Talk:Proto-Greek language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proto-Greek language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Other talk page banners

Greece High‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Cowgill's law was copied or moved into Proto-Greek language. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Robert Drews on the coming of the greeks

The quote of R.D. is not correct: "Robert Drews (1994) dates it to c. 1900 BCE." In the quoted p. 14, R.D. is not describing his own position, but Blegen's. 2804:4EC:1258:B000:91EF:925E:6FE2:1421 (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

clemente et al.

~~"Nothing in that article deals with the linguistic dating of Proto-Greek." - Future Perfect at Sunrise~~

~~paper discusses people *and* language. no sense marginalizing geneticists when the page cites 'linguistic dates' from historians and archeologists.~~
~~"The article is NOT about linguistic dating. It mentions that its dates are similar to linguistic dates, but that is not a DISCUSSION of linguistid dating" - TaivoLinguist~~
stop screaming please. 1st, 'discussion of linguistic dating' is arbitrary because the paper is relevant, verifiable and reputable. 2nd, the page keeps 'historical dating' and 'archeological dating' that the arbitrary 'discussion of linguistic dating' criterion would discount. 3rd, no sense excluding genetic science just because it's not *your* science.
~~"Non-linguistic evidence is circumstantial evidence. Don't force your way and get consensus in the talk page first." - Austronesier~~
1st, direct proof of proto-greek has not been discovered so both linguistic reconstructions and non-linguistic evidence are circumstantial by default. 2nd, the paper, reputable and verifiable for this encyclopedia, is relevant to scientific discussions on proto-greek. 3rd, if the clemente et al. paper is excluded, then why are west (historian), drews (historian) and blegen (archeologist) kept?

~~2605:AD80:0:186F:1C29:70:98D6:BF80 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

A source is only reliable for the topic of the research. It is not reliable for tangential, passing mention of other things. This source is NOT a reliable linguistic source, it is only reliable for DNA. You need a reliable linguistic source that mentions the information that you want to change. DNA research is not reliable dating for linguistic assertions because, need I say it, language is not genetic. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism?

In section Post-Proto-Greek changes, a hyperlink named Aeolic redirects to Lesbian instead.

Is this a technical issue or an actual case of vandalism? Tewuzij (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really vandalism, just a misplaced link. "Lesbian" Greek (i.e. the dialect of Lesbos) was the primary representation of the "Aeolic" dialects. If this were to be linked, it should be to either Aeolic Greek or Lesbian Greek (which is a valid redirect to the other). But in this case it will be best to remove the link altogether, since it's redundant anyway. Thanks for spotting the mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phonological Changes Worth discussing

The Kiparsky Effect in verbs In Rok Kutner's "K rekonstrukciji pragrške nominale morfologie" (Ljubljana, 2020) the idea is presented, and should be discussed, that under a strict set of rules, (and then under analogical forces in the subjunctives), after an unaccented short non-nasalized vowel, a dental plus short ι are melted and metathetize. This results in the primary actives in -εις, -ει to come from

-εις, *-ειτ from
-εσι, *-ετι

rather than

-εͱϊ+ς *-ει from
-εσι and *-ει.

Some possible signs of this include that the -ει ending is not a short diphthong, but long like the optative in -οι, which is said to be long becauase of the old coda *-οιτ. Another sign is the Ionic enclitic second singular present εἰς (=Attic εἶ, Epic ἐσσι) A possible extension is in the proclitic ποι- from ποτι- found in Peloponnesian inscriptions. This and many other changes in structure and accent should be discussed, especially the usage of the augment as a deictic particle, not a past-tense indicator, 97.67.246.85 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future tense

The article says "The future tense is created, including a future passive as well as an aorist passive." Obviously they had a way of talking about future events before the future tense per se--perhaps using an auxiliary verb (like English "will"). Could someone expand a little on this? If we don't know where the future tense morphology came from (PIE didn't have that???), then just say so. Mcswell (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]