tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post864781258774353198..comments2024-01-02T13:37:26.563-06:00Comments on גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב: Romans in Reconstructed Koined. millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-39545909792350279802015-08-13T15:50:50.782-06:002015-08-13T15:50:50.782-06:00Hi Jody,
Thanks for your follow-up comment. Two q...Hi Jody,<br /><br />Thanks for your follow-up comment. Two quick notes:<br /><br />(1) Buth does provide an example (admittedly only one) for the equation of υ and IPA /y/. See p. 221 pair 4 b.<br /><br />(2) For an extensive discussion and critique of Caragounis's view that η had already itacized with ι/ει, see this b-greek thread: <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=224" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=224</a>. I have nothing to add to that discussion.d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-86997557136796728012015-08-12T10:12:28.829-06:002015-08-12T10:12:28.829-06:00Many thanks for that, it is always interesting (to...Many thanks for that, it is always interesting (to me at least) to learn about people’s reasons (or more often, lack thereof) for following one pronunciation over another. I agree that Buth’s reconstructed first-century Koine pronunciation – I will continue to refer to it as “Buth’s” for clarity, and because Allen is attempting to reconstruct a Fifth Century BCE literary Attic pronunciation – is more advantageous than Erasmian with respect to transferring to Modern Greek, but the “modern” pronunciation is of course even more so. <br /><br />I have just reread Buth on η and υ. With respect to υ he demonstrates that it is interchangeable with οι but he doesn’t demonstrate that the sound was (IPA) y; this is taken for granted, and overlooks the evidence for the interchangeability of υ and ι, and οι and ι in the early Hellenistic period (set out in Caragounis, Development of Greek, 367-70). In other words, it looks like υ and οι are interchangeable because they were both pronounced like ι. <br /><br />Similarly, there is significant evidence for the interchangeability of η with ι/ει in the early Hellenistic period (see Caragounis, 370ff.). Buth accepts the method and evidence provided by Caragounis with respect to the Second and Third Centuries CE but ignores what he says about the earlier Hellenistic period, even though the method employed and nature of the evidence is the same. <br /><br />We can never know for sure of course how exactly the ancients pronounced Greek, and because of this I do respect Buth’s reconstruction. I accept that it may well represent the way some Greek speakers sounded around the turn of the Common Era, but, at the very least, the evidence suggests that it is not representative; there were those for whom ι=ει=η=υ=οι, and that if this was not widespread by the turn of the Common Era, it very soon was, and remained so to the present day. Anyway, I would be very interested to know why you do not trust the evidence and argumentation provided by Caragounis et al.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10692069438909340790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-68022696117328497842015-08-11T21:38:42.836-06:002015-08-11T21:38:42.836-06:00Thanks for your comment, Jody. One of the advantag...Thanks for your comment, Jody. One of the advantages of Reconstructed Koine is that it makes the transfer to modern a lot simpler, and there are a lot more free audio resources available using the modern Greek pronunciation. For example, I can now listen to and appreciate the excellent recordings of the LXX and GNT in modern Greek, as well as the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Byzantine chant.<br /><br />There are two main reasons why I chose not to adopt modern Greek pronunciation: The first is that, despite Caragounis, etc., I do not take it as demonstrated that η and υ had itacized to ι before the 2nd century CE. For evidence, I recommend Buth's discussion in the article I mention in my post (see esp. p. 221f.). Buth's discussion is based on Allen and especially Gignac, so it is not exactly fair to call it 'Buthian'; he also interacts with Caragounis. See also Daniel Streett's summary of a 2011 SBL discussion: http://danielstreett.com/2011/12/01/the-great-greek-pronunciation-debate-sbl-2011-report-pt-3/.<br /><br />The second reason is pedagogical: English-speaking students tend to find the German ü difficult to pronounce, but a 7-vowel system results in fewer homonyms, which simplifies the language-learning process. (This is also why I retain the rough breathing.)d. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7143395511928869444.post-89828479458979842172015-08-10T08:29:03.427-06:002015-08-10T08:29:03.427-06:00A huge improvement on the Erasmian pronunciations....A huge improvement on the Erasmian pronunciations. Personally, I don’t think the Buthian pronunciation goes far enough. With respect to the First Century (and before), the evidence suggests that the current pronunciation of Greek remains our best guide. Most recently, this has been demonstrated by Caragounis (http://bit.ly/1DHgC6G), Zachariou (http://bit.ly/1IEwCTT), and Theophilos (http://bit.ly/1KdK6WF). Not only is it true to the period, but it is more advantageous for textual criticism and facilitates an immediate and direct transfer to Modern Greek. I wonder why you did not opt for this pronunciation?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10692069438909340790noreply@blogger.com