Talk:Hellenic languages

Moved from User talk:Kwamikagami

There may very well be a case for a separate "Hellenic languages" article, but not because Tsakonian isn't "a historical phase of Greek". It is, but of Doric rather than Attic. Not being a direct descendant of Koine does not make it any less Greek. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's Greek, but a separate language, at least by some definitions, and that is sufficient reason for a Hellenic languages article. kwami (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right; "Hellenic" and "Greek" are synonymous, after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hellenic" and "Greek" are not synonymous. That's the point. (Taivo (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

That's not what our disambiguation page says. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They are? I thought "Greek" and "Hellenic" were distinct pretty much the same way that "German" and "Germanic" were distinct. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Only in linguistics! kwami (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we have a historical record that muddies the waters. If Tsakonian and Modern Greek were two previously undocumented languages of South America, we would, without debate, call them two closely-related languages in a small subgroup of a larger family (Yanesha' and Chamicuro form Western Maipuran within Arawakan, for example). But historically, we would know that these two languages descended from two dialects of a single language back in time--we just wouldn't have records of that single language. That doesn't make them one language--just related ones. With Tsakonian and Modern Greek, however, we have the historical records of "Proto-Tsakonian-Greek" and can clearly see when they were mutually intelligible and just dialects of one language. Today, however, they are two mutually unintelligible languages and should be treated equally as closely-related sisters of a small subgroup of a larger language family. Not everything within "Hellenic" is "Greek". (Taivo (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

If Tsakonian isn't Greek, then neither is the Doric Greek from which it descends. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Doric and Attic were mutually intelligible dialects of Ancient Greek. No one said they weren't, Kekrops. But Tsakonian and Modern Greek are not mutually intelligible, therefore they are not the same language and Tsakonian is not Modern Greek. You confuse Modern Greek with Ancient Greek. Tsakonian is descended from Ancient Greek, but it is not Modern Greek. (Taivo (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Since when does "Greek" refer only to one historical phase of the language? Doric-derived Tsakonian is not only Greek, it is a variety of modern Greek, even if it isn't mutually intelligible with the Koine-derived standard. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For starters, "Greek" (same as German, English, French, Irish etc) is an ambiguous term, which is why Taivo introduced various terms above. Colloquially they all refer to the modern forms of whichever language. But in linguistics (and establishing relationships and histories of languages if the domain of linguistics) those terms are not clear enough, hence terms like "Modern Irish" "Middle Irish" "Old Irish" "Proto Irish" to specify the time period.

Secondly, the question of intelligibility is precisely the point as this is the main tool used in modern linguistics to determine if two lingos are two languages or two dialects. Admittedly, it's not a perfect tool but it's the one that seems to be best suited to the task and most widely used. Why do you think the Ethnologue always states "(not) mutually intelligible with X"?

So irrespective of the family tree, if those two are today not mutually intelligible, they are 2 languages and thus have a common ancestor somewhere, whatever that was. That makes it a family of (closely related) languages, not a single language family/branch. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that the mainstream academic consensus, though? Our own article says that Greek "forms an independent branch within Indo-European". As does Armenian, for example. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the mainstream academic consensus. Articles on Greek often make the claim that "Greek is its own branch", but that is an overstatement and not generally used by specialists, who carefully distinguish between Hellenic and Greek. The former statement is based on the fact that Indo-European cognate lists invariably list Ancient Greek cognates as the sole Hellenic forms since there is no dictionary or grammar of Tsakonian available to the English-speaking world. It is an artifact of the available evidence, not an accurate statement of linguistic fact. And, do we need to remind you, Kekrops, that Wikipedia is not the pinnacle of academic accomplishment or accuracy? The linguists in this discussion are all in agreement--"Hellenic" and "Greek" are not synonyms. (Taivo (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Sure, if we take for granted that you are who you say you are. Still, instead of asking us to take your word for it, how about producing a few reliable sources? The article is woefully unsourced as it stands now. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Errr the reverse is also true, Kekrops. Having a username in Greek letters is no guarantee either that you know anything about the topic :) Akerbeltz (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Kekrops, we are back to the groundless accusations that I am anything other than who I say I am. Perhaps you should examine User:Taivo and check out the Utah State University faculty pages as well. You are not nearly so forthcoming with who you are or your qualifications. (Taivo (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. All I did was ask you to support your claims with reliable sources. Is that an unreasonable request? Presumably, one can be a linguist without being an expert in the field of Hellenic dialectology; see our host's own modest admission above. As for my qualifications, I don't see how they are relevant. Wikipedia defines itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving on... I know very well Ethnologue is not the be all and end all but it for one has Tsakonian as Doric Greek [1] Akerbeltz (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also [2] p446. You actually get quite a few sources for Tsakonian as Doric if you punch Tsakonian and Doric into Google Scholar. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, aside from mutual intelligibility, standard written form reference and sociolinguistic criteria that distinguish between a dialect and a separate language (which i have no interest in discussing), what's the primary topic for "Hellenic languages" ? that's my main concern. That means we're not focusing on linguistic sources only. I never said that this material doesn't deserve an article by the way. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has denied that Tsakonian is descended from Doric Greek. It is on the Doric branch of the family. But it is a separate language. It is not "Greek", but Hellenic. Ethnologue uses "Greek" as a synonym for "Hellenic", but you will also notice that Ethnologue then ambiguously uses "Greek" to mean "Modern Greek" as well. Tsakonian is Hellenic, but it is not Modern Greek. When you label an article "Greek" then you are talking about the lineal descent of one branch of the Hellenic family that leads to Modern Greek, not all branches. Hellenic deals with the relationships between the Ancient Greek dialects and how they are differentiated from one another an how one branch became Modern Greek and another branch became Tsakonian. It will deal with the issues of where Ancient Macedonian might fit within the family as well as possible relationships to Illyrian and Thracian. Just because one branch of the family is exceptionally well documented doesn't mean that we just fold in the other member of the family (which is a separate language and not a "dialect") into it and lose its identity. Ethnologue (as well as Ruhlen's classification) makes a poor decision to call both the family and the modern language "Greek" even though they clearly list it as a separate, mutually unintelligible language from "Greek". Instead, the family should be disambiguated to be called Hellenic as in the family "fan" found inside the back cover of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the listing in Linguasphere (pg 449, volume two). Voegelin and Voegelin list "Greek=Hellenic" as the name of the family with "Ancient Greek", "Modern Greek", and "Tsakonian" as the three constituent languages in the family. In all, there is a clear distinction between using "Greek/Hellenic" as the name of the family as a distinct label from "Greek" (Ancient and Modern) the language. All sources list Tsakonian as a separate, but equal member of the family. Thus, Wikipedia needs an article on the family. We either call it "Greek" with disambiguation between the language and the family or we call it "Hellenic" with no further need for disambiguation. I support the current state of affairs where the article on the family is called "Hellenic" and the article on the branch of the family that leads through Ancient Greek to Modern Greek as "Greek". (Taivo (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I just noticed your comment, Drakolakkos, about "not focusing on linguistic sources only". What? This is a linguistic article and linguistic sources are absolutely fundamental for any linguistic article. Any other information is only secondary to the linguistic basis of the article. This is an article about a language family. (Taivo (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Philip Baldi's An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages also uses "Hellenic" for this group as well as Campbell and Mixco's A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. (Taivo (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

These references should be sufficient for substantiating a "Hellenic languages" article separate from the article on "Greek". While this article will never be as large as the Greek article, it is sufficiently distinct to be of note. Also, the paragraph on "Tsakonian" needs to be removed from the article on Greek dialects. Tsakonian is not a dialect of Greek. It is a separate language. (Taivo (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Of course linguistic sources are fundamental when talking about linguistic material. I am focusing as to which is the most established meaning for "Hellenic languages", to examine what a reader will most likely expect to find by typing it, and i guess this means counting in references not having to do strictly with linguistics, a mention in a history book for example. In other words what i'm saying is whether we should leave this content here or move it say to Hellenic languages (linguistic branch) and make a dab page with the current title or redirect to Greek language as Hellenic language does. If it's the mainstream approach then it strikes me by surprise, as i've only heard of it linked with a theory about ancient Macedonian. Don't get me wrong and all, "Pontian language" or "Tsakonian language" are not phrases that i've never came across with, many philologists in Greece will tell you they can be categorized as such. The point is if there is a consensus on that, or even an interest for a discussion to reach a consensus, among scholars. So, if i made myself clear, i trust you guys to decide what to do, or bring in more experts for an opinion.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To defend Drakolakkos, mutual intelligibility is not the only definition of a language. If it were, we wouldn't bother with articles for several national "languages" in Europe (really: Swedish? Galician? Croatian?), and there would be no issue with the name "Cantonese language". Self identification of Tsakonian as a dialect of Greek (assuming that's the case) is relevant. However, Tsakonian is frequently addressed as the second contemporary language of the Hellenic family, as Taivo demonstrated, and that's where I was coming from with this article. kwami (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the "X languages" articles are about linguistics. That's what the languages articles are all about--linguistic approaches to the languages. If an article is labelled "Hellenic languages", that is the "linguistics branch". There's no discussion about language without linguistics, including sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, grammar, etc. (Taivo (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

And what does that tell us ? If linguists cared to agree then we wouldn't have to weigh in non-linguistic sources cause they wouldn't tell us anything. And consequently my position about defining the primary topic would be invalid. [3] [4]--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the American Heritage Dictionary defines Hellenic as the "branch of the Indo-European language family that consists only of Greek", while Baldi treats the terms synonymously and identifies the language itself as a branch of its own: [5][6] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Drakolakkos, I can see how that would be confusing to a non-linguist, but linguists don't really bat an eye about such differences in naming. After all, in Chinese linguistic tradition, the dozen or so mutually unintelligible Chinese languages are also called dialects. In addition, the various languages that constitute spoken Arabic are also called dialects within Arabic studies, but are generally mutually unintelligible languages to a great extent. Here in Wikipedia, the compromise that is working for Arab linguists and non-Arab linguists is to use the term "variety" (see Varieties of Arabic). That way the Arabic linguists who want to maintain the illusion of a unitary Arabic identity can do so and the non-Arabic linguists who want to emphasize the great diversity in the colloquial languages can do so. In the case of Tsakonian, all linguists (whether they label Tsakonian a language or a dialect) agree on two important points relative to this discussion--1) Tsakonian is descended from Doric Greek, 2) Tsakonian and Modern Greek are mutually unintelligible. Mutual intelligibility is usually the most important factor in determining whether two speech forms are dialects or languages. Other factors are less important to linguists, but often are more important to non-linguists. Political, social, and even historical factors weigh in for non-linguists. In the case of Tsakonian, non-Greek linguists (much like non-Arab and non-Chinese linguists) will talk about Tsakonian and Greek as separate languages. Greek linguists, on the other hand, are more likely to call Tsakonian a dialect. The reasoning behind using "dialect" tends to be historical in this case--since Tsakonian descends from a dialect of Ancient Greek, it should still be called a dialect in modern usage. Non-Greek linguists separate them into distinct languages, however. But linguists (whether Greek or non-Greek) understand this terminological variation and realize the fundamental nature of the relationship between Modern Greek, Ancient Greek, and Tsakonian. Thus, we have two mutually unintelligible speech forms. For the majority of all linguists, that makes them different languages. Therefore, the usage of "Hellenic languages" is very clearly defined--it is the subgroup of Indo-European that includes Modern Greek (including the various mostly mutually-intelligible forms of Attic), Tsakonian, Ancient Greek, Mycenean Greek, and (possibly) Ancient Macedonian. (Taivo (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Kekrops, you will also notice that the American Heritage "fan" does not list all Indo-European languages either. Smaller languages are invariably omitted in its listing. So the fact that Tsakonian is omitted is not at all surprising. But the definition in the dictionary is not at all reliable linguistics. And you are mistaken about Linguasphere--look on page 450 of Volume Two and you will clearly see Tsakonia, 56-AAA-b listed separately from Helleniki, 56-AAA-a. The entire grouping is called Helleniki+Tsakonia, 56-A(AA). Yes, Baldi, like many linguists, ignores Tsakonian, but I listed it to show the common occurrence of "Hellenic" as the name of the subbranch of Indo-European that includes Greek and Tsakonian. If you read his other chapters you will see that he ignores a great many smaller, poorly documented Indo-European languages where there are better documented relatives. His chapters on Indo-Iranian are especially lacking in names of languages like Ishkashimi, Waigeli, and Indus Kohistani. He focuses this chapter almost entirely on Sanskrit and Avestan. So the absence of Tsakonian in Baldi is not at all surprising or troubling. There is quite sufficient evidence otherwise for Tsakonian being a separate, mutually unintelligible language. (Taivo (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

@Akerbeltz: To be fair, from the (excellent) volume you quote, p. 499 by Cl. Brixhe: "According to the best hypothesis the Tsakonian dialect is without doubt the successor not of ancient Laconian, but of a Laconian variant of the Koine". I highly doubt Pontic is any more intelligible to speakers of SMG. 3rdAlcove (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast...

Wow, this discussion has grown too fast and large for me to review it right now, before I even became aware of this new article. I'll only say, I'm not convinced of the need for this article at first glance, nor am I convinced of the justifiability of those strong statements about separateness. With regard to the ancient situation, the only reason to posit a separate "Hellenic" group is the unclear status of Ancient Macedonian, of which virtually nothing is securely known. The "Hellenic = Greek + Macedonian" tree as shown in the LinguistList catalog is only a very tentative guess – somewhere anticipated by B. Joseph in a paper, but not, to my knowledge, anything widely established. As for the modern situation, this is the first time I'm seeing Tsakonian cited as a reason to split up Greek into a "Hellenic Group". For all I can see, this is not academic consensus. I would warn against relying too much on Ethnologue and friends in such a question (notorious splitters); the wider literature on Greek unanimously treats Tsakonian as a modern Greek dialect, to the best of my knowledge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)