From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 2006 1.1 Archaic pronunciations in main table 1.2 Transliteration of sigma 1.3 true and complete 1.4 Table -- read across or down? 1.5 Oldest alphabet? 1.6 Pronunciation Help 1.7 Viewing 1.8 The Asterisk 1.9 OMG, this picture is best described as "sweentness" 1.10 Adding uses of Greek alphabet 1.11 Historical evidence is finally needed... 1.12 "Including Macedonian"? 1.13 The pages of the individual letters 1.14 Diacritics 1.15 'Ayin listed twice in table 1.16 Eta 1.17 Proposed new table 1.18 Display error 1.19 GA candidate 1.20 GA thoughts 1.21 Place of obsolete letters in the alphabet 1.22 What about other symbols and sounds of the Ancient Greek Alphabet? 1.23 Questionable passage 1.24 Breathing on upsilon 2 2007 2.1 History again (sorry) [undated] 2.2 τζ 2.3 Armenian alphabet dispute 2.4 Please add unicode values to the tables 2.5 Fraternities 2.6 Off-topic 2.7 Hellenic standard and Hellenic acrophony 2.8 The letter Sho [2007-2008] 2.9 Why revert??? 2.10 Best Greek Unicode font 2.11 Wingreek font 2.12 Reading the characters 2.13 Alternate Letterforms 2.14 Sampi 2.15 Derivations

2006

Archaic pronunciations in main table

Again, I think we are overloading the main table with too much information. What's more, most letters were pronounced the same in both archaic and classical, and there were multiple archaic alphabets, each a bit different. If someone wants to write an article on archaic Greek alphabets, it would certainly be appropriate to have all this information (along with the different shapes of the letters). But I just don't think it belongs in the main article about the Greek alphabet. --Macrakis 18:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to remove the archaic pronunciations, then maybe we shuld also remove the archaic letters as well (to a separate article) since they don't really form part of the Greek alphabet as normally understood. Maybe the original reason for including them was that otherwise there would be gaps in the column giving the numerical uses of the latters, but I note that this column has disappeared anyway. Meanwhile the Greek numerals article needs a bit of attention:for instance some of the characters are illegibile. --rossb 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about removing the archaic letters from the main table. They should probably be mentioned in the body of the article, with an xref to the History of the Greek alphabet article which you have just volunteered to write (right?:-) ). I have started a stub with some bibliography. --Macrakis 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about having volunteered to write it, but I've had a go. --rossb 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration of sigma

The main table claims that the ancient transliteration of sigma is "s, ss (between vowels)". Can anyone provide any evidence for this (eg examples of a single sigma being transliterated as a double s)? If not, I would propose to delete "ss (between vowels)". --rossb 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change. There was a similar note at Transliteration of Greek to the Latin alphabet, but interestingly applied to Modern Greek rather than Ancient Greek, which gave the placename "Laris(s)a" as an example. I think this is an exception not a general case, and I've made a similar change over there. As always, I'm happy to be proved wrong... --rossb 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

true and complete

The Greek alphabet was never complete:the original alphabet did not distinguish between short and long vowels. The Ionic alphabet used digraphs <ει> and <ου> for /eː/ and /uː/. (except for pi, which has got an exception) - unclear what is meant with this. Andreas 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Table -- read across or down?

Hello. I find the table hard to read; I want to read down the columns, but the table is ordered across the rows. Does anyone object to reordering the table so that beta is below alpha instead of beside it? 64.48.193.172 18:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Greek alphabet box in the upper right hand corner of the article, right? That is a template, and can be discussed at its own page, Template:Table Greekletters and Template talk:Table Greekletters. --Macrakis 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the pointer. I'll take the discussion to the template talk page. 64.48.193.172 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello!When editing the Greek infobox/letter template (and creating/placing individual letter images), I thought about that; however, I decided against it given the similar arrangement of the infobox/template for the English (Latin) alphabet. And I'm sure some might object – though not really me – to reordering it as suggested. E Pluribus Anthony|talk|18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need to follow a bad precedent here. With all due respect, 64.48.193.172 19:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As you can see above, I don't necessarily disagree with you.:) E Pluribus Anthony|talk|19:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oldest alphabet?

I'm not sure if this true. Any sources at least? The Aramaic alphabet, for example, is much older and has the characteristics you list. So is Hebrew. Aucaman^Talk 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've re-worded the corresponding section in Greek language and I can propose something here too if necessary. The term "true alphabet" was apparently meant to refer to a distinction (made also in the alphabet article) between alphabets in the wider sense (including Phoenician etc.), and alphabets in the narrow sense, of which Greek is indeed the oldest one. The difference is that Greek is the first alphabet to represent vowels and consonants on an equal basis. This distinction, between "true alphabet", "abjad" and "abugida", is drawn from an influential reference work, The World's Writing Systems, ed. P. Daniels et al. HTH. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was referred to the alphabet article which explains some of the things you're saying. I have to say the phrase "true alphabet" is somewhat misleading and highly POV, but if it's used academically I'm not going to oppose its usage. I'll try to research this out and let you know if I come up with a better terminology. For now you can just ignore this I guess. Aucaman^Talk 12:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. My personal preference is simply "alphabet in the narrow sense", which is neutral and avoids the evaluative overtones of "true alphabet". I don't think the term "true alphabet" is entrenched enough in technical usage that we are forced to use it. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation Help

What does the Greek letter for "J" look and sound like? --68.37.116.234 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you mean, "what letter corresponds historically to English letter J", the answer is "I" (iota), which corresponds to both I and J — which were not distinguished in the Latin alphabet until the 16th century — see J. If you mean, "how does modern Greek write the sound 'j' IPA [dʒ] as in 'job'", the answer is that standard Greek does not have that sound. The usual approximation is written τζ and pronounced [dz] as in the word τζάμι ['dzami] (glass), borrowed from the Turkish cam [dʒam]. --Macrakis 23:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Viewing

Someone wanna point out in a box marked "viewing this page" what is needed to view the characters on the page, and please also upload and link to a .pdf of the (relevant sections of) the page with fonts embedded so that others can use a PDF viewer to see what greek letters look like even if their browser does not display greek letters itself?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.18.27 (talk • contribs) .

There are two links for web pages with alphabets at the end of the article where letters are given as jpeg files. Andreas 14:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Asterisk

The asterisk (*) is put into some of the greek alphabet, yet no one has explained what the meaning behind it. It would be nice if someone could clarify what the asterisk means. Thanks.

problem fixed:see note at bottom of table. Andreas 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG, this picture is best described as "sweentness"

THIS pic

Check that out, evolution of the alphabet, this has *got* to be on wikipedia. I'm sending the guy who's page it is, an email asking for permission to get the picture. After I do, where should we put it? I can make separate animations for each letter out of it I suppose. Comments? Fresheneesz 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This illustration might be nice in the History of the alphabet article. I don't think it belongs here in the Greek alphabet article. And frankly, I can't get as excited about it as you are.... --Macrakis 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not gonna lie about it, that is totally BADASS!Cameron Nedland 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding uses of Greek alphabet

We could post where the greek alphabet is used, something like this

The article Greek letters used in mathematics is referenced in the first paragraph as symbols in mathematics and science. What else did you have in mind? --Macrakis 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I didn't read the intro, my bad:) --www.doc 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical evidence is finally needed...

The Phoenician advocates have been hijacking history for a very long time. It is therefore about time that evidence is brought to the table of discussion on where and how you base your claims of the Phoenician origin of the Greek Alphabet. As every good historian would do I suggest that we base all claims on the quotes of the original writers or archaeological evidence.

I am truly sorry if your teachers or textbooks misguided you, but it is about time you face up to your Ego and make nor more fasle claims in ancient history.Furthermore, to call an opposite opinion pseudohistory shows only your fanatisicm and denial to the truth. We recently witnessed the opinion of the Bush administration of the democratically Palestinian elected goverment that was not democratic enough because they did not like it!!!Are you trying to do the same with history? If you do not like it it is not good enough then? To call publications "crank" only show your unwillingness to contribute historical truth.

Point 1:When Herodotus says "I think" why does he say that?

Point 2:Is it valid for a historian to base a whole history on a hypothetical claim?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atarnaris (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 April 2006.

I agree with you that one cannot take Herodotus at face value. Nonetheless, the Semitic/Phoenican origin of the Greek alphabet is the mainstream scholarly position. There is good evidence for that position, including (among other things) the shape, phonetic value, order, and names of the letters. If, of course, you can find an indication in a reputable academic source (not Davlos!) that other theories are held by serious scholars, please discuss it here.

As for 'original writers' and 'archaeological evidence', Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reports on the current best scholarly understanding of an issue. It is not a place for new interpretations of primary sources and archaeological evidence:see WP:NOR. --Macrakis 13:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Before my contribution about Herodotus you were not even aware on the origin of the Phoenician claim, since you never mentioned Herodotus before. Following my mentioning you were forced to include Herodotus. Instead for claiming scholar proof we ask you to kindly submit this proof. Claiming proof and actually having any is two differnt things. You say there is good eveidence yet you do not bring any.

I suggest you bring your "proof" here so we discuss it point by point before you vandalise the page like a fascist. You did not discuss my two points at all.

I am sorry but you are a bit behind with current best scholarly understanding of the origins of this language. I have a few books I may suggest you read, if you so wish.

To close with my comments:you may say that the Phoenician origin is a theory based on such and such, but definetely not proof. I have numerous quotes from ancient texts to devalue this theory.I suggest you bring evidence on the table.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atarnaris (talk • contribs) 17:47, 12 April 2006.

Sigh. Atarnaris, you state you "have a few books [you] suggest," which is exactly what Macrakis has been requesting!So please do so, that these sources may be judged on their merits.

As for "fascism" and your need to bring politics to the table, well. Macrakis has demonstrated his good Wikipedia citizenship over thousands of edits on thousands of pages. All your edits have been pushing your POV on those interested in the Greek alphabet.

→ (AllanBz ✍ 06:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear AllanBz. Thank you for your answer. As you are probably interested in the topic as well what would you suggest would be the way forward to validate every single line that currenly exists on this topic.As I said it is thing to present theories and quite another to present theories as proofs. What we are seeking for any topic is to get closest to the truth and that cannot only happen if proof is presented.

Regarding politics there is a strong anti-hellenistic content which is almost racist at times and this has to be looked upon more thoroughly. I therefore suggest that anyone interested in the topic submits proofs for any statement written. Otherwise if no proof or contradictory theories are submitted I suggest that we correct the statements and present them only as theories. (Atarnaris)

It is mentioned:The Greek alphabet is an alphabet that has been used to write the Greek language since about the 9th century BC. What is the proof for the time period mentioned? Any answers please, otherwise it should be revised (Atarnaris)

The referenced "main article", History of the Greek alphabet, has more detail. It mentions not only the mainstream position, but also other positons:"Some scholars argue for earlier dates:Naveh for the 11th century, Stieglitz for the 14th century, Bernal for the 18th–13th century, but none of these is widely accepted." See the article's bibliography. By the way, none of these scholars (or any other scholars that I am aware of) question the Phoenician origin, only the date of its adoption. The article does not mention such things as the Dispilio Tablet, which is sometimes mentioned as a much example of earlier Greek writing, because it hasn't even been published formally by Hourmouziadis (its discoverer), much less discussed in the open literature.

I am not interested in edit warring -- I would appreciate it if you would delete your additions until you bring better evidence. --Macrakis 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Including Macedonian"?

I'm a bit confused about why Miskin reverted Macrakis' modification to the "other languages" section regarding Macedonian. I can see why one would not want to make too strong a statement implying separate-language status of Macedonian (although to the best of my knowledge the separate-language hypothesis is far more mainstream than Miskin said) - but whatever Macedonian was or wasn't:Writing it was certainly not among the "primary uses" of the Greek alphabet. So it really doesn't belong into that first sentence, in my view. I'd suggest I try to find a more neutral formulation (neutral as to the separate-language issue, that is), but at the place further down in the list where Macrakis wanted to place it. The revert to the old version seems to me not to be a good solution. (Ironically, that version too seems to have been the work of Macrakis himself, back in November, as I know see. [1]). Okay with you guys? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The pages of the individual letters

OK, I realise this is not the entirely correct place to post this, but since I've found no better place I'll do it anyway

The pages of the Greek letters do not follow the same standard. For example, Alpha is a disambiguation page and Alpha (letter) is the page on the Greek letter. On the other hand, Theta is on the Greek letter and Theta (disambiguation) is its disambiguation page. Some pages still, such as Beta, have both the letter and the disambiguation awkwardly pushed together on the same page.

To make things even worse, typing the Greek letters into the search box (i.e. pages Α, Β, Γ, Δ, etc...) do not redirect to the same thing. Most of them will take you to the letter page, but Β, Δ and Ρ will take you to the disambiguation page. Even worse, Π will take you to Pi, which is on the mathematical constant!

I propose a serious discussion on how it should be done and then that I implement it accordingly. I don't know yet where such a discussion could take place, but some comments can be put here. Please also leave comments on my talk page. --Hymyly^TC 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Macrakis 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for my proposition. --Hymyly^TC 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

user:Jon Awbrey and I had a little dispute over on this article about using diacritics when giving the Greek translations. He maintains that he cannot see the diacriticized characters, and that it's better to include incomplete information than a complete lack of information on account of Unicode squares. I am of the opinion that not using diacritics is as inappropriate as disregarding acutes in Spanish and umlauts in German (which speakers of those languages will assure you CANNOT be omitted), and that not including diacritics leads to ambiguity:compare οὗ (masc gen rel pronoun) to οὐ (not), which without diacritics be distinguished but which are completely dissimilar in meaning. I also do not think that foreign letters should not be omitted to accommodate those with inferior systems-- for example, I can't see several letters on the Proto-Indo-European language article, however I realize that that's no reason for me to move in and destroy all the Unicode characters there.

I don't want to cause excessive confrontation, however, so, what is the Wikipedia policy for Greek diacritics? Better to omit them or no? --user:Cevlakohn

I include them at all times, and make sure they remain included. Besides, the Palatino Linotype and Tahoma fonts (at least as of Windows XP) support them well, and the {{polytonic}} template is biased towards installed fonts with good polytonic Greek support. - Gilgamesh 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should disregard Greek diacritics just to work around bugs in client unicode implementations. Standards like unicode are open, and there are open implementations, for instance recent Linux distributions and Firefox. Maybe, if it is really a problem, wikipedia should offer on the fly transliteration according to user's preferences (just like math formula are converted to images), but wikipedia should definitively not write substandard pages on such an account. For the time being, I would say that if a client cannot display ancient greek, then users should not view ancient greek pages. Rnabet 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Editors should remember to use the {{polytonic}} template whenever they enter ancient Greek texts.   Andreas   ^(T) 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

'Ayin listed twice in table

Why is 'Ayin listed in the table as the corresponding Phoenician letter for both Omicron and Omega? The articles History of the Greek alphabet and Ayin only mention a relationship between Ayin and Omicron. If its listing with Omega is intentional, there should probably be a note explaining why it appears twice. neatnate 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Omega was a later, secondary invention based on Omicron, so the link to Ayin would be an indirect one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eta

My 1953 Webster's Collegiate dictionary has a table of alphabets on the back endpaper, which says that Eta is pronounced as a ā in english or equivalent of French é. Is this information incorrect, and if so, does this misinformation have a history? --Scottandrewhutchins 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new table

I trimmed the table into this below. As you can see I made table as essential as possible, since I know too little about other things besides those purely alphabetic and linguistic, thus we have:

Greek alphabet
Letter	Name	Sound	Value
Αα	αλφα	[a]	1
Ββ	βῆτα	[b]	2
Γγ	γάμμα	[g]	3
Δδ	δέλτα	[d]	4
Εε	εψιλόν	[e]	5
Ϝϝ	ϝαυ	[w]	6
Ϛϛ	ϛῖγμα	[st]	6
Ζζ	ζῆτα	[zd]	7
Ηη	ητα	[ɛ]	8
Ͱͱ	ͱἦτα	[h]	8
Θθ	θῆτα	[tʰ]	9
Ιι	ιῶτα	[i]	10
Jȷ	ȷῶτ	[j]	10
Κκ	κάππα	[k]	20
Λλ	λάμβδα	[l]	30
Μμ	μῦ	[m]	40
Νν	νῦ	[n]	50
Ξξ	ξῖ	[ks]	60
Οο	ομικρόν	[o]	70
Ππ	πῖ	[p]	80
Ϻϻ	ϻάν	[s]	90
Ϸϸ	ϸω	[ʃ]	90
Ϟϟ	ϟόππα	[q]	90
Ρρ	ρῶ	[r]	100
Σσ	σῖγμα	[s]	200
Ττ	ταῦ	[t]	300
Υυ	υψιλόν	[y]	400
Φφ	φῖ	[pʰ]	500
Χχ	χῖ	[kʰ]	600
Ψψ	ψῖ	[ps]	700
Ωω	ωμέγα	[ɔ]	800
Ͳͳ	ͳαμπῖ	[ss]	900

Wikinger 08:06, 31 September 2006 (UTC)

Display error

if your browser window is small, the greek alphabet overlaps the content...i run a little larger than 800x600 in firefox

GA candidate

I nominated this article as a GAC. It's pretty good, too bad it was delisted from FA. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GAs must use inline citations. I would look into citing the references you have already listed in the inline form ASAP. Otherwise a reviewer would be forced to fail the article. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA thoughts

• This article seems pretty strong, however, I'm surprised it doesn't include Greek numberals, which used the alphabet. Surely at the least there should be a link? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a link in the opening paragraph:"The letters are also used to represent numbers—Greek numerals—in the same sorts of contexts as Roman numerals."   Andreas   ^(T) 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It'd be improved with a small section briefly explaining them, though. Still, let's have a look at the rest.

1:Well-written:Pass. However, do something about San:It won't display correctly on all computers I've tested, and so should likely be replaced with an image in the list of letters.

I did the earlier one for you. This has been an issue since the FA failure.

2:Accurate, verifiable:I studied a bit of Greek, and it is accurate. It has almost no inline references, however, it puts forth fairly basic information. Still, the phonecian comparisons really should give their sources:Bare fail.

3:Broad in coverage:A small section explaining Greek Numbers and linking to the main article would make it broader, but it covers most aspects. Pass.

4:NPOV:Pass.

5:Stable:Pass

6:Images:Pass, though a few more would be nice.

It needs a few cites, not many, and it'll be a clear pass. At the moment, I'm putting it on hold. Send me a message when you're ready for it to be looked at again. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

GAfailed, refs not fixed, etc. Rlevse 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Place of obsolete letters in the alphabet

By listing obsolete letters separately, their place in the alphabet got lost. Here is the list:

  Andreas   ^(T) 02:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is sho placed at the end of alphabet?? Ϸ

Sho isn't placed at the end of the alphabet, but goes directly after San:http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sho_(Buchstabe), because it shares the same non-classical numerical value with San, while it is newer than San. Wikinger (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What about other symbols and sounds of the Ancient Greek Alphabet?

Didn't B (beta) look like a pointy backwards B at one time? If so, when? Didn't Gamma also have a "C" sound (as in cat) at one time. (I heard the symbols "G" and "C" were once interchangable for both sounds and it wasn't until much later that each were designated for one sound)(the symbol G actually evolved from C) At what time period did the E look like a sqare? Is they're a way to show the ancient greek alphabet only; without the altered modern letters, so it is possible to compare time periods as well as showing a grid for exact greek periods with each column showing the alphabet and pronunciation for each period seperatly so I'm able to see the evolution? If not, where can I find this information. The charts are too confusing. They are mixing ancient symbols from different time periods with each other.

Questionable passage

I'm not happy with the following passage from the "history" secton:

The new spelling rule created a system in which the consonantal signs could no longer be pronounced by themselves (as they could in Phoenician), but only in association with signs from the second category of signs, which could be pronounced by themselves (vowels). The spelling rule created the illusion that speech consists of particles (phonemes = Greek alphabetic letters) and unhistorical explanations of the character of the West Semitic predecessors of the Greek alphabet (that they too stood for phonemes, giving rise to such misleading categories as Abjads or Abugidas).

This sounds like a rather speculative and possibly OR argument. "Illusion"? (That speech indeed does consist of "phonemes", on a mental if not on a physical level, is a very basic assumption still held by virtually all of linguistics!). Moreover, the last bit of this passage, from "...and unhistorical explanations..." onwards, is (1) a syntactic anakoluthon, and (2) again totally speculative:what are those "unhistorical explanations"? Who was making them - the ancient Greeks? Modern authors? Who says they are unhistorical and hence wrong? Which are the correct ones? Who says categories like "Abjads" and "Abugidas" are misleading? The categories in themselves? (They are widely used in the field, for all I know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking into it more, it appears this was added [2] by Bbpowell (talk · contribs), who is apparently identical to Barry B. Powell, a classical scholar, who was active here in July working on his own autobio article and promoting several ideas of his on alphabet-related articles. Rnabet made some good attempts at balancing out some of his POV-pushing, but I think his whole contribution history needs more looking into. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Breathing on upsilon

The breathing marks on ὗ and ὓ ψιλόν were changed some time ago, in accordance with the grammatical rule that says that an initial upsilon should always carry a rough breathing (this explains the absence of precomposed capital upsilons with smooth breathing marks in Unicode).

However, is this really correct? I believe I have seen a smooth breathing in Greek grammars, and a rough breathing would seem to imply that the name of the letter in English should be hupsilon, which is clearly not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.247.21 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The name of the letter seems to be an exception regarding the breathing on upsilon. Google gives 153 "for ὒ ψιλόν" -wikipedia and 20 for "ὓ ψιλόν" -wikipedia, most of the latter from WP mirrors. In contrast, ὔψιλον -wikipedia results in only 6 Google entries. I would suggest to keep the rough breathing in ὕψιλον and put a smooth on ὒ ψιλόν.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have consulted several grammars and dictionaries describing both ancient and modern (polytonic) Greek, as Google counts are hardly reliable for polytonic Greek. (The monotonic reform predates the Internet [for all practical purposes], and many of the occurrences of upsilon come from tables copied from other sites.) These are my findings:

All the ancient Greek grammars give the name of the letter as ὖ ψιλόν, i.e., with smooth breathing and circumflex. One also mentions that the letters epsilon and omicron were called ἔ and ὄ before they got their current names; hence, the names epsilon, omicron, upsilon and omega all follow the same pattern when upsilon is written with smooth breathing and circumflex.

In modern Greek, the correct name of the letter is much more difficult to establish. One grammar gives ὕψιλον, whereas dictionaries indicate a great variety of different forms (smooth or rough breathing, one word with acute accent, two words with either grave or circumflex on the upsilon). Anyway, smooth breathing and circumflex seem to be preferred for ancient Greek, and modern polytonic Greek is not currently indicated in the table.

It is also noteworthy that σίγμα (with acute) is rather more common than σῖγμα (with circumflex), although one grammar explicitly states that the form with circumflex is the more correct.

One grammar also indicates ξῦ as an alternative name, but this may not be worth mentioning.

2007

History again (sorry) [undated]

"Historically, the Greek alphabet emerged several centuries after the fall of Mycenaean civilisation and consequent extinction of its Linear B script, an early Greek writing system. Linear B is descended from Linear A, which was developed by the Minoans, whose language was probably unrelated to Greek; consequently the Minoan syllabary did not provide an ideal medium for the transliteration of Greek language sounds. The Greek alphabet we recognize today arose after the illiterate Greek Dark Ages — the period between the downfall of Mycenae (c. 1200 B.C.) and the rise of Ancient Greece, which begins with the appearance of the epics of Homer, around 800 B.C., and the institution of the Ancient Olympic Games in 776 B.C."

There are contradictions and logical problems with the above. Given Greek's own beliefs about the Phonecian origins of their alphabet, it can not be claimed that the Greek alphabet 'emerged'. What is the point of mentioning the Minoans here? The proposed "Greek Dark Ages" suggests that Greeks had literacy prior to the 1200 BCE, but there is considerable evidence that the Greeks were not even present in their current area of habitation prior to 1200 BCE, and there is NO evidence of their use of literacy.--Mrg3105 12:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

τζ

As mentioned above, τζ is pronounced [dz], at least in some loan words (and I can't imagine that it occurs in non-loan words). Is this pronunciation universally true? If so, should it be added to Letter combinations and diphthongs, or is it a straightforward case of voicing assimilation which doesn't require special mention? Does <τ> behave similarly before other voiced consonants? (I can't find anything on voicing assimilation in any of the Greek language articles.) Vilĉjo 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's a digraph in its own right and deserves being mentioned. Of course it exists only in Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Babiniotes and Andriotes derive τζίτζικας 'cicada' from ancient τέττιξ with influence from onomatopoeia...

As for the table, there are other combinations like τζ [dz]:σβ [zv] σβήνω 'extinguish', σγ [zγ] σγουρός 'crinkly', σμ [zm] Σμύρνη 'Smyrna', and even σμπ [zb] σμπάρο 'volley'. I'm not sure it's useful to include any of these in the table. For that matter, most linguists these days seem to be treating μπ [b] as a phonological, not an orthographic, phenomenon. --Macrakis 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In Ancient Greek, too, σ is voiced before β,γ,δ,μ (at least according to Allen's Vox Graeca). So perhaps, even though it seems to be the only instance not beginning with σ, τζ can also be seen as a case of voicing assimilation. Should there be some mention of these cases in the main alphabet table (even if they are not listed under "Letter combinations"); or is this too detailed, and more appropriately left to the phonology article(s) instead? Vilĉjo 23:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenian alphabet dispute

It says so in the article, but there is no mention of the dispute. It is mentioned in the armenian alphabet article that o was added to for foreign sounds, and a greek influence is mentioned. Where is the dispute? Greek alphabet is stated to be a child of pheonician, but so is armenian (in their respective articles) They are both related to the same parent, but one is not the child of the other. I'm removing it from the list, and if someone finds something, they can simply add it back in.--ZavenH 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add unicode values to the tables

It would be very generous if somebody with competent skills would add unicode values of greek letters to the tables. Thank you for any help 2007-05-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.14.127 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Fraternities

A lot of Fraternities and sororities pages link here in being described as Greek-lettered organizations. Where would one put a mention of this use on the page? (Without a mention on this page, the link is still kind of pointless.) —ScouterSig 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This use is already mentioned and linked in the second paragraph:

In addition to being used for writing modern Greek, its letters are today used as symbols in mathematics and science, particle names in physics, as names of stars, in the names of fraternities and sororities, in the naming of supernumerary tropical cyclones, and for other purposes.

That seems sufficient. --Macrakis 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is; I just missed it. Duh. Thank you. —ScouterSig 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic

Could an Ancient Greek, say from the time of Aristotle, understand the language of a modern Greek, or has the language changed dramatically as has English?- 216.77.194.228 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Amy

It's a bit off-topic here, but I'd say:it's changed not quite as much as has English. The morphology and the orthography has been remarkably stable, but I'd guess intelligibility would still be quite low due to changes in vocabulary, phonology and syntax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hellenic standard and Hellenic acrophony

Most standard version of Greek alphabet is present in Ionic version, but additionally native Hellenic acrophony and alternate native letter-shaping derived from these meanings can be introduced.

Letter meanings:(alternate shapes not listed)

• Α Everything {Hapanta}
• Β Assistant {Boêthos}
• Γ Gaia [the Earth] {Gê}
• Δ Strength {Dunamis}
• Ε Desire {Erôs}
• Ζ Storm {Zalê}
• Η Helios [Sun] {Hêlios}
• Θ Gods {Theoi}
• Ι Sweat {Hidrôs}
• Κ Waves {Kuma}
• Λ Left {Laios}
• Μ Labor {Mokhthos}
• Ν Strife-bearing {Neikêphoros}
• Ξ Withered {Xêros}
• Ο There is Not {Ouk esti}
• Π Many {Polla}
• Ρ Easily {Rhaion}
• Σ Plainly {Saphôs}
• Τ From the Companions {Tôn Parousôn}
• Υ Undertaking {Huposkhesis}
• Φ Carelessly {Phaulos}
• Χ Golden {Khruseos}
• Ψ Judgement {Psêphos}
• Ω Difficult {Ômos}

This native Hellenic solution has major advantage of abandoning non-Greek Phoenician letter-shapes and non-Greek Phoenician acrophonic names that both are derived from extremely heavily occult Egyptian hieroglyphs. Egypt was most occult nation in the world:1, 2. Even if those non-Phoenician native Greek names besides their purely alphabetic usages were additionally used in Greek oracles, amount of occultism in Greece was much lower than in Egypt.

Sources:

• http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/hoyeehui/article?mid=205
• B. F. Cook, Greek Inscriptions (“Reading the Past” series), Berkeley:Univ. California Press, 1987, pp. 8, 12. Source for archaic Greek alphabet and Greek numerals.
• H. G. Liddell, R. Scott & H. S. Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1968. The source for ancient Greek meanings.

Wikinger 14:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The letter Sho [2007-2008]

This letter should be removed from the tables of the Greek alphabet. It's not a letter of the Greek alphabet, it's a letter of the Bactrian alphabet (which is admittedly identical with the Greek alphabet in other respects). Yes mention it in passing, but to treat it as a Greek letter is grossly misleading. Moreover the name "Sho" would seem to be a modern invention modelled on Rho. --rossb 22:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This letter cannot be removed, because it is needed to acknowledge its existence to Wikipedia readers. Additionally, Heta and Tsan should be introduced soonafter their appearing in Unicode newer than 5.0:[3] [4] Even more Greek letters are here:[5]. Here:[6] is usable equivalent of this PDF file allowing easy copy-paste of Greek Unicode letters to article. I already added all these variant Greek letters supported by Unicode to tables and templates. Wikinger 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are listed all Greek letter candidates to be placed in Unicode 5.1 http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/maybes.html 216.40.255.90 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What Unicode calls a Greek letter is not necessarily what the rest of the world calls a Greek letter. For Stigma, see the stigma (letter) article: it is a ligature for st, and a numeral 6 (representing digamma), but has never been an independent letter. For sho, I agree completely with rossb -- it is a Bactrian letter, never used for Greek, and not part of the Greek alphabet any more than ʃ is a letter of the Roman alphabet. --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, ʃ is a letter of the Roman alphabet. FilipeS (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bactrian Sho Ϸϸ is Greek letter in the same manner, as Icelandic Thorn Þþ is Latin letter. 83.5.38.72 (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite of non using of Thorn by Romans, Thorn is called Latin letter, thus similarly despite of non using of Sho by Greeks, Sho analogously is called Greek letter. 69.10.44.67 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why revert???

Letter name English or Latin??? Or just remove it completely??

Better would be to use native Greek letter names, as is done here:el:Ελληνικό αλφάβητο Wikinger 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Best Greek Unicode font

Which font supports whole Greek Unicode range, including all archaic letters? 83.5.44.89 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Try use DejaVu font:http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It's free under GPL.Wikinger 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wingreek font

Which Wingreek font is better and newer? 83.5.79.115 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use GREEK.TTF from WinGreek 2.0 . This font has version 2.0, and is better, because it has some more additional signs. This font is too missing in newer versions of Wingreek, that provide only worse 1.0 version of GREEK.TTF. Additionally, Gerhard Köbler used Wingreek encoding along with GREEK.TTF in its PIE lexicon called Indogermanisches Wörterbuch for Greek words. Wikinger 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading the characters

I know this probably doesn't belong here, but I would really appreciate if someone told me how on earth I can get my IE 6 to display polytonic letters. I've spent the last couple of hours trying to find something that would enable me to do so, all to no avail. Your help will be greatly appreciated.:) Aljoša Avani 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some other browsers, IE6 will display polytonic Greek only if the page source explicitly tells it which fonts to use. Here on Wikipedia, we do that by using the {{Polytonic}} template. What it does is it activates the following CSS formatting information:

:lang(grc) {
 font-family:"Athena Unicode", Gentium, "Palatino Linotype", "Arial Unicode MS", "Lucida Sans Unicode", "Lucida Grande", Code2000;
 font-family /**/:inherit;
}

This is a selection of fonts known to contain the necessary characters for polytonic Greek. You need to make sure your Windows installation has at least one of the fonts in this list. If you don't have these but have a different font with the right characters, or if you want to give a different font higher priority, you can place a similar rule with your own personalised list into your own user css file (User:Aljoša Avani/monobook.css). If you have the right font, you ought to be able to see all polytonic Greek in Wikipedia pages, provided the text is properly enclosed in the {{polytonic}} template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do have two of the fonts (namely the Athena Unicode and Arial Unicode MS). After spending quite some time looking for a solution I have decided to try out Firefox. Lo and behold, suddenly a whole new world of characters that were only hours ago just boxes is before me. Thanks for helping, without your comment I never would have thought the problem could be in IE itself. Aljoša Avani 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Letterforms

Can we get more detail on why alternate letter forms exist? I understand the word-position alternates but what about Theta, Pi, and weird ones like that? RedAugust (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternate letter forms exist also in the Latin alphabet depending on the font; they have no specific meaning. For example, the lower-case a can have a loop at the top as in a or no loop as in a, the same with g and g. In some older texts (especially ancient Greek ones published in France), the letter beta has a descender at the beginning of the word and no descender in the middle of a word.  Andreas  ^(T) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

People don't really know where the Greeks got the idea for the alphabet; they just decided to make up some sort of word and call it a letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.91.5 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Greeks got most of names of their letters from those used in the Ugaritic alphabet. Wikinger (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they also invented the ASCII code:) This is a theory that hangs on VERY slender threads of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Greeks never invented ASCII code, but they copied Ugaritic names of letters. For proof look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet#Hyginus.27_account , where wedges are mentioned. Wikinger (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After adding link to relevant myth I can agree with this. 83.5.37.113 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sampi

"Sampi notated a geminate fricative that later evolved to -σσ- (probably [sː]) in most dialects, and -ττ- (probably [tː]) in Attic. Its exact value is heavily discussed, but [ts] is often proposed." But this is not a geminate fricative. Did the writer mean an affricate?... FilipeS (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Derivations

It would be nice to have a section about alphabets derived from the Greek alphabet:Latin, Cyrillic, Coptic, etc. FilipeS (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a small one. FilipeS (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)