Ghost on the throne by James Romm

[Mistracona]

I am here to learn not teach. My teaching days are over. Long over.

That is a very convincing passage, that Phillip had made "high classical Greek" the lingua franca of a royal class just as Hoch Deutsch was the language of the ruling German classes. Low German was the German of the masses incomprehensible to the aristocracy who considered it vulgar speech. It made "Bavarian" a separate language altogether although, of course, it was German. The Athenins equally considered the "vulgar" and coarse Greek of the Macedonians "barbaric."

The Macedonian empire, of course, made koinoi (" Common") and not "high classical Greek" the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean basin which resulted in the New Testament being written in that language. It resulted, too, in St. Paul learning it so he could go to Thessaloniki and speak to the common people in their language, Greek.

Thanks for the reference.

[Mistracona]

Incidentally, we must ask Mr Romm what "high classical Greek" means since there is no such linguistic distinction. "Classical" Greek is a modern reference to the Greek spoken in the "classical" period, itself a modern ambiguity, like a "classic" car, or "classical" music, a "classic" mistake, etc. and etc.

[TrueMacedonian]

I am here to learn not teach. My teaching days are over. Long over.
That is a very convincing passage, that Phillip had made "high classical Greek" the lingua franca of a royal class just as Hoch Deutsch was the language of the ruling German classes. Low German was the German of the masses incomprehensible to the aristocracy who considered it vulgar speech. It made "Bavarian" a separate language altogether although, of course, it was German. The Athenins equally considered the "vulgar" and coarse Greek of the Macedonians "barbaric."

The Macedonian empire, of course, made koinoi (" Common") and not "high classical Greek" the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean basin which resulted in the New Testament being written in that language. It resulted, too, in St. Paul learning it so he could go to Thessaloniki and speak to the common people in their language, Greek.

Thanks for the reference.

Highly doubtful you are here to learn Milti.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1627&page=37

Come on then. If you are willing to learn then let's put you to the test.

[Risto the Great]

Your statement that the Greeks had no "Greek" identity other than that introduced my katharevousa itself is belied by the fact that the katharevousa experiment did not succeed, primarily because it clashed with the spoken Demotic Greek of the population which absorbed elements of it.

I said "barely" not no identity. I would say Orthodox Christianity was the single most binding aspect in relation to the identity you speak of.

The Katharevousa experiment actually succeeded. It introduced words into the modern Greek language that did not exist before and offered a pathway for modern Greeks to feel connected to the ancient Hellenes who inhabited some of the same territory as the modern Greeks. I call it a failure because it is based on historical revisionism, but it actually worked for the national identity.

By the time Katharevousa was killed off in the 1970's, it was nothing more than politics and a writing style. But the new words remained. I stress "new words". These were loan words from a dead culture. This cannot be compared to the evolutionary Macedonian language. Plain and simple.

Do you accept the "loan words" offered modern Greeks a greater sense of connection to the literary works of the ancient Hellenes? If you do, then you would have to accept the process was highly influential in the formation of the modern Greek national identity. Not a failure as much a "con". But you say you do not understand Greek, so you may never be able to answer. My people were tortured to speak the language. Many of us know it and might be able to teach you some things.

[Risto the Great]

On Makriyannis:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000444.php

Alexiou quotes his friend Johnston as saying "If modern European fiction 'came out of Gogol's overcoat', modern Greek prose came out of the ample folds of General Makriyannis's kapa." But in between the writing of the memoirs (they end in 1850) and their general acclaim (they were published in an Athens newspaper in 1904 and in book form, with extensive commentary, in 1907, but were not well known until proclaimed a classic in a famous 1943 lecture by George Seferis) there was a period in which Greek prose wandered in the desert of katharevousa ('purified'), an artificial Greek devised to bring the "degenerate" spoken language as close as possible to classical Attic, seen as the ideal form of the language. Part of what this involved was purging the language: of unrecognizable descendants of ancient forms (e.g. psari 'fish' from opsarion, in place of Attic ikhthys), but especially of the many foreign terms it had borrowed over the centuries, particularly Turkish ones. This is the exact analog of the purging of the Acropolis of the accumulated postclassical structures, and it results in Makriyannis being hard to read even for Greeks (although his language is extremely natural, since he wrote as he spoke) because so many words common in his time have been replaced by echt Greek forms (e.g. tzasitis 'spy' [from Turkish casus], replaced by kataskopos). The effort to produce a language that would sufficiently mimic the ancient tongue revered by Western Europe (the final judge of all things cultural, and of course the provider and guarantor of Greek freedom) paralleled the effort to produce a state that would mimic the "civilized" countries of Western Europe, themselves (in their fond self-image) modeled on the glory that was (ancient) Greece. The result was a stilted language that was native to no one and that could be produced only by stifling the inner voice that is the only source of true literature (and that makes Makriyannis so powerful a writer). The difference is, of course, that the language could be restored to human life by the inevitable erosion of the Atticizing furbelows (such as the dative case, not used in speech for centuries), but the Acropolis is dead for good.

His real language was littered with Turkish and Italian loanwords. If this was meant to represent the real Greek language, why can't it be read as easily as you seem to suggest?

[Risto the Great]

On Makriyannis:

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000444.php

Alexiou quotes his friend Johnston as saying "If modern European fiction 'came out of Gogol's overcoat', modern Greek prose came out of the ample folds of General Makriyannis's kapa." But in between the writing of the memoirs (they end in 1850) and their general acclaim (they were published in an Athens newspaper in 1904 and in book form, with extensive commentary, in 1907, but were not well known until proclaimed a classic in a famous 1943 lecture by George Seferis) there was a period in which Greek prose wandered in the desert of katharevousa ('purified'), an artificial Greek devised to bring the "degenerate" spoken language as close as possible to classical Attic, seen as the ideal form of the language. Part of what this involved was purging the language: of unrecognizable descendants of ancient forms (e.g. psari 'fish' from opsarion, in place of Attic ikhthys), but especially of the many foreign terms it had borrowed over the centuries, particularly Turkish ones. This is the exact analog of the purging of the Acropolis of the accumulated postclassical structures, and it results in Makriyannis being hard to read even for Greeks (although his language is extremely natural, since he wrote as he spoke) because so many words common in his time have been replaced by echt Greek forms (e.g. tzasitis 'spy' [from Turkish casus], replaced by kataskopos). The effort to produce a language that would sufficiently mimic the ancient tongue revered by Western Europe (the final judge of all things cultural, and of course the provider and guarantor of Greek freedom) paralleled the effort to produce a state that would mimic the "civilized" countries of Western Europe, themselves (in their fond self-image) modeled on the glory that was (ancient) Greece. The result was a stilted language that was native to no one and that could be produced only by stifling the inner voice that is the only source of true literature (and that makes Makriyannis so powerful a writer). The difference is, of course, that the language could be restored to human life by the inevitable erosion of the Atticizing furbelows (such as the dative case, not used in speech for centuries), but the Acropolis is dead for good.

His real language was littered with Turkish and Italian loanwords. If this was meant to represent the real Greek language, why can't it be read as easily as you seem to suggest?

[Mistracona]

I absolutely agree with the writers assessment of Katharevousa as an artificial language meant to "purge" (for political reasons) the "vulgar" demotic Greek of the people, and I have said so much in my previous posts.

I also stated that the Demotic language used before the revolution consisted of an abundance of Albanian, Slavic, Turkish and other vocabulary. Still today in Greek, most architectural words used in the construction of a house, for example, are clearly of Turkish origin as are the names of some foods and cooking methods (the Turks had and continue to have one of the world's superior cuisines).

There are also many, many words of Slavic origin used in contemporary Greek and, of course, a rapid inclusion of English words.

One thing that separates a "living"language from a "dead" one is that it is constantly changing. English is probably the most "loan word" of any language in the world.

In its thousand-plus years as a lingua franca (after the collapse of the Roman empire in the West) in Europe, Latin hardly changed because it was a "dead" language. It was a language of convenience and not a mother tongue. Not even in the "latin" countries.

Makryianis was an illiterate peasant and his language and vocabulary would have been of the lest sophisticated or most basic form of Greek.

The author says that Makryannis' memoirs are "hard to read" by contemporary Greeks because many [foreign origin] words have been replaced. There is some truth in this. Many foreign based words were "purged" from the Demotic over the centuries and today's Greeks would be unfamiliar with them. The author does not say that Makryiannis' language is not Greek. It is the Greek of his time and his class, the peasant class. It is, in fact a "tape recording" of that time and class.

My Greek is weak to moderate (under circumstances), yet I have read Makryiannis with essential understanding (minus the obscure and replaced words, of course). An English friend with stronger Greek than mine read the Memoirs more successfully.

The Memoirs are also valuable because they are a moving testimonial of Makryiannis" patriotism, the love for the country he sacrificed his fortune and life for and his continuous struggles to create a constitution for the newly-formed Greek State.

Makryiannis had a powerful Geek identity and yet he spoke no Katharevousa which refutes your assertion that it was that artificial language that created Greek identity.

The passage you have quoted says nothing that I have not already said in my own posts. What is it supposed to prove?

I am a little disappointed. I expected a stronger rebuttal.

[Risto the Great]

I absolutely agree with the writers assessment of Katharevousa as an artificial language meant to "purge" (for political reasons) the "vulgar" demotic Greek of the people, and I have said so much in my previous posts.

The writer did not say "political reasons". What do you mean by this?

Makryiannis had a powerful Geek identity and yet he spoke no Katharevousa which refutes your assertion that it was that artificial language that created Greek identity.

I asked a pretty simple question which you didn't answer and given your asessment of my rebuttal, you failed to address it. Here is is:

Do you accept the "loan words" offered modern Greeks a greater sense of connection to the literary works of the ancient Hellenes?

I would not place Makryannis at the fore of the modern Greek identity so it has little relevance in my opinion. If we allowed a natural modern evolution of the Greek identity it would have had the Turkish, Italian, Macedonian, Albanian and Vlach influences thouroughly intertwined in its modern language if not for that unnatural hiccup.

That is my point and I think it speaks volumes about the modern Greek identity which hinges so heavily on the perceived connection to the Hellenes.

[Bill77]

We agree (relentlessly) that modern Greece, like all nations, is an artificial construct, a national identity forged from multi-ethnic roots,

Thats correct, and you cant connect to antiquity, these artificially constructed multi ethnic "baptised Greeks" simply based on a few words in their bastardised language they may share with the ancient Hellenes.

My question remains as to how the multitude was cajoled into changing their language and speaking Greek. No small achievement.

Well if Greece could teach the Turkish New arrivals and many Macedonians in the early to mid 90's to speak and think they are related to Pericles, Demostenisa or Socrates, then it would have been a piece of cake for the Germans and Brits to cajole the Albanian speakers shortly after the creation of Greece. Hey....if these western godfathers had told this multi ethnics they were sons of Superman, Batman and boy wander, you guys would be walking around in capes now thinking you are true super heroes and saying shit like "UP UP AND AWAY" and "HOLY FINANCIAL CRISIS" instead of "SKASE RE VLAKA"

Greece was much more important to Britain, a naval power, than to small, land-locked Bavaria.

And Greece remains a critical piece of real estate:

Ease up there sunshine before you break in to the Greek national anthem and start saluting (or doing the Nazi salute)

Political climate has changed drastically (Though obviously by your show of pride, Greek mentality has remained) This Rock called "Greece", is no longer that important and critical since the iron curtain fell. No more fear of Communism spreading from Eastern Europe and swallowing Greece.

[Mistracona]

@ Risto

I said "political reason." As I explained in my previous posts (if you don't read them carefully, I can well understand). Katharevousa was a concomitant attempt with other efforts to artificially connect the modern state directly with the ancient world avoiding over 3 thousand years of Greek-speaking history. All this was in effort to creating a founding national myth for the new nation.

Clearly, the addition of katharevousa forms and vocabulary was part of the attempt to link and perpetuate further this artificial connection. That is obvious as I have said before and as I repeat above.

However, you err in saying that modern Greek identity was formed SOLELY by the creation of katharevousa and some ancient vocabulary.

This is easily demonstrated because most of the military leaders who fought for the independence of the Greek state did not speak a word or have any knowledge of katharevousa.

I do not place Makryiannis "at the fore of Greek identity". He is only a typical example. Kolokotronis, the leader of the revolt, did not speak or know katharevousa, Karaiskakis did not speak or know katharevousa. The soldier/peasants who followed them and fought and risked and lost their lives for an independent Greece did not speak or know katharevousa. More, most leaders and peasant fighters, like Makryiannis himself, were not even literate. They neither knew or heard of Katharevousa.

For the 1000th time: Modern Greek consisted and consists still of many words of Albanian, Slavic, Turkish, Italian and other languages. Throughout its history, the Greek language, like all living languages, has evolved and changed and incorporated. Only a dead language does not change. For the umpteenth time: Modern Greece is composed of the languages and people of many other ethnicities, Albanians, slavs, Vlachs, Italians, Arabs, etc, etc. In this respect, it is exactly like all other modern nation states.

I'm sincerely at a loss as to how I can make the above statements, which I have often repeated, clearer.

[Mistracona]

Hi Bill77:

I enjoy very much reading the comments on this site and have learned a lot from them, especially those about your neighbours the Greeks, ancient, modern and in-between. This parable has occurred to me:

A man goes to Paris. All he wants to see and find is dog poop. Paris has a lot of dog poop and the man sees it everywhere. He steps on it, he smells it and he sees it being scooped.

When he gets back home his friend says to him, "How did you like Paris?"

"Paris!", the man scoffs, "Paris is full of shit, man!"

The point of this parable is Seek And You Shall Find.

Cheers from me, Bill77

[Bill77]

Hi Bill77:

A man goes to Paris. All he wants to see and find is dog poop. Paris has a lot of dog poop and the man sees it everywhere. He steps on it, he smells it and he sees it being scooped.

When he gets back home his friend says to him, "How did you like Paris?"

"Paris!", the man scoffs, "Paris is full of shit, man!"

The point of this parable is Seek And You Shall Find.

Cheers from me, Bill77

This man has seen nothing, if only he visits Athens.
He will not just step on it, but swim in it.
And Loukanikos is not the culprit.

PS: Good day to you Sir.

[Risto the Great]

Mistracona, you insist on misquoting me. I did not say the modern Greek identity was formed SOLELY by the creation of katharevousa and some ancient vocabulary. In fact I said Orthodox Christianity was the single most binding aspect in relation to the identity you speak of.

I am glad you acknowledge the artificial connections that modern Greeks have with the Hellenes of antiquity. I really don't have much else to add. That is all I was really saying. We both agree.

But you are painting a picture of masses of one single ethnic grouping that fought for Greek independence. You know this is not the case but you do give this impression. It is common for Greeks to brush over this obvious fact.

[Risto the Great]

Hi Bill77:

I enjoy very much reading the comments on this site and have learned a lot from them, especially those about your neighbours the Greeks, ancient, modern and in-between. This parable has occurred to me:

A man goes to Paris. All he wants to see and find is dog poop. Paris has a lot of dog poop and the man sees it everywhere. He steps on it, he smells it and he sees it being scooped.

When he gets back home his friend says to him, "How did you like Paris?"

"Paris!", the man scoffs, "Paris is full of shit, man!"

The point of this parable is Seek And You Shall Find.

Cheers from me, Bill77

To be fair, there is indeed a lot of shit in Paris. But strangely, it smells sweeter over there.

[momce]

@ Risto the Magnificent:

To the best of my knowledge, the creation of Katharevousa had the following intentions: it was an attempt to impose on the "vulgar" Greek tongue of the people a totally artificial construction of syntax and vocabulary belonging to the long-dead "classical" Greek. Politically, I suspect it was in part related to the misguided attempt to perpetuate the falsity that modern Greeks were directly connected to the ancient Greeks thus ignoring the two thousand years of history in-between. It was also intended to "purge" the Demotic Greek spoken by the people from all the Turkish, Slavic, Albanian and other foreign vocabulary and "syntactical intrusions" (my term).

I don't know if there was a specific date when katharevousa "failed", but it never caught on among the people. It was for a time the form used by certain educated circles. The well-established and "vulgar" Demotic spoken by the people swept away any hope for Katharevousa.

What is your information? I would be glad to know it.

Why assume they were syntactic instrusions into greek and not the other way?