Talk:Ancient Greek grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 togther, 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
