Talk:Modern Greek grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. | ||||||
| If you would like to participate, you can improve Modern Greek grammar, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | |||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) | ||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as a Mid priority article | ||||||
|
|||||||
Well done to everybody that cintributed to this article! Great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimboukas (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] New article outline
Nice job with all this material for a new article. Just a few thoughts:
- I think the amount of paradigm tables should be reduced a bit. Of course, we can't write a full grammar of Modern Greek here anyway, so we shouldn't aim to reproduce all the possible paradigms, just the most important ones.
- Some tables can be presented in a more concise fashion, I think. Especially the verb paradigms. I'm thinking of a nice way of presenting such a table that I once found in my Greek learning grammar for Germans. I'll make a draft shortly.
- "Grammar" is, of course, more than just morphology, and morphology is more than just paradigm tables. I think in some places more important than the tables themselves will be the explanations: E.g. what is an inflectional class in the first place?
- A bit of syntax should be added too, of course.
If you like, I'll join in the development of this article. I can probably find some time tonight. Lukas (T.|@) 14:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Some common forms of the verbs would be nice to have, such as, how to negate a sentence, and some small stuff like that. Where to put adverbs, etc. --Puellanivis 00:23, 26 October 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)
[edit] "Demotic" and "Standard Modern Greek"
Does the 'proposition' section make enough of an argument to imply in the head that modern Greek grammar contains elements of purification? Kathareuousa influences are mainly found on vocabulary. To claim that Standard Greek and Demotic Greek are different idioms due to katharevousan's influence is something truly "pulled by the hair". Britannica is the only source I've ever seen to support this claim. It needs to be further researched. Miskin 00:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The relation between "Standard Modern Greek"/"Νεοελληνική Κοινή" and "Demotic" proper has been quite a big issue in modern Greek linguistics. I can certainly find you some references. Yes, there are "learned" elements in SMG grammar. Much is just vocabulary, but the vocabulary brings with it whole new gramatical forms that didn't exist in pure Demotic. Off the top of my head, what I was thinking of are mostly inflectional paradigms, like:
- adjectives in -ής/-ες (διεθνής)
- feminine nouns in -ος (οδός)
- feminine plurals in -εις/-εων (πόλεις)
- neuter nouns in -ος (βάθος)
- various minor verb classes (εξαρτάται, ενδείκνυται...)
- participles preserving reduplication (τετελεσμένος)
- various other participle forms (επείγων, μέλλων, ...)
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of those mentioned influences but in my opinion they are overexaggerated. For example, unless someone claims that toponyms like Paros, Andros, Rhodos and Samos fell out of use, the second point is exaggerated. Similarly for the 4rth, I doubt that words like 'μάκρος' existed in Katharevousa. I'm not sure about the origin of plural in -eis. All the rest can be more safely seen as loan words rather than grammatical rules. Despite all influences, it's absurde to say that Standard Greek is a different idiom from Demotic because of a number of Katharevousa loan words (which is the only concrete influence anyway). Most sources claim that Demotic replaced Katharevousa as the official Greek language, and it didn't transform into something else. Miskin 10:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought I'd properly avoided giving any definite statement about whether SMG and Dem. constitute "separate" varieties. (If you read closely, the sentence in the intro is primarily stating their fundamental identity, only with a "but" added.) Anyway, that SMG has an overall character of a compromise variety with significant admixtures of Kath., including grammar and phonology, is indeed consensus in the literature. Babiniotis was making much of that idea back in the 70s or 80s when he was promoting his notion of modern "koine"; Mackridge (1985) is a authoritative treatment, Horrocks (1997) devotes the last chapter of his book to it. His list of learned features in grammar is similar to what I sketched out above, but contains quite a few more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I see you removed your "fact" tag, so I guess we can regard this as clarified for now. But thanks for questioning it anyway, because that shows there's room for some expansion of this topic, maybe in a separate article on Greek language question or a separate article on Demotic Greek. The picture I get from the literature is that during the 60s/70s, the political rhetorics of the "language struggle" very much worked in terms of a strict dichotomy between Dem. and Kath., and both sides regarded any "mixed" forms with some ideological misgivings. That's why, when the relevant political decisions were made after 1974, they were made in terms of "replacing Kath. with Dem." It was only a few linguists at first who drew attention to the fact that linguistic reality had in fact moved on independently and was producing these convergent koine phenomena. Interesting stuff. - I'll add Mackridge and perhaps Babiniotis to the sources; actually you were right there should be a footnote where your "fact" tag was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tables of verbs
Can anyone explain me why the tables are like that? For example why the past tenses are presented first and then the non-past? Have a look at the article Ancient Greek grammar (tables) (verbs) and you may undestand that this arrangement is much more cmprehensable. I think we should make the tables this way for every voice.
(Active voice - in ancient greek just for example using obsolete now forms which will not be used)
| Indicative | Subjunctive | Optative | Imperative | Infinitive | Participle | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present | λύω λύεις λύει λύομεν λύετε λύουσι(ν) |
λύω λύῃς λύῃ λύωμεν λύητε λύωσι |
λύοιμι λύοις λύοι λύοιμεν λύοιτε λύοιεν |
- λῦε λυέτω - λύετε λυόντων/λυέτωσαν |
λύειν | λύων λύουσα λῦον |
| Imperfect | ἔλυον ἔλυες ἔλυε ἐλύομεν ἐλύετε ἔλυον |
|||||
| Future | λύσω λύσεις λύσει λύσομεν λύσετε λύσουσι |
λύσοιμι λύσοις λύσοι λύσοιμεν λύσοιτε λύσοιεν |
λύσειν | λύσων λύσουσα λῦσον |
||
| Aorist | ἔλυσα ἔλυσας ἔλυσε ἐλύσαμεν ἐλύσατε ἔλυσαν |
λύσω λύσῃς λύσῃ λύσωμεν λύσητε λύσωσι |
λύσαιμι λύσαις λύσαι λύσαιμεν λύσαιτε λύσαιεν |
- λῦσον λυσάτων - λύσατε λυσάντων/λυσάτωσαν |
λῦσαι | λύσας λύσασα λῦσαν |
| Perfect | λέλυκα λέλυκας λέλυκε λελύκαμεν λελύκατε λελύκασι |
λελυκώς ὦ λελυκώς ᾖς λελυκώς ᾖ λελυκότες ὦμεν λελυκότες ἦτε λελυκότες ὦσι |
λελυκώς εἴην λελυκώς εἴης λελυκώς εἴη λελυκότες εἴημεν λελυκότες εἴητε λελυκότες εἴησαν |
- λελυκώς ἴσθι λελυκώς ἔστω - λελυκότες ἔστε λελυκότες ἔστων |
λελυκέναι | λελυκώς λελυκυῖα λελυκός |
| Past Perfect | ἐλελύκειν ἐλελύκεις ἐλελύκει ἐλελύκεμεν ἐλελύκετε ἐλελύκεσαν |
Dimboukas (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The format used in the article now is a format found in the literature; for instance, I'm familiar with it from Ruge, Neugriechische Grammatik (a learner's grammar); I think other works do it similarly. It fits the Modern Greek system because it brings out the basic 2x2 nature of the morphological contrasts. In that sense, it is far superior to the format above. The left-right order is of course arbitrary, but it can be motivated by the description of the contrast as "past versus non-past", where past tense is the marked category and "non-past" the unmarked default category. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- In comparison, the table you provided implies that the basic structure of the system is along these two logical dimensions: tenses (present-imperfect-aorist, etc.), cross-classified with moods (indicative-conjunctive etc.). That's an expectation familiar from the ancient languages. But Modern Greek just doesn't work that way. The imperfect and the aorist aren't two tenses; they are two aspect forms of one and the same tense. Your table would lead the reader to expect that aorist, imperfect and present should each have their own subjunctive. They of course haven't, because these are really not three tenses but only two. Also, there isn't a separate "subjunctive" for every tense; rather there is a separate subjunctive (and future and imperative) for each of the two aspects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- First of all thank you for the explanation! I cannot understand the fact that you say that the aorist and the imperfect are not different tenses. I am sure you know the difference between the two forms. The imperfect explains an action that happened in the past continually and the aorist an action that happened once. For example we can use the french language: the imperfect is the french imparfait and the verb parler (=to talk) is formed je parlais and in greek μιλούσα. The french aorist is the passé or the passé composé which explains an action that happened once in the past: j' ai parlé and μίλησα. I expect you to tell me that it is difficult to compare two languages but I do it here because the meaning is the same. I have been taught the Aorist and the Imperfect as two seperate tenses. And yes; in modern greek there are two (or three if you count the perfect) different forms of Subjunctive.
Dimboukas (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The Aorist and the Imperfect are of course two different things, and they are traditionally called "tenses", but really they are just two different combinations of the same tense (past) with two different aspects (perfective/punctual and imperfective/continuative). That's what the table shows. The difference between the two past tense forms (imperfect vs. aorist) is exactly the same as that between the two future forms (θα γράφω / θα γράψω), the two subjunctives (πρέπει να γράφω / πρέπει να γράψω), and the two imperatives ( γράφε! / γράψε). That's why it's useful to have all these pairs of forms in the same two rows in the table. The only item in the tense/aspect system that hasn't got this double form is the present indicative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
