Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catearmi. Peer reviewers: Zoe1117.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophic[edit]

What does catastrophic mean? 73.212.16.52 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disastrous, ruinous, or pertaining to a catastrophe. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:4DA:D150:51F7:3110 (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitive of verbs[edit]

There is no mention of the infinitive forms of verbs in Ancient Greek, which were very important as they could be used as nouns, with the singular definite article in the various cases. The form seems to have vanished in Modern Greek. Esedowns (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Greek infinitive is mentioned twice in the article, and also its disappearance. –Austronesier (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graeco-Phrygian[edit]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: About this[1]: IMHO, it looks as if at least Graeco-Phrygian has become mainstream in the last decades. While there are of course its specialist proponents like Brixhe or Obrador-Cursach, I have also found two matter-of-factish statements in recently published volumes that are the kind of sources we usually consult to establish where the mainstream lies:

Austronesier (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying that, aside from the question of whether Graeco-Phrygian is an accepted subgroup within the Indo-European language family or not, FPaS' removals were in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize – and not supplant – key facts that appear in the article. In our case, § Classification – which discusses the topic – doesn't make it clear to the reader that the Graeco-Phrygian subgroup is in fact generally accepted today, in contrast to other proposed higher-order subgroups, and thus we are not giving undue weight to it. Therefore, this section needs to be updated first, before any potential reinstatement in the infobox. A mere wikilink to the already updated Phrygian language article, is not enough; this relates to WP:CIRCULAR. Recent books focusing on the subject, such as the ones mentioned above, are the ones we should ultimately consult; thus, i do agree with Austronesier, whose rationale is in line with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I should also emphasize that, support for the Graeco-Phrygian subgroup isn't limited to these books. Furthermore, i want to highlight that even proponents of other – debated – subgroups, don't necessarily disagree with the phylogenetic unity of Greek and Phrygian. From The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective (2022), i would also like to add the following:

Regarding the removal of Paleo-Balkan from the infobox, i personally don't disagree; it's certainly more debatable than Graeco-Phrygian. Even the terms Palaeo-Balkan, Balkan, Balkanic, etc. – used for the group – are somewhat misleading.

Furthermore, according to the recent genetic study by Lazaridis et al. (2022), the Armenian language – which is hypothesized to be a member of the group – can be traced back to a Yamnaya expansion that crossed the Caucasus directly from the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Therefore, the higher-order group we are looking for, could simply be the final stage of PIE; especially if we also consider the following tweet by Lazaridis:

Furthermore, in The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective (2022), Lucien van Beek favors a relatively late departure of Graeco-Phrygian from the PIE homeland:

Regardless of the above, the same book includes a number of phonological, morphological, and lexical isoglosses as evidence, and further states that Greek is central to the group. For example:

Regarding the Greek-Phrygian and Messapic-Albanian parallelization above, i agree with the arguments raised by Austronesier. Furthermore, although admittedly, Phrygian and Messapic are both fragmentarily attested languages, the latter is more scantily attested.

I should also add that the Messapic inscriptions date between the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE, while the Phrygian inscriptions date between the 8th century BCE and the 3rd century CE, and attest to different stages of the language. By the way, i am not aware of the view attributed to Matzinger; Ktrimi, can you share a quotation? Even if there were several closely related Phrygian languages, i don't see how this affects the validity of the Graeco-Phrygian subgroup; besides, the epigraphic material attests to the existence of a single Phrygian language. Personally, i am only aware of the following quotation by a different scholar:

Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following update for § Classification, which is based on the existing content under it; albeit rephrased per the above.

Greek is an independent branch of the Indo-European language family. The ancient language most closely related to it may be ancient Macedonian, which most scholars suggest may have been a dialect of Greek itself, but is poorly attested and is difficult to conclude. Aside of the Macedonian question, current consensus regards Phrygian as the closest relative of Greek. The two languages share a number of phonological, morphological and lexical isoglosses, with some being exclusive between them; thus, scholars have proposed a Graeco-Phrygian subgroup out of which Greek and Phrygian originated.

Among living languages, some Indo-Europeanists suggest that Greek may be most closely related to Armenian (see Graeco-Armenian) or the Indo-Iranian languages (see Graeco-Aryan), but little definitive evidence has been found. In addition, Albanian has also been considered somewhat related to Greek and Armenian, and it has been proposed that they all form a higher-order subgroup along with other extinct languages of the ancient Balkans; this higher-order subgroup is usually termed Palaeo-Balkan, and Greek has a central position in it.

If there are no objections, i also propose the reinstatement of Graeco-Phrygian (?) in the infobox; again, per what was discussed above.
By the way, take note of the Italo-Celtic subgroup, which is more debatable; nevertheless, it is included in the infoboxes of Italic and Celtic.
From the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics – Volume 3 (2018):
  • p. 2030: In addition to this contact, there is a longstanding hypothesis that the Italic and Celtic languages shared a prehistoric linguistic unity (i.e. an "Italo-Celtic" subgroup in the Indo-European family tree. [...]). However, unlike some other Indo-European subgroups such as Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, the existence of Italo-Celtic has never reached the status of established fact. Compare, for example, Ringe, Warnow, and Taylor (2002), who posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup (although they admit the evidence is slender), with the criticisms of Isaac (2004: 54 ff.), who calls the Italo-Celtic hypothesis obsolete. – Nicholas Zair
  • p. 2035: This concludes the possible cases of Italo-Celtic isoglosses. Despite the continuing debate, the question of whether there was ever a single Italo-Celtic language family remains open. Although there are a number of apparent similarities, very few can be shown reliably to reflect shared innovations. [...] Whether this is enough to posit an Italo-Celtic subgroup is uncertain; if such a family did exist, it may best be seen as a "drowned" subgroup, the result of "a rather short period of common development followed by a long period of divergence" (Cowgill 1970: 114). – Nicholas Zair
From The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective (2022):
  • p. 102: Many scholars have noted similarities between Italic (Chapter 8) and Celtic (Chapter 9). Schleicher (1858) was the first to posit an Italo-Celtic node between Proto-Indo-European and Celtic and Italic. But in the 1920s Carl Marstrander and Giacomo Devoto questioned the validity of this subgrouping. Scholarly opinion has varied ever since. It would be fair to say that Italo-Celtic is more debatable than any other higher order subgrouping, certainly much more so than Balto-Slavic. [...] Many features once cited in favor of Italo-Celtic unity are now seen to be archaisms. – Michael Weiss
  • p. 108: Whether one recognizes an Italo-Celtic node or not, the fact remains that Italic shares more innovative features with Celtic than with any other branch. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that both Italic and Celtic individually and in common share many features with Germanic. This connection is not surprising given their geographical positions (see Weiss 2020a: 500–1). Somewhat more surprising are some striking agreements between Italic and/or Celtic and Indo-Iranian, famously highlighted by Vendryes. The phylogenetic import of these agreements is still unclear (see Weiss 2020b). – Michael Weiss
Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposed change. If no one objects in the next days with substantial non-digressive arguments based on reliable sources, let's just boldly go for it. –Austronesier (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

etymology of the name "Greek"?[edit]

should there be such a section here? 198.161.51.64 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories