This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Greek language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyprusWikipedia:WikiProject CyprusTemplate:WikiProject CyprusCypriot articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
The whole concept of "native to" is problematic -- and not just for Greek. Is it supposed to represent oldest places where we know the language was spoken? all the places where it has been spoken as a first language historically? all the places where it has been used as a language of civilization?
Certainly nowadays there are vanishingly few first-language Greek speakers in Istanbul, Anatolia, Antioch/Hatay, Egypt, and southern Italy. Were there thriving Greek-speaking communities in those places in the past? Of course! But today, there are surely more Greek speakers in Queens than there are in all of those places put together. Heck, there were also Greek communities in Massalia (Marseille), Libya, Croatia, and Spain.
So what exactly is "native to" supposed to mean? --Macrakis (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess that "native to" roughly refers to places where a language is spoken by people who are not recent immigrants/settlers. Especially when they use local dialects of the language. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a few. According to our source in Griko people, "only about one-third [of 46,000] still speak Greek", mostly elderly. So, sadly, a small and dying community. --Macrakis (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Greek alphabet has been used for over 2600 yearsEdit
Even though the statement is true, a century should be added to the figure (i.e. 2700), as the oldest known inscription is arguably the Dipylon gate inscription which dates back to the 8th century.. Gerasimos III (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gerasimos III: Actually, the earliest attested Greek alphabet is arguably the Fayum alphabet, which was inscribed on four copper plaques. As Nino Luraghi writes in chapter "3. Sounds, Signs, and Boundaries: Perspectives on Early Greek Alphabetic Writing" of "The Early Greek Alphabets: Origin, Diffusion, Uses" (2021); p. 34:
Both the nature and the date of these objects are in doubt. The absence of the supplementals and even of a separate letter for /u/ seems to put the alphabets before every documented Greek inscription, pointing to a date at the latest in the first half of the eighth century, or possibly late in the ninth.
In any case, i updated the lede by changing the phrase "for over 2,600 years", to "for approximately 2,800 years" instead, and included two relevant sources. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
^Robb K. (1994) Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece, Oxford University Press, pp 26-27 ISBN9780195059052
There is no mention of the infinitive forms of verbs in Ancient Greek, which were very important as they could be used as nouns, with the singular definite article in the various cases. The form seems to have vanished in Modern Greek. Esedowns (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The Ancient Greek infinitive is mentioned twice in the article, and also its disappearance. –Austronesier (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: About this: IMHO, it looks as if at least Graeco-Phrygian has become mainstream in the last decades. While there are of course its specialist proponents like Brixhe or Obrador-Cursach, I have also found two matter-of-factish statements in recently published volumes that are the kind of sources we usually consult to establish where the mainstream lies:
Greek is clearly more closely related to Phrygian than to any of the main branches of Indo-European: there are shared phonological, morphological and lexical innovations. This close correspondence is all the more remarkable given the fragmentary attestation of Phrygian [...] Notwithstanding the fragmentary attestation of Macedonian and Phrygian, it seems likely that their ancestors formed a linguistic unity with (pre-)Proto-Greek in the late third and early second millennium BCE. The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective
The case of Phrygian-Greek is similar to the case of Messapic-Albanian. We have to do with a language that continues to be spoken to this day and another language that ceased to exist at least 1500 years ago. The latter is attested only in some inscriptions which do not allow for an in-depth analysis of grammar structure, phonetic evolution, vocabulary etc. Hence although it is clear Greek and Phrygian were similar, one can't prove what was the degree and reason of the similarities. Not to mention that some linguists such as Matzinger think that "Phrygian" was an umbrella term used to refer to several languages that had similarities with each other; if so Phrygian was not even a language on its own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Not entirely similar. Early attested stages of Greek are contemporaneous with the Phrygian record whereas the temporal gap between Messapic and Albanian spans one and a half millenia. Anyway, I don't want to comment over the validity of the evidence; that's not our job here. I have just noticed that two major handbooks published in the last five years agree in their assessment of the Graeco-Phrygian proposal. There will always be divergent specialist opinions (for an extreme case see the pathetic struggle against Balto-Slavic), but then how many of them are actually reflected and supported in high-quality overview sources? –Austronesier (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)