Talk:Proto-Greek language

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hy > Vy, where is this said to exist

Under the section Proto Greek changes there is the following passage

"Strengthening of word-initial y- to dy- > dz- (note that Hy- > Vy- regularly due to vocalization of laryngeals)."

The concern of this here is with the text in the parentheses specifically. Sihler 1995 and Bozzone 2013 both refute this.

For example Sihler (1995) says on page 187

"In G there are two outcomes: spiritus asper (which is sometimes then lost, 170b) and ζ... More recently it has been suggested that the two different G outcomes might reflect PIE word-initial *y- vs. *Hy-. (Or they might result from clusters of different laryngeals and *y). The laryngeal suggestion fits with the failure of any prothetic vowels (90) to develop in G before *y-,"

Special attention should be paid to the last sentence which claims that epenthetic (prothetic) vowels don't appear when preceding *y, directly opposite to the claim "note that Hy- > Vy- regularly due to vocalization of laryngeals".

Bozzone 2013 looks at specific proposed *Hy sequences in PIE and their reflexes in Greek and continues to not find any epenthetic vowels before *y. For example she gives

"ἅγιος (hắgĭos)‘holy’ < PIE *h₁yeh₂ǵ- ‘worship’ (with Lubotsky’s Law) or *h₁yaǵ- (LIV). The -i- vocalism of the reduplicant in the Sanskrit perfect ījé supports the laryngeal. The form must be from *Hi-Hih₂ǵ-, since a root *yeh₂ǵ- would have yielded *ya-ih₂ǵ- > **yeje (LIV s.v.)." (Romanization of Greek added by me for readability)

"Gk. ζέφυρος (zéphŭros) ‘west wind’ (and perhaps ζόφος (zóphos) ‘darkness’) < PIE *h₃yebʰ- ‘enter’. Compare οἴφω (oíphō) ‘futuo’ < *h₃e-h₃ibʰ- (Cheung 2007:175), Skt. yábhati ‘futuit’."

So what is the source that says *Hy becomes *Vy because everything I've seen has said the opposite. ChromeBones (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)