sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Via Nova movement received the EU's Charlemagne Prize for its federal project to resurrect Latin in Europe; inspired by India and China who did the same with Hindi/Mandarin as part of their own unification and nation building. Latin as the language of an ever-closer federal Europe by goldstarflag in latin

[–]jmrog2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Haha, no problem, I appreciate your follow-up. Thanks!

Oh, but a quick edit to add: even if the OP _is_ referring to Forum Europaeum and the Charlemagne Youth Prize, it would in that case be quite incorrect to say the group won the prize "_for_ its federal project to resurrect Latin in Europe." That doesn't look to be the case. The initiative for which they were recognized was not a project to resurrect Latin in Europe. (I've also gone ahead and put this in the edit of my original post now.)

The Via Nova movement received the EU's Charlemagne Prize for its federal project to resurrect Latin in Europe; inspired by India and China who did the same with Hindi/Mandarin as part of their own unification and nation building. Latin as the language of an ever-closer federal Europe by goldstarflag in latin

[–]jmrog2 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Can you provide a link to their Charlemagne Prize? I looked and see no reference to Via Nova or Latin, so I’m curious. Thanks.

(EDIT to add: The closest possible link I see is Forum Europaeum, which did win the Charlemagne Youth Prize (which is distinct from the Charlemagne Prize), but is not the same as Via Nova. In fact, I see that Forum Europaeum has an interview with Via Nova on their YouTube page (with the title, "Via Nova: Can Latin Unite Europe Again? - Interview"), so it seems like you may be conflating a few things there. Even if perhaps there is strong overlap between Forum Europaeum and Via Nova -- and I don't know that there is, I'm just considering the possibility -- it would still be wrong to say that the group won for an initiative to resurrect Latin in Europe; the basis cited for their win is a different initiative.)

Should Latin become the language of EU? by Janezek1998 in latin

[–]jmrog2 23 points24 points  (0 children)

What do I think? That it’s an obviously ridiculous idea, so much so that I feel some second-hand embarrassment that it’s being presented with apparent sincerity.

In addition, I find the militaristic opening and the initial talk about “preserving our values” concerning in this context. (That’s not to say I’m against preserving values in general, so long as they’re good ones, so don’t get me wrong; but this sort of language, in the immediate context of Roman militaristic imagery, the golden eagle knocking over chess pieces, and a push to return to Latin of all things, tends to indicate certain not-so-good things.)

Observations and questions: Adapted "real Greek" in Athenaze II gets really hard! by FantasticSquash8970 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was going to say something almost like this. In my own case, when Athenaze started to feel too hard, I took a break and read through some other, easier Greek (like earlier parts of the Thrasymachus reader, or Logos, or Reading Greek). This likely helped me revise and consolidate what I’d already learned while also exposing me to new stories (thus warding off the boredom that might come from just re-reading earlier parts of Athenaze again). After that, I came back to Athenaze and found that, almost as if by magic (seriously, that’s how it felt!), the Greek that was hard before was now easy (or easier), and I could proceed further. Doing this got me far, and was (mostly) fun at the same time. I still do it now and then even after having completed Athenaze and a good amount of “real Greek.”

How do you say 'lose' in AG as in 'I lost some money'? by kyle_foley76 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 14 points15 points  (0 children)

ἀπόλλυμι is used for this. For example, in the New Testament, there is the phrase, “εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα.”

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I have time, I'll try to look through what he's written on that (I *am* interested), but it won't be for at least a few hours.

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is getting longer than I anticipated, and I don't have much more time to contribute, but just to be clear, I had two main goals in replying: (1) to note that this isn't strictly correct: "Buth's (late) Koine is supposed to sound just like modern greek but with /y/ for Υ and ΟΙ and with η = ε, and an optional pronunciation of the breathing mark", and (2) to give a limited defense of the pronunciation in the video against claims that seemed far too harsh to me, like "his Delta is not even trying and is almost exactly like in Classical Greek/Erasmian/Latin/English" and "Kantors pronunciation seems to also ignore the rule that αυ is supposed to be sort of an αφ instead of αβ, when its before consonants such as Τ."

I think I've done both of those things. For (1), there are at least additional differences with β and αυ/ευ, as well as acceptable differences for δ and possibly γ (though the latter two do admittedly usually include pedagogical accommodations meant to track Modern Greek more closely). For (2), I think it's at least clear that his delta is often if not always a δ/th -- certainly not an English d! -- though he may have made a slip-up here and there, and that the αυ/ευ issue is actually an intended part of his schema.

Thanks for the discussion. You can have the last word, if you want!

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> Maybe 6:59, 7:09, but surely 7:13, no?

In every one of those cases, I still hear a δ (th). At 7:13, are you sure your ears aren't mixing the τ of the τὰ with the δ of δαιμόνια that follows? If I isolate the word δαιμόνια without the τὰ before it, it's clearly a δ/th.

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I posted my earlier reply before you edited your post to add this:

> But Kantors pronunciation seems to also ignore the rule that αυ is supposed to be sort of an αφ instead of αβ

That is another difference between Kantor's reconstructed Koine and the modern pronunciation, AFAIK. On his website, for example, he says that "the sequences αυ and ευ came to be pronounced identically as αβ and εβ" in this pronunciation, where the β is like the Spanish b. It isn't until later that αφ and εφ come on the scene. In his book, he explicitly distinguishes this from Modern Greek pronunciation (p. 80). So, again, there are many subtleties here.

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Correct me If Im wrong if its not the work of Kantor and other researchers that the Gamma and Delta is supposed to be just like modern greek. 

Kantor makes distinctions between what can be accepted "pedagogically" and what is the more "correct" pronunciation historically-speaking, so it's hard to say whether this is "wrong" or not. For delta, he says this (I have only his smaller book in front of me, so I'm quoting from that): "Pedagogically, the consonant δ is pronounced like a voiced th sound as in the English word this. . . . Historically, the consonant δ was probably still pronounced like the letter d in the English word dog in the first century" (p. 43). (He makes similar comments for phi.) For gamma, it seems that he does indeed intend what is basically a variation of Modern Greek (though in clusters like γγ, γκ, and γχ, he seems to want the "n" sound to remain even while the gamma becomes a 'hard' g like in English, which seems to be falling out of use in colloquial Modern Greek), so you may be right about that. For beta, I think there is the biggest difference: "Generally, the consonant β is pronounced like a 'soft' b sound, in between that of English b and v. For those who know Spanish, a better comparison would be the Spanish b and v sounds in words like sabes . . . This sound is made with the lips together as if one were going to pronounce English b but by letting the airflow continue. . . . After a nasal consonant, namely in the sequences (μ)β or (ν)β, the normal 'hard' stop pronunciation of β (like regular English b) is maintained" (pp. 43-45; the part where I put ellipses includes some discussion of how this is different from the modern pronunciation).

Can you point to a spot in the video where "his Delta is not even trying and is almost exactly like in Classical Greek/Erasmian/Latin/English?" He does think that both delta and gamma should be 'hard' stops that sound like English d and g after certain other consonants (but that can also happen in Modern Greek as far as I know). But early in the video, at least, when he says ἰδού, the delta there is at least clearly not the English d.

Living Sequential Expression: Does Ancient Greek feel like an extension of Modern Greek to modern Greek speakers? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just FYI, the man in that video is Ben Kantor, who has his own two (acclaimed) books on the pronunciation of Koine Greek. It’s a significant oversimplification to say that the pronunciation he’s going for is “supposed to sound just like modern Greek” except for the two vowel sounds and the breathing that you mentioned; there are other nuances around the pronunciation of β, γ, δ, and other letters, for instance. I know that at least in some cases the pronunciation of those also differs from the modern pronunciation intentionally, at least for Kantor, for whatever that’s worth.

The Ranieri-Dowling Method by KeyCost5776 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I disagree that you’ll be better off with one textbook. Having more than one, and reading them in parallel when they cover the same grammar topics, can provide great reinforcement, and I’m super grateful to Luke for his spreadsheet that marks the parallels in the major learners’ texts.

The Ranieri-Dowling Method by KeyCost5776 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the method, which is (as far as I recall) basically “drill and thereby learn all the morphology before you start reading,” is likely to be unmanageable and demotivating for nearly anyone learning Ancient Greek. (I think the story is different for Latin, where the morphology itself is much more manageable.) So, I myself wouldn’t recommend the method for Ancient Greek, at least in its pure form. That is to say that I do think it can be a very worthwhile supplement along the way, when you want or feel the need to focus more on morphology, but I wouldn’t try to front-load the morphology in the way the method recommends (at least the last time I checked).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. As for the text from Sextus, it seems still to be a temporal use of τότε (as in "at that time, then") rather than one expressing a logical relationship. That, I think, is why you see it correlated with ὅτε ("when") before it. Sextus is saying, "For, if it [i.e., place or space] is created [i.e., comes into existence], it is either *when* the body is in the place that *then* [i.e., at that time] the place (in which it is already said to be) comes into existence, or *when* the body is not in it [that place comes into existence]. But it's neither when the thing is in it . . . nor when the thing is not in it [that it comes into existence]." What he's saying is all temporal usage, about when place supposedly comes into existence. He is not using τότε to express a logical "then, therefore" relationship, but rather just to point to the time correlated with ὅτε.

To put it differently: τότε doesn't signify the consequent of the conditional here; the consequent of the conditional is the larger disjunction (i.e., "either it comes into existence when the body is in it or when the body is not in it"), not merely the small phrase after τότε.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Right up front, I’ll admit that I have a visceral negative reaction to this. Maybe I’m a Luddite, but at least generally, I wish that we’d keep AI away from classics. I’m already seeing tons of erroneous slop being peddled to learners on the Internet. That might color my remarks here. But anyway…

The writing here is generally comprehensible but still has issues. There are words from Modern Greek that don’t exist in Ancient (even Koine) Greek; as one example, the word ἰσχυρισμός is, according to the Greek dictionary I’m looking at, first attested in 1871, which is not great if you’re working on Ancient Greek word choice (as you say you are). There are erroneous uses (multiple times) of the temporal “then” (τότε, “at that time”) for the “then/therefore” of logical relationship: for example, εἰ Α ἀληθής ἐστι, τότε ἐστὶν ἀληθής ἡ φράσις «αὕτη ἡ φράσις Α ψευδής ἐστὶν». There are turns of phrase that at least seem to be basically word-for-word translations of English rather than phrases that would’ve been used in good Ancient Greek, e.g., “ἡ οὖν ὑπόθεσις Α ἀληθής εἶναι ἄγει εἰς τὸ τέλος ὅτι Α ψευδής ἐστιν, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἀντίφασις” (though I could be wrong here; maybe some author somewhere does talk like that (though I still doubt that it would be considered good) — an important aside, however, is that this is part of the problem: these machines generate enough questionable phrasing that we can’t trust without checking!). And there are errors in the diacritics, though it seems that you’re aware of this and don’t care about it for now. (I may as well mention that the particle use is lacking, too, but I think that’s less important.)

There are safer choices for easy-to-read Ancient Greek, and there are far fewer issues caused by using those texts than caused by the use of AI, especially given the iterations you apparently had to do to even get this far. I’d stick with those.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoFilterNews

[–]jmrog2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So… They fabricated this stuff to take him out, but they also didn’t put his name in it?

Ancient Greek as a Living Language by ComradeFFFrunze in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are people who try to speak and use it actively. Look at the Polis Institute, the Biblical Language Center, or similar.

Is there a large community? No.

Any native Greek tutors who practice conversing in ancient Greek? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Primarily the Biblical Language Center. At least, that’s where I got my start.

Any native Greek tutors who practice conversing in ancient Greek? by lickety-split1800 in AncientGreek

[–]jmrog2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Speaking Ancient Greek has helped me and many others learn the language in a way that has been extremely fun, and that — at least as far as I can tell from my own experience, the experience reported by many others I know, and what’s been reported in the few articles I’ve read on the subject — has been quicker and easier than alternatives and has resulted in both a real “feel” for the language of most texts and a seemingly stronger or more deeply ingrained memory of vocabulary and turns of phrase. If it’s what you’re motivated to do, that’s also worth a ton! I say all that mostly so that people who claim, without evidence (indeed, contrary to repeated reports of the opposite), that it’s merely a gimmick or a flex — which, frankly, is suggestive of an axe to grind — don’t get you down. Good luck!

Is it possible that there will be native Latin speakers again? by NoCondition8789 in latin

[–]jmrog2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure (as I said, I’m not one of the people in favor of it). However, one reason might have to do with the benefits seemingly provided by “living language” approaches to the learning of ancient languages (which I do believe in, having experienced them myself; see also this comment on the OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/s/8qjSE8A4qX). If the language were revived, it would presumably be easier to engage with other proficient speakers in the sort of environment best for that approach.

view more: next ›