User talk:Enkyklios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Enkyklios, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek phonology

Enkyklios, thank you very much for your extremely clear and illuminating input on Talk:Ancient Greek phonology. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I find the crusade of Thrax ridiculous because it is so much out of step with all competent research made on the field since the nineteenth century. I also find it dangerous because it seems to be driven by a nationalist agenda (namely that the Greeks have been the same for 3,500 years). I have now started to read Caragounis' article (The error of Erasmus, [[1]]), and it has confirmed that Caragounis is not a professional linguist of Ancient Greek but an erudite amateur with a mission. Enkyklios 12:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly what I suspected, a nationalist agenda! Been there. I had no idea what a politically loaded subject linguistics was until I came to Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 12:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have searched for Caragounis in the Internet. He is professor in New Testament exegesis in Lund, Sweden, and therefore not a linguist. Furthermore, he seems to be a right-wing theologician (he attacks homosexuality in a book called Homoerotik i forntid och nutid - och den kristna församlingen). Even if his work appears scientific at first sight because he has many and large footnotes and quotes plenty examples, his argumentation does not live up to the standard of modern linguistics. Thus, he argues that some pronunciations prescribed by the traditional reconstruction are impossible, e.g. the pronunciation of the circumflex as a raising and falling tone (p. 177) or the aspiration of r, l, m, w (p. 180); in reality, both phenomena are well-known in modern languages. He also appeals to the subjective and unscientific concept of euphony: "The κ of the preposition ἐκ before Β, Γ, and Δ as well as before Λ, Μ, and Ν is regularly changed to Γ for euphonic reasons. This circumstance clearly supports the sound gh rather than that of g" (s. 172). Furtermore, he cannot use the phenomenon as an argument in favour of the fricative pronunciation; it is in fact more simple (and therefore more probable) to assume that <γ> is a voiced stop in this context, since then one only has to suppose one change of the original /k/ (voiceless > voiced before voiced consonants) and not two (voiceless > voiced and stop > fricative). A little later, he claims that "it is physiologically easier to pronounce evthomos (or evdhomos) than [h]ebdomos" (s. 174). It may be so for a modern Greek, but it is hardly true for all human beings in the world. Considering that hebdomos "seventh" is derivation from hepta "seven", it must have contained a stop originally. Enkyklios 14:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Where do you think the v in Seven came from if Evdhomos was not pronounced Evdhomos ? Your argumentation is clearly unscientific and like every linguist that supports the reconstructed pronunciation instead of starting out with the evidence first, such as modern Greek pronunciation, you start with the false claims of your pet theory and then deliberately interpret the evidence in a way designed to support your false theory and ignore all the evidence that points in the other direction. That is called dissembling. A true scientist would conclude that there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever to support the reconstructed pronunciation at all and that all of the evidence which exists can be interpreted as supporting modern Greek pronunciation for ancient Greek. --AskMelegi 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Is AskMeLegi a new pseudonym for Thrax? Well, all Germanists agree that the v of English seven and Dutch zeven and the b of High German sieben and Gothic sibun are regular reflections of an Indo-European p before the accent (Verner's law, cf. Greek ἑπτά and Sanskrit saptá). The loss of t is problematic but is irrelevant to your completely unfounded association of the Germanic form with Modern Greek evðomos since this word has the dental. Furthermore, as it is well known, the Greek μέσα (Ancient Greek voiced stops, Modern Greek voiced fricatives) correspond to Germanic voiceless stops. Thus, Modern Greek /v/ would be English /p/.
Greek ἑπτά : ἑβδομος is perhaps analogical after ὀκτώ : ὅγδοος, which is itself due to some kind of assimilation, perhaps Proto-Indo-European *Hok'th3w-h2o- > Proto-Greek *ogdowos (cf. Helmut Rix, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen, 1992, p. 172).
Enkyklios 11:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danish plosives

(Copied from Talk:Ancient Greek phonology)

In my own langauge, Danish, the old opposition between voiceless and voiced stops has been given up in favour of an opposition between aspirates [b̥ʰ, d̥ʰ, g̊ʰ] and non-unaspirates [b̥, d̥, g̊] (voice being irrelevant and absent in the normal pronunciation). The stops in question do not have the muscular tension characteristic of the fortis, but at the same time they lack the voice normally associated with the lenis. In Ancient Greek, however, where we have a system of three articulations, voiceless, aspirated and voiced stops, the notation [b̥ʰ, d̥ʰ, g̊ʰ] is probably misleading since it would be natural to articulate the three rows with the greatest possible distance. Enkyklios 07:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to raise with you the question on whether it is appropriate to use [b̥ʰ, d̥ʰ, g̊ʰ] and [b̥, d̥, g̊] rather than [pʰ, tʰ, kʰ] and [p, t, k] in the article on Danish phonology. As you say, in normal pronounciation these sounds are all voiceless and the distinction between the rows is the presence or absence of aspiration. It strikes me that a Martian linguist would therefore use the unvoiced symbol as a base. This situation is actually similar in Icelandic, where for some reason it has been quite fashonable to use [b̥, d̥, g̊] for the sounds which are usually represented word-initially with b, d and g but are in fact pronounced voiceless. Currently, e.g. in the new authorative book on the subject of Icelandic language, the IPA symbols [p, t, k] are used in their stead. Stefán Ingi 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not unsympathetic with your point of view. Yet, I am no phonetician, and I feel that the phoneticians must have had an idea when they started to use these letters in their analysis of Icelandic and Danish in the first place. I suppose that a French linguist (my version of your Martian linguist) would hear a slight difference between our [b̥, d̥, g̊] and his own [p, t, k], and that difference has nothing to do with voice but with the muscular tense. Similarly, if I can trust my own ears, French /p,t,k/ are not 100% identical to Danish /b,d,g/. At any rate, even if one acknowledges that the phoneticians have not made up the whole voiceless lenis-phenomenon, it is perhaps reasonable not to notate this fine nuance in a regular IPA translation of Icelandic and Danish. After all, the possible nuances which one could express with special diacritica are legio, and the average reader will soon lose himself in the arcane jungle of phonetic transcription. Enkyklios 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this summary. The question is now how to proceed. Since I am also not a phonetician perhaps it would be best to get more input. I'll copy this to Talk:Danish phonology and try and get some people interested. Thanks, Stefán Ingi 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in classical rhetorics?

Hi Enkyklios, I'm not sure if this is exactly within your core field of interest, but I'd appreciate your help: There is a new, expert user who wants to build up a new Wikiportal Portal:Rhetoric, and one of his first steps was to create a stub page for a Glossary of rhetorical terms. That page caught the attention of some listcruft-hunters on WP:AFD and is now under fire on a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhetorical terms. Personally, I'd find it a great pity if that page were to go, and I have the feeling much of the criticism is motivated by people simply not being very familiar with the whole topic area. It would be great if some people who are actually familiar with classical philology or literary studies etc. and can have an idea of how useful or not useful such a list would be, would weigh in on the discussion, this way or the other. Thanks! Lukas (T.|@) 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymon of "encyclopedia"

Greetings. The etymology given under Encyclopedia gives "ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία", which conforms with the ODEE. Now, if I understand correctly, "ἐγκύκλιος" is an adjective here, while "παιδεία" is a noun. My question is: shouldn't there be gender agreement, giving something like "ἐγκύκλια παιδεία"? Or is it the other way around and is "ἐγκύκλιος" a neutrum-plurale noun here modified by the adjective "παιδεία"? Or is this an asyndeton? In the last two cases, the phrase "literally a rounded education" in the article is perhaps somewhat misleading; but what would be a more literal translation? Can you enlighten me? My last educational experience in Classical Greek is some 45 years ago. Lambiam 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your acute question. Fortunately, ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία is correct Greek for "all-round or general education". As you have observed, παιδεία is of course a feminine noun, but the adjective ἐγκύκλιος has the same form in the masculine and the feminine, as it is frequent with many adjectives in Greek, especially but not exclusively compounds, cf. H.W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar, §288[2]. Other examples are ἄδικος, φρόνιμος, ἵλεως.Enkyklios 11:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Now I can sleep again :) Lambiam 19:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten

Hi there. Your editing of the article resulted in some strange characters in the first section, guess it was some mistake. Sorry, first it looked like vandalism (that the site has been victim for before), therefore I firstly reverted all. After realizing your changes in Trivia i reverted my own changes...so the outcome should be that except for the introduction your changes are in the article Bertilvidet 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dagbladet Information

More or less the same....your edits entailes some strange charcters in the introducion. I reverted the introducion. Bertilvidet 15:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Godt at du vogter over wiki-vandaler. Det er klart, at stormen om jp gør netop denne artikel udsat.

De mærkelige tegn, som du i første omgang anså for vandalisme, har dog en funktion, som dog åbenbart ikke får den ønskede effekt på din computer (sikkert fordi du ikke har fonte, der omfatter de pågældende tegn). Det var nemlig en lydskriftgengivelse av avisens navn; jeg tænkte, at det var en service til de hundredtusinder, der for tiden har avisnavnet på deres læber (og her tænker jeg ikke særlig på folkemasserne, der råber "Død over Jyllands-Posten"). Jeg følger netop wikipedias standard for lydskrift, nemlig IPA, så der er ikke basis for at ændre eller fjerne min tilføjelse, selv om det selvfølgelig er ærgerligt, at det endnu ikke ser rigtigt ud på alle computere. Enkyklios 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Tak for forklaringen. Og undskyld at jeg så overilet opfattede som vandalisme. Keep up the good work! Bertilvidet 15:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
ok - & ilm Enkyklios 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To take to task.

Concerning your addition in the JP controversy:

To take someone to task -- To rebuke someone; to call him or her to account. "The idea is of challenging them to a task that one could have taken upon oneself." From "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (Sixteenth Edition, HarperCollins, New York, 1999).

You can't just call that unidiomatic, and start off from there. It's perfectly idiomatic English. Azate 13:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unidiomatic is not the right word, I agree. What I wanted to say, was that the phrase is unusual or imprecise in the particular context. Politiken quotes four specialists (Dorrit Faber, Poul Erik Jørgensen, Nikolaj Petersen, Michael Wolfe) for the evaluation that A. F. Rasmussen has misinterpreted the phrase or at least chosen to interpret it ad malam partem. Since this accuse is part of an ungoing discussion about the role of the primeminister in escalating the conflict by not meeting with the ambassadors, it should be part of the paragraph discussing this part of the Mohammad case. Enkyklios 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koine Greek

Hi Enkyklios, it seems there's again a need of somebody with a good knowledge of Ancient Greek phonological changes, this time in order to find a good way of presenting a transcribed sample for Koine Greek. Would you be interested in joining the discussion? (Don't worry, Thrax is not around... :-) Lukas (T.|@) 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Kurdish Language

Hi,

Could you please look at the history section of Kurdish Language. It seems that the current version is totally wrong. Bidabadi 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ancient Greek Wikisource

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of "mathematics"

May I do another appeal to your knowledge of Greek? The article Mathematics is the current Article Improvement Drive collaboration. I find the etymological section in the article slightly dubious, and have posted a comment on the talk page: Talk:Mathematics#Etymology of "mathematics". Your input will be greatly appreciated. --LambiamTalk 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scythians

Hi, Thanks for your contribution to the Scythian page. Unfortunately some non-scholarly people try to make some weired connections with Hungarian and then Sumerian and then Dravidian. I decided to delete that part since it is again Wikipedia's NOR policy. --Ali doostzadeh 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Professor. (Congratulations!). I added some etymologies to Sarmatians and Cimmerians based on Harmatta, but since you are an expert, I would appreciate any corrections made. Also I will be on a small break, if you have time, please look at this [3] link. The German link (my German is weak) has the Iranic etymologies for Avesta people including Turanians( thanks for watching over the article Turan which get his by occasional vandalism), feel free to add any other etymologies. An expert such as yourself is badly needed in Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh 03:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcman's Accents

I wonder if you can answer a perplexing non-Wikipedia-related question I have. I've just noticed for the first time that all Alcman texts since Page print δραμήται, ποτήται (fr. 26), and ἀμύναι. I would have assumed that this unusual treatment of word-final -αι as long for the purposes of accentuation was a feature of the Laconian dialect, but I can't find any mention of it in Page's discussion. Is it dialectical? Does it apply to all parts of speech? Why -αι and not -οι (based on Page's κἀνύπανοι, σύμψηφοι, ἱαρόφωνοι, κροκόπεπλοι)? Is the sole authority the papyrus' accentuation of the first & third words I mentioned? Is this applicable outside of Alcman? in all of Alcman? I'm very curious, if you don't mind sharing your expertise. Wareh 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The details of the Doric accentuation is a matter of dispute.
Some late grammarians claim that the σωτῆρα-rule (prescribing a circumflex on an accentuated long vowel, if the last syllable contains a short vowel) did not work at all in the Doric dialects. To some extent, it is confirmed by the evidence of the papyri of Doric poets like Alcman and Theocritus. On the other hand, there are several examples of the opposite also - especially the ones pointed out by you. Thus, the matter seems to be more complicated.
You will find a thorough discussion in G. Hinge, Die Sprache Alkmans, Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 122-137. The same author (which happens to be identical to this pseudonym) has also written a shorter article about the Doric accent; the book, for which it was intended, was never published (yet?), but the article is available in an internet version: http://alkman.georgehinge.com/akzent.html. Enkyklios 12:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your response! I will have to study your article to see if I can understand why the Doric exception to the σωτῆρα rule leaves us with ποτήται and παίδα, whereas the rule seems to operate (by the choice of Page and other editors) in e.g. ϝοῖδα, λιποῖσα, καμοῦσιν. Wareh 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)