic per se, they're not orthogonal to Greek in general. Also I'm not quite sure they're completely orthogonal, locally restricted to Cyprus, unable to tell us something about "general development of dialectal divisions during that time period".
Let me for example follow the argument, the syllogism(-oid) as it is presently written in the relevant passage:
A. Because of the gap in the written record between the disappearance around 1200 BC of Linear B and the earliest inscriptions in the later Greek alphabet around 750 BC ->
B. the further development of dialects remains opaque.
But A is probably wrong therefore B has not been really "deduced" or induced.
Moreover even if we had excluded Opheltas' split or anyway moved its date-ing forward (i.e. make contradictions to A less powerful), isn't still CypS at the latest ~ concurrently attested with the Greek AB, therefore at minimum important and relevant??
EDIT I've made some corrections but I'm not sure whether the corrections in fact correct... I haven't slept, can't think straightly. :) Will continue this after Morpheus has waken me up out of the Matrix... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Two points: if the passage in question is "introductory to Greek" in general, then something is wrong about this article; obviously, it should be introductory to Greek as a whole only to the extent such an introduction is relevant to the topic of this article, Attic. Second, about the temporal gap in attestation: according to the source you quote above, the earliest attestation of Greek written in the Cypriot syllabary is an isolated one-word inscription from the 11th century BC, followed by a gap until the 8th century BC, and plentiful attestations only in the 6th. That's essentially still the same gap in attestation as that between Mycenean Linear B and alphabetic writing. What matters for us here is not the fact that we can logically infer that there must have been some continued use of the syllabary during that time period; what matters is that we still have no attestations of it that could tell us anything about the dialects. So the general point about lack of documentation during that time period remains valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK let's see:

• 1. then something is wrong That's your opinion. Setting a context inside which then to analyse something, can be done in many ways. In essence you're limiting at will the scope, the field, the things, etc that should be mentioned at said section, precluding at will, if I were to accept this, any possibility from my part of posing any disagreement.
• 2. More examples:
  • a. The distinction between...times or before. Contrast to and compare with map of dialects and legend thereof inside article.
  • b. Later Greek...Ionic dialect group. Why mention this classification, a more or less obsolete one btw, which omits inter alia Cypriot? Or why not stick to solely Ionic vs Attic?
  • c. You're essentially demanding a strict, direct connection to Attic, colored btw by the strictless, indirect things of whose choice??? ;-) Well sorry but connections can be made in indirect, transitive or more abstract ways and still be important. However isolated or conservative Cypriot or Arcadocypriot was, connections can be made and influence can be shown in various levels. Take the alphabet creation view for example (see other subdiscussion); the Greek alphabet, alphabets or writing in general is not equivalent to language per se, let alone to Greek or a Greek dialect or the Attic dialect per se. Yet wouldn't separating forcefully the two sides-entities be unwise in such a context???
  • d. The one specific relevant as far as dialects are concerned example that I know of that has come out of the obelos of Opheltas is the -au genitive. See e.g. R.Thompson in E.J.Baker (2010), p.195.
• 4. That's essentially still the same gap Nope, it isn't. Or if you like, if hairs are to be split on my additions then I'll have to split hairs too. Said premise A is still probably false and therefore said conclusion B uncertain. This stands even if adding A1, i.e. Cypriot stuff, to premise A, were to produce more or less the same conclusion B.
• 5 In any case:
  • a. As I've explained elsewhere it's
    • 1.a sentence or two about a important things (see sources),
    • 2. things which are unfortunately commonly neglected and
  • b. it's only a sentence or two! What shouldn't it included?!? I really can't see the major problem you're making it to be...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

I'm not gonna go over each ref and explain how he's misinterpreted it. But take this one:

Wilson, Nigel, ed. (2010) [2006]. "s.v. Syllabary, Cypriot". Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. Rootledge. p. 682. ISBN 9780415973342. "The earliest inscription in the Cypriot syllabary, found in Palaipaphos in southwestern Cyprus and dating from the 11th century BC, is on a bronze spit; it contains five signs -o-pe-le-ta-u- which can be recognized as the genitive case of a Greek name, presumably that of the owner of the spit. The next extant inscription does not occur until the 8th century BC, and inscriptions do not become common until the 6th".

It doesn't even say opeletau is a Greek text. Like I've said in my edit summaries, a) I don't think the passage is very relevant here, and b) 'second earliest records' is unsupported by the sources. Also see wp:OVERCITE; ref spam a well-rounded case does not make. — Lfdder (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You know you're (have been) acting quite silly, right? No, I didn't think so...
P.S. If you actually read the sources you would see why it's highly relevant. And on the wiki-rules invocation see, inter alia, my reply to Kwami above... Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why am I acting silly? Why is the script that was used to write Arcado-Cypriot highly relevant to Attic? — Lfdder (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You being silly is me having to inter alia spell out to you like talking to a stubborn baby, the paramount importance per cited sources of

• a. the acts of the Cypriotes in the creation of the Greek alphabet,
• b. them, and therefore Greek civilisation in a way in general, having been spared the famous Dark Ages, if the latter ever indeed existed, and
• c. the importance of the Palaipaphos-obelos-inscription and of the Cypriot syllabary in the above issues and context.

Based on all of these, as I've told you before inside an edit summary, it's really a @%@#% shame that the Cypriot syllabary is commonly neglected, omited from texts about Greek (in various contexts).
Please read the @#$@#$ sources!! If you haven't already read them, that is, something, I think, doubtful.
Cause, based on your behaviour (in this and other encounters of ours) I really can't in any way assume, among other positive things, good faith on your part...

P.S. In any case why shouldn't it be herein mentioned, included?? Even without Palaipaphos and the eary dating, that is. It's the 2nd of the three main scripts that we know of to have being used for writing Greek. The article section at hand introduces Attic within the wider context of #@$@#$ Greek in general.

P.P.S. Also, please spare me the misdirecting pseudoargument of adding instead what I've written to the article on Greek language in general (or elsewhere);

• a. I @#$@#$ intend to do so in due time and in a more extensive way!
• b. Me having to repeatedly deal with edit wars and lengthy yet mindless arguments, hardly helps in this.
• c. Irrespectively of whether I shall indeed add or not this to the article on Greek language (or elsewhere), your objection is not a real argument against including it here too.

P.P.P.S. Woodard, Roger D. (2008), chapter "Attic Greek", page 15: "The earliest preserved Greek writing systems are syllabic scripts, the Linear B syllabary of the Mycenaeans and the distinct, though clearly related, Cypriot syllabary".
In fact, provided I've counted correctly, the words/terms Cyprus or Cypriot are to be found 4 times inside this chapter of the book, a chapter named Attic @#$@#$ Greek for the @#$%@#% love of god, plus one more on the legend of a map of Greek dialects and neighboring languages, plus one time there is a quotation of a relevant word ("words such as [kǘpris] (Κύπρις “Cyprus”) and [tékmar] (τέκμαρ “token”) are syllabified [kǘ|pris] and [té|kmar]").
I guess Woodard himself shouldn't have done such foul acts either, right?!?!?
I guess you should email him and demand an immediate @#$@#$ removal therefrom... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to address my concern w/ 'earliest record'. Re. a, b, c: you mention none of these in the text. And the link btn them and Attic remains unclear (to me). Maybe it is something that I'm overlooking -- but if I can't make sense of it, would the reader w/ little/no knowledge in the topic? (Which is not to say that I claim any kind of expertise.) — Lfdder (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK are you fucking playing dumb or are you indeed dumb?!?! I can't tell anymore...

• 1. What is there to address with the 'earliest' fucking 'record'?!?! What has been left unadresssed, what is the thing on which I haven't yet bended over backwards to the point of insanity in order to accomodate you?!?!?
• 2. I don't fucking need to mention a, b or c in the text. These were meant as a justification for your sake; something I wouldn't and shoudln't have to do, had you actually read the sources or had you actually stopped playing dumb.
• 3. Based on your present and past behaviour, were I to actually address this at said article section, my educated guess would be that the edit war would go on till the next fucking Dark fucking Ages... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 07:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean you bent over backwards? Corrections you've had to make after consulting more sources are just that; they are not concessions to me. We don't seem to be getting anywhere. The issue w/ earliest records is that it is a misinterpretation -- as far as I can tell. 2nd earliest record is different to earliest records and that's different to earliest script. There is a hypothesis that the opeletau inscription is in Greek, making it the earliest record of 'umbrella'-Greek (not Attic) after the Mycenaean records. — Lfdder (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the fucking literature! Or stop fucking lying! It's not a fucking fringe hypothesis. Few if any doubt that the Opheltas inscription is Greek. Few if any doubt that Opheltas' obelos is indeed Opheltas' obelos. Doubts and disagreement and uncertainty are certainly there. As always. In many things. But not in the way or degree you're (mis)representing the fucking case... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is generally accepted, but remains more of a hypothesis -- from what I know/have read. See Philippa Steele (2013), A Linguistic History of Ancient Cyprus -- it gives a historical overview and talks in detail about that inscription (our understanding of it has changed since the 80s). Regardless, that's not what I'd taken issue with (you'd rephrased it to say 'thought to be', which is somewhat reasonable); opeletau is just the one record — Lfdder (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Last thing beofre I go to bed:
Yes I have already seen Philippa Steele (2013); I don't need you to point me to her. Do you actually understand what you're reading and/or writing?? A.it is generally accepted B. but remains more of a hypothesis. This is the first time you managed to bring in a source, yet you instantly negated your act. Well in that case, if you're gonna continue the silly games allow me then to respond in kind:
every fucking scientific consensus, let alone the ones of the social and historical fields, if there is such thing as scientific consensus, is a fucking hypothesis that is generally accepted... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We live in a black-and-white world. — Lfdder (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The interesting, or from another perspective trivial, phaenomenon is that
among and out from your constant misrepresentation, misdirecting, changing the context and the sense of words, making obscure demands and criteria and then changing them back or into something different, splitting hairs, moving goalposts etc,
a higher order metastance emerges;
I don't think it's intentional, I'm not even sure you realise it after the fact, it's probably just an emergent property of the rhetorical steps you take in order to win whatever the cost:
I have to somehow, even if you weren't changing demands etc all the time, invent a new vocabulary, language etc, through which I would explain all the intricacies of not only science and philosophy of science in general, not only the subproperties of sociohistoric sciences and the humanities, not only the field before us, with all the different views, subviews, assumptions etc, not only all relevant events and perspectives on and views thereof, but all the details of facts, hypotheses, theories, views and interpretations of the relevant specific examples of issue at hand (e.g. the Opheltas inscription). I.e. (it's you who is in fact),
you're demanding from me a black and white absolute certainty.... In less than 10-20 words or so... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not how I see it. My aim's not been to 'win', though I've -- perhaps -- been needlessly combative at times in my edit summaries. I did not say everything I've thought is/was problematic the first time, but that's probably either 'cause I was late realising one thing or another, or because of the nature of the edit war. Lack of sources was an issue that you made an attempt to remedy; that the sources that you provided did not say what you claimed they did was then -- too -- an issue, I thought. This wasn't 'moving goalposts'; it was a reaction. — Lfdder (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Projecting etc, yet again... Unfortunately for you, verba volant, scripta manent...
P.S.An attempt to remedy! lol That's great! As I've told you before, you could indeed be a great politician!! ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If the electorate's moved by Latin phrases, we could make a dream team. — Lfdder (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Though I'm certainly human and therefore I also like to win, hence I might get carried away at times (the time I've lost here is perhaps a testament to this), I try to avoid rhetorics and relevant stuff. You on the other hand...
I've just for example reread all the things you written in this section. Practically the sole thing that I find to be reasonable of all the words you've written here, and this only if you isolate it from its context and play with it a bit, is and that's different to earliest script if we perhaps reword it per context to something like "that's different to 2nd earliest script". Isolated it's more or less OK. Following e.g. Steele (2013), it could be that a lone Greek just wrote in the non Greek Cyprio-Minoan his name claiming the ownership of the obelos, i.e. Opheltau; i.e. that it's not the text is not in the Cypriot Syllabary per se but in the Cyprio-Minoan syllabary (see below). Now let me try to put it inside part of the present context very.

• A. If we first examine your partial phrase in in its immediate context and surroundings, it seems you're playing with words:
  • 1. 2nd earliest record is different to earliest records and that's different to earliest script.
    record vs records. Is this an example of trying to bring in the record keeping sense in order to fuzz things up? It's obscure; intentionally so??? The article itself presently reads The earliest written records (LinB) which are indeed afaik also predominantly record keeping but this is obviously not what it is meant by the word here. So it's irrelevant.
  • 2. Or should the emphasis be on 2nd vs earliest, i.e. vs 1st? That would be a strawman since I haven't claimed any such thing.

In any case, this is an example of outright spliting of hairs probably in order to in appearance but not in essence make a case against me...

• B. Let's now go to more technical stuff:
  • 1. Steele's said specific claim (a lone Greek ...; the second part of it much less so...;...Olivier etc) is much more of a hypothesis, a possibility (yet I can think of many others...), much closer to the category/sense you mis-used/mis-represented hypothesis above.
  • 2. Said book is very recent, hence schorarly replies to her are not to be found (at least easily by us commoners; or to limit it even more, at least by me), therefore one has to present what most (mostly earlier) sources or if there is consensus present, or..., read and not emphasise a minority view (however plausible).
  • 3. Mentioning this hypothesis would be welcome somewhere else, not in this article; that would be a proper example of the ill-placed -and probably imo ill-willed- objection, pseudoargument you've kept repeating to me about my addition(s) ("go put it elswhere").
  • 4. Then there is terminology: Cypriot syllabary can also loosely refer to the Cyprio-Minoan syllabary; vs that is, the Greek Cyp S. per se, the Cyp.S proper, classic or whatever...; making the distinction is a terminological and technical issue, a thing that can't and probably shouldn't be reasonably expected of an editor or of this article to explain at aforementioned section.
  • 5. Then there is for example the fact that I had long ago added qualifiers to the statement, covering the uncertainty, etc: "The second earliest records are though to be written in the Cypriot syllabary".

I could go on for ever. Your demands and objections are simply unreasonable, let alone dubious and cunningly evolving at will. Your constant appeals to wikirules interpreted at will are highly doubtful and suspicious(in practice first to break the least fuzzy of them, 3RR). You keep stubbornly removing stuff instead of improving them, i.e you're not being constructive at all. You instantly and repeatdly use ex cathedra expressions etc, when in fact you're the one that's way behind the curve... Etc, etc, etc. But I'll end this here for now... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've said before, the 11th century inscription is just the 1 inscription. The text read 'second earliest records'. That's -- at the least -- somewhat misleading. By the way, an outburst is understandable, but you've been raving at me for 2 days now. Isn't it time to stop? — Lfdder (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So let me try to understand cause I really feel dumb:
Instead of removing a final s (plural) from a word you inter alia chose to repeatedly 1.add a cn tag, 2.remove the whole passage, 3.engage in an long edit war (leading to a ban) and 4.endless discussion (or "discussion") with me?
And I'm supposed to take this as a serious and bona fide reply and argument?? Should I also say I'm sorry, apologise for the language I've used and for the various cosmetic epithets I've applied to you and hug you?? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanatos, you appear to be unprepared to work in a collaborative environment like WP. If you want your additions to stick, you're going to have to do better. Either that or move on to some other article. — kwami (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, you appear to have nothing of essence to add as far as the actual content is concerned, so feel free to fuck off... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not the 2nd earliest record, either; there's more than one Mycenaean text. It originally read: 'The second earliest records are written in the Cypriot syllabary whose use was partially concurrent with the one of Linear B.' It was unsourced, and it was wrong in categorically stating the 1 inscription amounts to 'second earliest records'. I think removing it was appropriate. The final time I removed it I did so mostly 'cause I didn't (still don't) think it belongs here. — Lfdder (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For the love of fucking Satan!!! What the fuck have I just read?!?! /SFX bang, blood splashing onto wall/ Thanatos|talk|contributions 04:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

? — Lfdder (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attic Greek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061102135107/http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/greek.html to http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/greek.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The question of Ψ in the ancient attic alphabet

The section "Alphabet" first states "it uses the letters Ψ and Χ with their classical values" and afterwards "It lacked the consonant symbols xi (Ξ) for /ks/ and psi (Ψ) for /ps/, expressing these sound combinations with ΧΣ and ΦΣ respectively." That seems to be a contradiction. I don't know the truth, so I can't edit.2400:4050:2EA0:A900:C1AE:14A5:ECCD:C18D (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Osteoporosis 2600:100F:B1A2:900A:34A4:717E:3AAF:8C78 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)