Talk:Ancient Greek

chaos in romanization of Ancient Greek

Wiktionary uses only the scientific romanization whereas we don't even list it and instead list three others. I think it's a very bad idea to use a different romanization than Wiktionary does. Most editors will copy-paste romanizations from there.

In addition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lang-grc refers to this page but doesn't explain which of the three romanizations listed should be used.

The easiest and best solution would be to automate the process using the code at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:inherited or is it https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Module:grc-translit ? --Espoo (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mhm Atarilynx999 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Wiktionary model is necessarily the best to follow here. I don't know who exactly came up with that scheme on Wiktionary, but there is no sourcing for it being an established "scientific" system at all. In fact, it was only claimed to be that well after the fact , by somebody who identified it with a system that was then being presented in our Romanization of Greek page as the "scientific one" (), but (a) that alleged "scientific" system on Wikipedia was at that time also unsourced, and (b) the Wiktionary system wasn't in fact identical with it (Wiktionary uses ⟨u⟩ for ⟨υ⟩, while Wikipedia was listing ⟨y⟩; Wiktionary uses ⟨kh⟩ for ⟨χ⟩, while Wikipedia was listing ⟨ch⟩).

So I think it will be much better to stick to the actual standardized and sourced system that we are presenting in Romanization of Greek now. Actually, this page lists only one serious contender for Ancient Greek, the one labelled "ALA-LC" (the table column labelled "classical" refers to the spellings of Greek names and loanwords in classical Latin, while the "Beta code" isn't really meant as a human-readable transliteration system at all). I haven't checked whether this "ALA-LC" system is identical in all points with what we used to present as the "scientific" system without sourcing earlier, but it may well be; for what I can see, it's really Wikitionary that's the odd one out here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Periods of Ancient Greek (confusing)

In the first paragraph of the article we read that Ancient Greek:

   is often roughly divided into the following periods:
   Mycenaean Greek , Dark Ages, the Archaic period, and
   the Classical period.

In the second paragraph of the article we read:

   This article primarily contains information about
   the Epic and Classical periods of the language.

The Epic period? This is very confusing. No Epic period was previously mentioned. So, to which of those periods of the first paragraph does the Epic period of the second paragraph correspond? Toddcs (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Toddcs: Clearer now? The term "Epic Greek" redirects to Homeric Greek, and "Epic" in the quoted sentence leads there too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke Yes, thanks so much. Toddcs (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2026

At the beginning of the page, change IPA of Ἑλληνική from WRONG [hellɛːnikɛ́ː] to CORRECT [hellɛːnikɛ̌ː]. Also, possibly change the aforementioned IPA transcription's language from 'el' (technically Modern Greek) to 'grc' (Ancient Greek). (I am not sure if the reason it is currently 'el' has to do with a Wikipedia policy, but I am almost certain it should be 'grc') CryonicGoat2 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The "wrong" and "correct" phonetic notations you mentioned above are identical. Furthermore, I changed 'el' to 'grc', although they both link to Help:IPA/Greek. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if this response might seem rude, but actually, the two notations are different. The "wrong" one has an acute (rising tone) on the Eta, the final vowel, while the "correct" one has an inverted circumflex (falling-rising tone). At least on Wiktionary, it seems like long vowels, such as Eta, usually have a falling-rising tone ([ɛ̌ː] not [ɛ́ː]).

Is the policy/norm different on Wikipedia? If so, I apologize if this request was a waste of time. CryonicGoat2 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I overlooked that, my mistake. However, shouldn't the proper notation be [hellɛːnikɛ̂ː] instead? – Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That would also be wrong. A circumflex (what you suggested) indicates a rising-falling tone, which would be correct IF the word were Ἑλληνικῆ with **-ῆ. However, since it has an acute, it should be the falling-rising tone, [ɛ̌ː] not [ɛ̂ː].

On further looking, it seems like Wikipedia (from Help:IPA/Greek) doesn't use the falling-rising terminology, but the symbols themselves are the same as what I'm used to. It gives the example of "ἐγώ [eɡɔ̌ː]" for an acute on a long vowel, with the inverted circumflex. So in summary, at least with Wikipedia (and Wiktionary, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ἑλληνική) norms, [hellɛːnikɛ̌ː] with an inverted circumflex is correct. CryonicGoat2 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that the tone diacritics as defined in IPA are visually somewhat counter-intuitive: <ɛ́> is not rising but level high; <ɛ̌> is not fall-rise but simply rising, <ɛ̂> is not rise-fall but simply falling. The convention given at Help:IPA/Greek implies that a Greek acute on a short vowel is level high, a Greek acute on a long vowel is rising, and a Greek circumflex is falling. I don't know if that's universally agreed as a phonological reconstruction, but at least it sounds somewhat plausible, so going with the caron diacritic in this case looks ok to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

OP is correct. An acute accent on a long vowel is usually assumed to have a rising tone, not a regular (level) high tone. See Ancient Greek phonology#Accent.  ~ Teangacha (talk; contribs). 14:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)