[B-Greek] Greek NT Audio and spelling
Randall Buth
randallbuth at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 16:14:43 EDT 2008
shalom Don,
You have articulated the major defense for a corrected Erasmian.
EGRAPSAS
>But I can see no other conclusion than Erasmian's being quicker and easier
for a novice in NT Greek. >
Yes, that is one good point for a restored "Erasmian"
(remembering that even this is something different from what is normallly
taught)
But you have to live with the results. As you say, not a small matter. (We
do know the phonemic system of the majority dialects, that first century
Koine was 7-voweled with fricative voiced consonants β, [d], gh. This is
really not in dispute by phonologists.)
One must also ask whether marginally easier as a spelling system would
compensate for wrong? Because it's no easy matter to change later if this
language is being internalized.
Consider French, with spelling quite a bit trickier than Koine Greek.
"French for Reading" is sometimes taught to grad students in Erasmian
'pronounce each graph', but never for students of French lit. And 'French
for Reading' students do not develop toward fluency. What French department
would ever consider giving a student 1-2-3 years of French according to
Erasmian pronunciation rules, and then saying, "by the way, you can change
to the French system if you ever get the urge"? I think the serious students
would feel betrayed.
My contention is that looking at the whole journey helps people decide which
road is the shortest and gets one to where they need to go. The journey
should include an ability to function at conversational speeds. And being
happy with the results after the trek.
ERRWSO
Randall
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Dr. Don Wilkins
<drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> Somehow I suspected that this would be your opinion, Randall. For others,
> it seems that context plays an important role in identification and correct
> spelling when a non-phonetic pronunciation is used. Years of experience and
> education are cited as other factors. English is a good point of comparison
> as a largely non-phonetic system of pronunciation (cf. "EDJOOKASHUN" vs.
> "EDYOOKASHUN"). But I can see no other conclusion than Erasmian's being
> quicker and easier for a novice in NT Greek. True, you can point to
> confusion between EI and H, but this is not really to be blamed on Erasmian,
> IMO; it is a result of English pronunciation (and that of other languages)
> where the long vowels are diphthongs. When I was first learning Greek, I
> tried to make the proper distinctions if for no other reason than to learn
> correct spelling. For the most part, Erasmian wins out. Its primary fault is
> its artificiality, which is no small matter; but I would suggest that our
> knowledge of how NT Koine (including the dialects) was actually spoken is
> still uncertain, and one can always learn a more authentic pronunciation
> later. There definitely is a sense of fascination and satisfaction in
> employing a system of pronunciation more closely resembling the original,
> however, so I commend those like yourself who prefer such a system and have
> no problem with the spelling issues. Indeed, familiarity with features of
> the original pronunciation is indispensable in the important field of
> textual criticism, and if it inspires students in the classroom, then so
> much the better.
>
> Don Wilkins
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Randall Buth wrote:
>
> I wonder if a small caveat might be in order. Have any of you found
>>>
>> that modern Greek pronunciation has a subtle effect of dulling the
>> memory in regard to distinctions between vowels that sound alike, or
>> of confusing the spelling of certain consonants? I imagine the long-
>> term effects would be more important than the short term. Perhaps the
>> reverse is true; do you pay *more* attention to the spelling of a
>> word to avoid confusion? I'm sure RB has much to say about this from
>> his experience, but I'd also like to hear from those with fewer years
>> of experience.
>>
>> Don Wilkins
>>
>>>
>>>
>> DONALDW XAIREIN
>>
>> I guess I should answer now, but please note that I don't use a modern
>> pronunciation. I use a KOINH pronunciation, more below on a recent
>> development with spelling. So I am not a fair representative.
>>
>> First, in general, it is easier to remember Greek spelling than English.
>>
>> I should probably add something with regard to Hebrew, too, since
>> Israeli MizraHi pronunciation (with `ayin and Het pharyngeals and not
>> the more common glottal stop and fricative kaf) still has some overlaps
>> like quf/kaf degusha, tet/tav, qamats/pataH. Plus one must be able to
>> listen to "Ashkenazi" Israeli consonants (alef/ayin, xet=kaf rafa). Some
>> t35 years ago I was thinking that this was a burden on the learner
>> and was wondering how people made the language work. Of course,
>> looking around, it was obvious that the language did work. And
>> somewhere in the last 35 years I've forgotten whatever was bothering
>> me. Every now and then I need to check a spelling, and I was more
>> than chagrined once, noticing that I'd spelt Tel Aviv with a tet.
>> Bottom line: spelling is just not an issue, but it is something that must
>> be learned for several homonyms, and somehow that gets taken care
>> of by the time one is fluent and an educated writer. (One may surmise
>> the same for KOINH, below.)
>>
>> Now for modern Greek itself, I am writing from a declaired weekness. I
>> speak the language pourly (limited vocab and structures) and have not
>> been using the language for reeding ancient Greek. I have noticed that
>> morphological words tend to be correctly written. So HTA is the feminine
>> article and the subjunctive ending to 3s is also HTA. OI is still the
>> masculine plural and generally written correctly. But one does see quite
>> a bit of fluidity, especially on things like menyous with its mix of
>> less-common and foreign lone words. (PS: Modern Greeks would do
>> better than this in Greek. I actually had to think to misspell the words
>> in
>> this paragraph because of writing habits. Then again, sometimes I get
>> lucky.)
>>
>> As I mentioned with Hebrew, a student may raise
>> a question about whether the modern Greek system "works", or more
>> to the point, whether it "works" for the ancient language. Then the answer
>> is, Yes and No.
>>
>> In some situations modern Greek underdifferentiates common words
>> to a point where communication can break down. Note the dialogue:
>> A: TINES EPOIHSAN?
>> B: YMEIS (homonym with HMEIS. Both ancient words would be IMIS )
>> "YMEIS" would not be understood on its own and would require another
>> word for clarification. As long as HTA and Y-psilon were distinguished in
>> sound these words could be used. In the Byzantine era new words for
>> EMEIS and ESEIS 'we'/'you' developed in order to accomodate the collapse
>> of vowels. So much for the 'No' side. One can remark that the full modern
>> system brought about structural and morphological changes to the
>> language and would cause some instabilities if used for speaking ancient
>> Greek.
>>
>> On the Yes side: the educated were still writing and using ancient Greek
>> thru the Renaissance era, and with a 'modern' pronunciation. (The
>> Modern Greek five vowels have not changed in over a thousand years.)
>> Presumably they resolved the occasional homonym thru colloquialisms or
>> by filling in context.
>>
>> Returning to spelling, the educated user needed to learn the correct
>> spellings
>> of many a word and I sense a deterioration in the NT manuscript tradition
>> from about the time that the full 5-vowel system entered the language.
>> (9=10 centuries CE). Before that period, when the 6 vowel system was in
>> place (2-9 century CE) spelling was better. It is primarily EI and I that
>> flucatuate frequently in the early NT mss.
>> So "ms B" writes words like GEIGNWSKEIN 'to be knowing'
>> and KREINEIN 'to be judging'.
>>
>> Which brings us to the KOINH and spelling. For one, we know that it
>> was a real, historical system and that it "worked".
>> This must be remembered during all discussions.
>> Greek was used for centuries with a 7 vowel system (2c BCE
>> to 2c CE, using EI=I, H, AI=E, A, W=O, OY, OI=Y). I have long wavered on
>> HTA during the 2-4 c CE because we don't see the wide fluctuation
>> with HTA that we see with EI=I. I am now convinced that HTA did go
>> to an I sound by the end of the second century CE, which points to
>> an interesting fact of spelling.
>>
>> HTA was more stable than EI=I,
>> even when HTA was pronounced as EI=I.
>>
>> To what can we attribute its stability?
>> To a longer writing history in the KOINH that gave it a written stability.
>> EI=I was always unstable in the KOINH but HTA only became I after
>> a 450 year writing history in the KOINH (300 BCE-150CE). That
>> apparently fixed things enough so that later KOINH writers and NT
>> scribes tended to use a fixed spelling with HTA even though the sound
>> was no longer distinguished.
>>
>> And back to the basic question, does a KOINH pronounciation
>> result in some spelling 'mistakes'? Yes, but relatively few after a
>> little training. And a person today receives a lot of written training
>> on the road to fluency. More importantly, a KOINH pronounciation
>> "worked" for the original speakers/audience (we wouldn't want
>> to be more Catholic than the pope), it fits the mss traditions,
>> and prevents MIS-pronunciations, prevents artificial differentiations,
>> and prevents mistaken homonyms of typical Ersamian.
>> SAMAREIA is correctly read as [samaria]. Yes, Erasmian, too,
>> causes mistakes. (Erasmian typically joins HTA to EI [e.g. Erasmian
>> pronunciation HRHNH vs. koine IRHNH. IRHNH is better differentiated.
>> ditto for LYSEI future vs LYSH subjunctive], often joins Y to OY [e.g.,
>> producing 'wash' for 'loose'], and some US speakers join O to A.
>> [e.g. PROSKYNEIN TAN QEAN. These latter need to repent :-) ] )
>> The solution should not be to clean up Erasmian, since that would
>> only produce a historical katachronism (opposite of anachronism and
>> something never in use throughout the history of KOINH), and would
>> hide the language that was in use. The solution is to adopt a KOINH
>> system of the period. Which also allows one's ears to follow modern
>> Greek quite well, since it is on the same trajectory with the real
>> development of the language. And modern Greek works for reading
>> though it may be less desirable for speaking KOINH. (My modern
>> Greek speaking friends just speak modern and don't attempt KOINH
>> so I have nothing to judge.)
>>
>> ERRWSO
>> IWANHS
>> (PS: My middle name. I consider this spelling of IWANHS correct
>> for 1st century, though the later spelling IWANNHS does reinforce
>> the accent through its doubled NN (not pronounced differently
>> from N). UBS spelling is not reliable on these things. Probably
>> because the spelling editors were 'Rasmians.)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Randall Buth, PhD
>> www.biblicalulpan.org
>> randallbuth at gmail.com
>> Biblical Language Center
>> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>> ---
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>>
>
>
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list