[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1079]No these people came to the Balkans around the 6th century A.D.I was refering that Greek was spoken before their arrival and since they became the majority the Greek language dissapeared and Slavic bevcame the lingua franca of the region.Now since many Slavs came all the way south to the Peloponese they didn't sustain their language and in disapeared due to the greater majority Greek speakers in Greece......
You see SoM unlike Englisgh that will survive because English is today's lingua franca thjrough schooling,education,computers,TV,movies,internet by globalisation.How did Greek survive when there was noone of that back then?How diud Latin dissapear when the powers at the time spoke Latin??The Venetians,Genoans the powers of trade throughout the sea??[/QUOTE]
You said "[I]Greek was spoken right throughout the Balkans yet by the 10th century it disapeared in the northern part of the Balkans[/I]", now you are are talking about the Greek language being spoken prior to the 6th century, you're all over the place and you seem to be having difficulties in patching up the same lies over again. It didn't take 4-500 years for the Croats and Serbs to become a majority where they live.

The Slavic-speakers of Morea and the rest of the southern Balkans didn't lose their language because of their Greek-speaking neighbours, they lost it (eventually) because they were gradually absorbed into the East Roman system.

Latin disappeared because the Greek language had a longer history in the region where it concerned trade, religion and education, many in Rome even learned Greek and imitated elements of ancient Greek culture, thank the Romans in this respect. Or would you like to thank Heraclius of Africa who re-introduced the Greek language into the East Roman Empire for practical rather than "ethnic" reasons? Was Heraclius an "ethnic Greek"? Where was Heraclius originally from?

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1084]So again I ask SoM how come the language Greek dissapeared throughout the Byzantine regions after the fall of Constantinople yet Greek survived in Greece??On top of that hopw can a language surve when there were no schools nor any form of education in the Balkans.[/QUOTE]
There were churches where the Greek language was dominant over others, these also acted as schools many times. And didn't I already acknowldge that there were pockets of Greek-speaking people also?

Where we differ in this respect is our views on the numerical aspect, you speak in vague terms so that it makes it easy to worm out of corners everytime I chase for some specifics.

Whichever way you look at it, it certainly had little to do with the unknown "Hellenism" which began in the late 18th/early 19th century upon initiation from outsiders.

[QUOTE=Soldier of Macedon;1090] Was Heraclius an "ethnic Greek"? Where was Heraclius originally from?[/QUOTE]

Heraclius was from Sinope in the Pontian region where Greek speakers were dominant.......

Really? His Latin name was [B]Flavius Heraclius Augustus[/B], and according to historians he was born into an Armenian family from Cappadocia, which is located in Inner Asia Minor, not in the Black Sea coastal city of Sinope.

Are you wrong?

That's his Latin official title buddy.....About his birth place it's Sinope and he grew up in Cappadoccia and his father was part Armenian his mother was Greek and the only language he spoke was Greek.

And again why would he have a Greek name anyway and not a Roman or Armenian one SoM?

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1102]That's his Latin official title buddy.....About his birth place it's Sinope and he grew up in Cappadoccia and his father was part Armenian his mother was Greek and the only language he spoke was Greek.[/QUOTE]
That it is, his [U]Latin[/U] title. Does that make him ethnic Italian anymore than his name 'Heraclius' makes him an "ethnic Greek"? No.

What is your evidence that he was born in Sinope? I eagerly await.

What is your evidence that his mother was an "ethnic Greek"? I eagerly await.

The person who instigated the re-introduction of the Greek language on an official level in the region grew up in AFRICA, get your facts right.

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1103]And again why would he have a Greek name anyway and not a Roman or Armenian one SoM?[/QUOTE]
Oh please, is that all you have? Heraclius was and still is ( although rarely these days) used as a Christian name in the East Christian world. Look no further than your past president if you want to play silly games with the names of people, Constantine Karamanlis, a Latin first name and a Turkish second name, another pillar of "Hellenism" in name I take it.

Heaclius is not a Christian name there has never been a St Heraclius.

Heraclius is a Greek name meaning son of Hercules....So pls lets not get into all sorts of drivel.Why would a non Greek name himslef after Hercules a Greek Hero?Why didn't othe past Roman Emprerors name themselves as such?The last Latin Empreror was Justinian and he was born in the geographical region of Macedonia.After him all Byzantine Emprerors had Greek names.

Really, Constantine (Pyrphyrogenitus) has a Greek first name? Stop manipulating facts. Many non-Greek and non-Latin peoples of the era adopted names of Latin and Greek origin, your theory doesn't hold, simple.

There are reasons other than 'ethnicity' as to why this occured, and this has been explained to you already so stop going in circles.

If Heraclius comes from Heracles and means 'son of Heracles', it is still derived from a Christian viewpoint and not an "ethnic Greek" viewpoint.

Care to address any of the other revealed lies you stated above which I asked of you in regards to the African Armenoid who re-introduced the Greek language?

You are corrct in that he made the Greek language the official langaue since the majority of the populace in the Empire spoke Greek.Latin remained the language of law and titles the rest was all Greek by public demand my friend.

Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos or Porphyrogenitus, "the Purple-born" part of the Macedonian Dynasty....

And why wasn't he Greek are you referring to the Armenian connection of the dynasty?
Funny how you claim Heraclius and the Macedonian dynasty as Armenians yet they all spoke Greek conducted themsleves in a Greek manner.Why would they do that?Why wasn't the Dynasty called the Armenian Dynasty instead it's called the Macedonian one?If Macerdonian wasn't Greek why would they name it Macedonian?

Also knowing how proud the Armenians are why would they adher to a foreign culture?Why also would they be allowed to become Emprerors when the split b/w the 2 churches happend around 600 A.D??

Lets look what I also found a comment by the Purple one..

Constantine VII Poryphorgenitus:

"
Quote:
The Slavs of the province of Peloponnesus revolted in the days of the emperor Theophilus and his son Michael, and became independent, and plundered and enslaved and pillaged and burnt and stole. And in the reign of Michael, the son of Theophilus, the protospatharius Theoctistus, surnamed Bryennius, was sent as military governor to the province of Peloponnesus with a great power and force, vis., of Thracians and Macedonians and the rest of the western provinces, to war upon and subdue them."

De Administrando Imperial, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 50

Constantine VII was renowned for his abilities as a writer and scholar. He wrote, or had commissioned, the works De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae ("On Ceremonies"), describing the kinds of court ceremonies also described later in a more negative light by Liutprand of Cremona; De Administrando Imperio ("On the Administration of the Empire"), giving advice on running the empire internally and also how to fight external enemies; and a history of the Empire covering events following the death of the chronographer Theophanes the Confessor in 817. Amongst his historical works was a history eulogising the reign and achievements of his grandfather, Basil I. These books are insightful and are of immense interest to the historian, sociologist and anthropologist as a most useful source of information about nations neighbouring with Byzantium. They also offer a fine insight into the Emperor himself.

Mind you all his works were written in Greek not in Latin nor Armenian........

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1116]You are corrct in that he made the Greek language the official langaue since the majority of the populace in the Empire spoke Greek.Latin remained the language of law and titles the rest was all Greek by public demand my friend.[/QUOTE]

The language was NOT CALLED GREEK, THEY THEMSELVES CALLED IT [B]ROMEIKA(ROMAN)[/B], so please do not use a modern term and try to transfer it into th past to claim the past in that way.

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1123]Constantine VII was renowned for his abilities as a writer and scholar. He wrote, or had commissioned, the works De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae ("On Ceremonies"), describing the kinds of court ceremonies also described later in a more negative light by Liutprand of Cremona; De Administrando Imperio ("On the Administration of the Empire"), giving advice on running the empire internally and also how to fight external enemies; and a history of the Empire covering events following the death of the chronographer Theophanes the Confessor in 817. Amongst his historical works was a history eulogising the reign and achievements of his grandfather, Basil I. These books are insightful and are of immense interest to the historian, sociologist and anthropologist as a most useful source of information about nations neighbouring with Byzantium. They also offer a fine insight into the Emperor himself.

Mind you all his works were written in Greek not in Latin nor Armenian........[/QUOTE]

His works were written in [B]ROMEIKA(ROMAN)[/B]

That is incorrect Daskalot there is no such written language called "Romeika"......

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1134]That is incorrect Daskalot there is no such written language called "Romeika"......[/QUOTE]

So you are telling me that Constantin th Purple called his language not ROMEIKA(ROMAN) but something else.......

[QUOTE=Daskalot;1130]The language was NOT CALLED GREEK, THEY THEMSELVES CALLED IT [B]ROMEIKA(ROMAN)[/B], so please do not use a modern term and try to transfer it into th past to claim the past in that way.[/QUOTE]
What kind of language was the "Romeika" ? Greek or Latin or something else (define it) ?

[QUOTE=leonidas;1136]What kind of language was the "Romeika" ? Greek or Latin or something else (define it) ?[/QUOTE]

a form of what we today call MODERN GREEK and with its correct name NEOELLENIKA.

It was an old form of the Greek language.

[QUOTE=Daskalot;1137]a form of what we today call MODERN GREEK and with its correct name NEOELLENIKA.[/QUOTE]
So the language that spoken was Greek and as also the linguistics said "Byzantine Greek". Am I right ?

Daskalot no offence but yr over yr head here mate...Romeika isn't a language.

Ok lets see what we find here...

[B]Byzantine Greek language also known as Medieval Greek [/B]

Since as early as the Hellenistic era, Greek had been the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean, spoken natively in the southern Balkans, the Greek islands, Asia Minor and the ancient and Hellenistic Greek colonies of Western Asia and Northern Africa. This continued after Roman expansion in the region. Latin was also introduced by Roman administration but nearly all significant literature was written in [B]Greek[/B]. After the reforms of Constantine the Great the ancient [B]Greek city of Byzantium [/B]became Constantinople and the [B]"Greek East"[/B] gradually evolved into a separate political and cultural entity, having [B]Greek as its main language[/B], while Latin was used as an official language of administration. However Latin had never been a spoken language in the East, and [B]it was gradually displaced by Greek in all sectors[/B]. The evolution from the Eastern Roman into the Byzantine Empire, properly speaking, starts with the reign of [B]Heraclius, when Greek replaced Latin completely in law and administration[/B]. At the same time the Empire lost most of its [B]non-Greek speaking territories [/B]in the near East and Africa, along with its second largest city, Alexandria.

The main vernacular language of the Eastern or Byzantine Empire had been Medieval Greek, spoken natively in Constantinople and the largest part of the empire. Spoken [B]Medieval Greek was an evolution of Koine Greek[/B], which was the popular language of the Hellenistic world, and an intermediary stage between ancient and Modern Greek. Written Greek varied considerably, embracing an archaising "high" style which imitated classical Attic, and a moderate "middle" style continuing the tradition of written Koine. Relatively few written specimens of the spoken or "low" variety of the vernacular language have been preserved. The resulting diglossia of the Greek-speaking world (which had already started in ancient Greece) [B]continued under Ottoman rule and persisted in the modern Greek state until 1976[/B] - although Atticist Greek remains the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church. As shown in the poems of Ptochoprodromos, an early stage of Modern Greek had already been shaped by the 12th century AD and possibly earlier. Vernacular Greek continued to be known as "Romaic" up until the 20th century.

[QUOTE]popular language of the Hellenistic world[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that. If I was Greek I would read "They all was Grik" ... if I was human, I would say "Oh, much like English today, there was a language which many people knew but clearly gave no identification of ethnicity".
[QUOTE]Vernacular Greek continued to be known as "Romaic" up until the 20th century[/QUOTE]
I suppose you will apologise to Daskalot now.

RTG yr letting me down here mate read the proper sentence it say's VERNACULAR which means ORAL language never in writen form.......

Something like yr language before 1944........You opnly spoke it orally never in a written format.

Misirkov disagrees.
And since you finally codified your language in 1976 ... we are streets ahead.

You said:
[QUOTE]Daskalot no offence but yr over yr head here mate...Romeika isn't a language.[/QUOTE]
Then did a cut and paste job saying it was a language until the 20th century.
If you are going to remain stupid, I will have to delete you. Because we are looking for intelligent debate. Is that ok with you?

Yes, right about now an apology would be required for spewing up his 100th lie of the day. Read what you quote next time TB, here you are saying [I]"Romeika isn't a language"[/I] and then you post an article which says [I]"Vernacular Greek continued to be known as "Romaic" up until the 20th century"[/I] -- Before that, it was also known as Romeika, vernacular and oral, don't push some fairytale that can see no light at the end of the tunnel. Danial of Moschopolis in his four-language dictionary in the late18th/early 19th century called the language Romeika - TB, stop manipulating and lying, soon we will grow tired of telling you to do act in line with your namesake and you will disappear back into maggotsphere in cyberspace.

So are you still going to show me the "ethnic Greek" evidence of Heraclius? Or have we now jumped to the next water leaf and pretending that earlier dialogue didn't take place? If the language was changed to Greek because everybody was a Greek, then why not the name of the empire and the people also? Why do they continually refer to themselves as ROMANS? Why are you behaving like a deluded bird-brain that feels the need to go in circles when you cannot provide any decent answer?

In his DAI Constantine Pyrphyrogentius speaks of some Greeks (Graikoi) in the Peloponnese who are neighbours of the Slavic peoples in the same region, but he, of the Macedonian Dynasty, called himself a ROMAN, not a Greek. Greek was the langage of education and the official tongue of East Rome at this time, that is why he employed the language.

When you say conducted himself in a 'Greek manner', what does this mean apart from the typical vague garbage that you have been dumping on these boards all day long?

[QUOTE=Risto the Great;1162]Misirkov disagrees.
And since you finally codified your language in 1976 ... we are streets ahead.

You said:

Then did a cut and paste job saying it was a language until the 20th century.
If you are going to remain stupid, I will have to delete you. Because we are looking for intelligent debate. Is that ok with you?[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about RTG??We had 2 languages the Katharevousa and the Demotic.The Demotic language eventually won out.

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1156]Something like yr language before 1944........You opnly spoke it orally never in a written format.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. As usual.


Risto, if this person is manipulating and changing his own posts to suit the flavour of his commentry of the moment, do what you have to do. So far he has done nothing but filled the place up with his lies, half-truths and manipulated information that is conjured up by the Neohellenic moron brigade at maggotsontheweb.

Right.
Apparently you cannot read.

[QUOTE=Truth Bearer;1165]What are you talking about RTG??We had 2 languages the Katharevousa and the Demotic.The Demotic language eventually won out.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it won out, about 30 years ago, and you have had independence for almost near 200 years. On the ball you Greeks are, judging by your posts here you must be Greek.

You see it seems both of you are quick to jump the gun.Read carefully what I wrote

[QUOTE]That is incorrect Daskalot there is no such [B]written language [/B]called "Romeika"......[/QUOTE]

I quoted exactly what you said at post #66 in this thread.
Here it is:
[QUOTE]Daskalot no offence but yr over yr head here mate...Romeika isn't a language.
[/QUOTE]Feel free to edit it to suit your requirements now.

Go to post no# 60 RTG that's when I referred it as written....

Oh, should I disregard some of your posts or all of them?