Talk:Medieval Greek

Use as a Liturgical Language
Isn't the Greek used in the Liturgy of the Greek Orthodox Church essentially Medieval Greek?72.24.129.97 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin Greek
Reading Constantinus Porfirogenitus I found τούμβικας and not τού βικας, I don't know if it is relevant, just adding some info. Bruno Gripp 04:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin roots?
Suffixes

* -aton: Μαγιστράτον, μανδάτον, δουκάτον etc.

* -atos: Αμυγδαλάτος, καρυδάτος, κυδωνάτος, πιπεράτος etc.

* -arios: Νοτάριος, σχολάριος etc.

* -poullos/poullon: Κομητόπουλλος, Τουρκόπουλλος, Αρχοντόπουλλον, Φραγκόπουλλον etc.

* -isios: Καστρήσιος, κολονήσιος, βουνήσιος etc.

* -anos: Δέκανος, Πάγανος etc.

* -alion: Μανουάλλιον, Μενσάλλιον, τριβουνάλιον etc.

Are these all definitely suffixes of Latin origin? 201.21.96.49 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have to look things up, but it looks pretty plausible to me. For instance, the ones in -atos are obviously derived from passive participle forms of the Latin a-conjugation, in -atus. -arios comes from the Latin actor nominals in -arius (incidentally, English -er as in singer is borrowed from the same Latin ending). Those in -alion have the Latin adjectival ending -al-, as in μανοάλλιον < Lat. manual- < manus 'hand'. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of those forms had pre-existed in Greek but obtained a wider use via contacts with the Latin language. For the Greek -arios and -isios see names such as Makarios or Milesios etc; popularised due to resemblance with the Latin -arius and -isius. In Greek -atos had existed in most super-relative adjective forms (e.g. tritatos, presbytatos) but its use was extended to nouns via Latin contact where -atus was popular. Same with the Greek -aton (e.g. automaton), similar to the Latin -atum. Same with the Greek 'alion' e.g. alion, analion, idalion, eupalion etc, or '-anos' e.g. ouranos, melanos, amechanos, stephanos; becoming extended through contacts with Latin. The -poullos I think is the only hellenisation, coming from -pullus. As FPS noted, many, if not most, of the words you cited have actually got a Latin root. Miskin 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting as your arguments may be, they are flawed. -isius is not a Latin word ending; you must mean -ensis, as in castrensis, colonensis. You might also want to reconsider equating the superlative presbýtatos (with short, unstressed 'a') with the perfect tense participle piperátos (with stresed 'a'). Your explanation is too simplistic. Iblardi 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[Removed chaotic thread deteriorating into nastiness. Everybody please stop the sockpuppeting allegations and leave each other alone. Mind those mastodons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)]

The Anc.Gr. superlative ´-atos (unstressed, as in presbýtatos) is one thing; the Mod.Gr. derivational suffix -átos (stressed, as in piperátos) is another. The first is autochthonous, the second certainly a borrowing from Lat. -atus or its Romance reflexes. I don't think anybody was denying the latter, and I don't think anybody meant to equate the two. If anybody thinks the innovation of the second is somehow causally linked with the pre-existence of the first, as Miskin's wording may have implied, you're welcome to bring sources for that. Could be, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ω to ου
I find this feature interesting, but under what "restricted" circumstances did this mutation happen? Is there a source? I want to learn more about this. - Gilgamesh 10:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

multilingual support template
I wanted to insert text into another article using Medieval Greek, but I can't find a lang template for it... There appear to be only Modern Greek and Ancient Greek templates. SHould someone make a Med Gr template, or should I use one of the other existing ones?

Anatoly.bourov (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a separate template. Just spell out "Medieval Greek:" manually, and then say .... or . In terms of html markup, ancient and medieval doesn't really make a difference (important thing is just that the browser gets what instructions it needs to select a polytonic font.) Also, I'd use explicit "Medieval" only where it really makes a difference linguistically, otherwise, simply "Greek" is often quite appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Medieval greek in 500?
Medieval greek language starts 1100 CE and ends near 1700 in a period of intense cultural changes. Your dates are out of context my friends and this article inaccurate. Cambridge sources and the greek Lexicon of medieval language by Kriaras do agree on the above mentioned dates --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that the periodization is artificial to some degree. If you wish to propose a different one, you are welcome to provide sources. Iblardi (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, take a look at []--Flyax (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. It looks like the boundaries are rather fluid; the periodization of your source corresponds largely with that of the Cambridge project mentioned in the article. Yet there are other sources more traditionally(?) equating 'Medieval Greek' with 'the spoken language of the Byzantine period'. Perhaps someone with a more specialized knowledge could comment on this issue. Iblardi (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly I do not see any sources on this matter in the article. Secondly the main Lexicon for medieval greek language by Kriaras is quite affirmative on these dates Επιτομή Λεξικού της Μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματείας (1100-1669), the main source you 'll agree I think. Anyway when we are talking about languages we should provide linguistic context not historical. Even historical context though is a little bit controversial--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the source that the user above linked to. A different source, however, is referred to in the infobox. Although I am not completely sure, I think Browning has roughly the same boundaries for the 'medieval' period. It doesn't seem like a clear-cut issue. Iblardi (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that whoever created this infobox has done it on an arbitrary way, and is not providing sources. No sources at all even in the article. By the way clearly Mango refers in the link you provide that only after ninth century CE we can confirm greek as official language of the eastern roman empire. This date is coming closer to this one of medieval greek. What is described in this article actually is only koine and attikism, and a few words about iotakism the phenomenon that gets us to medieval language. --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be a misunderstanding. I provided no link, but I did provide a source for the periodizations in the infobox. What source are you referring to when you mention Mango, and in what way is his statement relevant to the discussion? Iblardi (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant when text is contradictory to source provided in the article? I'm refferinng to link provided into the article. Cambridge is irrelevant as source? It's also provided as link into the article. Anyway have a lokk into Oxford's perspective with a simple course description and maybe you ll find out what I'm talking about here--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently they have the medieval period end with the fall of Crete in 1669, but it is equally apparent that a "Medieval Greek language" is in existence before AD 959, when our article's Constantine is reporting bits from it. Iblardi (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Koine is not medieval, that's what I'm trying to say--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually The Koine is the direct ancestor of medieval and Modern Greek.

Francis T. Gignac

Francis T. Gignac "Greek"  The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press Inc. 1993. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Hellenic Open University. 23 October 2008 --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover Historiography and real literature reform are happening during 11th and 12th centuries... Before that atticism was in use identified with byzantine patriotism. From Francisco R. Adrados History of the greek language pp 388-389. See also Beck p. 48.

Later on Conquest of Constantinople and futher mixes with latin language created this idiom you are describing in the article. --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Μεσαιωνικής Ελληνικής Δημώδους Γραμματείας (1100-1669)" roughly translates to "Medieval Greek Demotic Literature" covering the first written sources of the emerging Modern Greek. That article noting "The start of the period of the Greek language known as "Modern Greek" is symbolically assigned in the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453), although strictly speaking it has been shaped since at least the 11th century." So the work probably covers the Greek written by writers such as Michael Glycas and Theodore Prodromus, the Greek recorded within the Acritic songs. Those works are covered in Modern Greek literature.

Medieval Greek actually attempts to cover the language used in written sources like the Strategikon of Kekaumenos and the Alexiad. They are not particularly similar. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the phonology part of this article describe the language of Alexiad? I don't think so. Anyway, boundaries for literature and language don't necessarily coincide. But if they do, then again the periodization proposed here has a great problem. --Flyax (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

what part of factual accuracy?
..is disputed?150.140.225.175 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dates!! Ofcourse Medieval Koine is a common misconception reproduced in the internet because of this lemma--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Unfortunately, I am obliged to report this: the Vocabulary and Phonology sections of this article are simply a translation from The book History of the Greek Language - Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας by Nikolaos Andriotis. I've just found the book, so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment. --Flyax (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if two sections are the problem, why obscure the entire article behind the copyvio message? This doesn't seem very helpful. What about the other sections?
 * I have looked at the history, and it looks like the Vocabulary section, at least, was created, not as a single contribution but in several phases, by user:Miskin. I know that I have contributed some material, and I am wondering how this could be a simple translation without me being an accomplice. Could you give us some further insight, for instance by quoting a few passages from the book? Iblardi (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Flyax for bringing this to our attention. I've removed the sections for the time being. I too would like to see some sample of just how close it was to the original. If something can be salvaged we can still bring it back. I don't think we need to use the big hammer and delete the article in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The only difference I can see from the Greek text is the addition of the Latin origin for some words. Nothing more. I could e-mail you a scanned copy of 2 or 3 pages, I guess. Even if you can't read Greek, at least you will be able to discern the number of examples put in with exactly the same order. So, If you want me to do so, please send me an e-mail via wiki. --Flyax (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, use the "big hammer". Both remaining paragraphs (History, Evolution from Ancient to Medieval Koine) are nothing else but a translation from the same book. The damage seems to have been made three years ago and all the edits made since then didn't change the basic fact that this article, as a whole, is a copyvio. --Flyax (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dang. :-(
 * But thanks for doing the detective work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted article, recreated with a very quick stab at a replacement stub. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Really I think that some people should do their homework better before wiseassly destroying other people's hard work. My main sources on this article were the following: First, the lectures of Andriotis (translated from Greek), secondly 'Histoire du grec moderne' by Henri Tonet (translated from French), and thirdly Britannica's article on 'Byzantine Greek'. Unfortunately I never got to finish the article, so much of the text that dominated was in fact from Andriotis. The book in question (history of the Greek language) is a compilation of the author's university lectures on the Greek language, which were unpublished and in the public domain at the time of their writing. The lectures were compiled and published into a book after the author's death. On the other hand, the article that you destroyed was most certainly not a copyright violation on the simple grounds that eventhough a translation, it was an original transation, not one ripped from an already published source. Copyvio would have been to either dump in the original source or one of its published english translations, uncited and unquoted. This is something that I could not have done anyway because a) this is english wikipedia and b) in my knowledge there is no english translation of this work. If the translation is original work and the original source is explicitely mentioned, then there's no question of copyvio, it's as simple as that; if you don't acknowledge that then you have a lot more of detective work to do in wikipedia. At a time when there was no article for medieval-Byzantine Greek and only a redirect for Koine Greek, I actually took the time and put in the effort to create something by providing wikipedia with an original and faithful translation of a very reliable source. And what did you do? Years later, on your 5th edit in wikipedia you destroy it. Koine Greek too started off almost as a mere translation but then after many people's contributions, it became a great article. This is what would have happened with this article too if you had actually cared to contribute rather than be a wiseass. I mean you didn't even make an effort to change the text around and make it less scandalising for you or whatever, which is what wikipedia copyvio policy suggests as a first step. But of course, it's easier to destroy than to create. Miskin (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are mistaken on several counts. Neither it being unpublished, nor it being an original translation, nor it being cited, makes it any less of a copyvio. What makes you think somebody's lecture scripts become "public domain" just because the person dies? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow that was a fast response, but I wasn't really referring to you FPS but to the person who blanked the page and replaced it with copyvio template. It's not about what I think, it's about what I've read, but right now after such a long time (I'm not even in possession of the book anymore) I can't really prove that the original sources is public domain which is why I'm defending my edits the normal way. The fact is dear FPS that in this case what can be and what cannot be regarded as copyvio is something open to dispute, and blanking out a page does not answer the problem. This article was far from copyvio according to wikipedia standards. If you look at the section original text it contains only some 10% of it. This guy was scandalised because in this 10% it uses a very close translation and the same examples as the original source, with the same numbering? And he blanks out the article because of that, that's just ridiculous. If he had wanted to contribute instead of being a wiseass he could have just changed the numbering or even the whole examples, rewritten/replaced parts of the text rather than destroying it completely and giving it a stub status. Hell, he could've even put a template, point out the problem in talk and let other people deal with this, those who actually care about contributing. Miskin (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone disagrees with the deletion of the previous article, there is no need to use offensive remarks. It's very easy to prove what is and what isn't a copyvio. I'm sure that an administrator could send to anyone interested a copy of the deleted article and I am willing to send via e-mail some scanned pages of the book. The similarity is obvious, in my opinion, but since I am not anything more than a "wiseass", we'll find someone else to judge it. --Flyax (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, right now the old history is even accessible again. Somebody undeleted it earlier this month, I don't know why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I undeleted it because it was not clear from the deletion summary what this was supposed to be a copyvio of. I'm looking into it now. bd2412  T 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From text passages in the book Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (History of the Greek Language) by Nikolaos Andriotis, as described by Flyax in his initial postings in this thread. The book was published in Greek in 1992 or 1995 and is a posthumous compilation of four essays based on original lecture notes of Andriotis from the 1960s. It's apparently also available in a translated English edition now. (Just as a side note, I think it would have been better admin style if you'd asked first, before unilaterally undeleting.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I for once don't find this to be copyvio, else I would have never posted it, but this is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about how things should be done in order to ameliorate wikipedia as well as respect the people who have put an effort to achieve its development. Of course there is similarity with the original text, I've already stated that it was a close translation from two or three paragraphs of the book's section on the topic, that was never a secret but an article initiation. For once I find it offensive to have my efforts labeled "surprise and disappointment" and then removed and replaced with a copyvio tag, translating isn't an easy thing to do but deleting is, so for me this is wiseassness. Really it would take 5 minutes to just change it around (which is what wikipedia advises to do) instead of trying to prove a pointless point. Or if you don't have those 5 minutes then you should have -at the time- contacted the editor of the article and/or an administrator instead of blanking out the page. If I had ever got the chance to finish the article by integrating the information from Britannica and Tonet, then the article wouldn't have resembled its untranslated form so much. I didn't get the chance to do it at the time, and no-one else contributed except Iblardi so the article got stuck with the initial edit from Andriotis' book. So if you had ever contacted me I would've fixed it at once. I can accept being accused for a bad translation but not for plagiarism. Removing one's edits in the way you did to your "surprise and disappointment" is really offensive to the person who devoted time and effort to make a contribution to wikipedia. I will repair the article within the next week. Miskin (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under United States copyright law (applicable to Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States), an author has the sole authority to translate or permit translations of his own work. A translation is expressly set forth as a form of derivative work in 17 U.S.C. § 101, and § 106(2) states that "the owner of copyright" has the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Now, the fair use exception applies to derivative works as well, but the taking has to be no more than is necessary (and in this case, very little would be "necessary" because this could have been written in original words from the beginning). bd2412  T 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please answer the following questions: Where is it stated that US law applies in wikipedia? Does US law apply on works that have never been published in the US? How do you know in what degree the translation is similar to the original? Who's going to judge whether it is "necessary" to have a close translation and whether this could have been written from the beginning or not? How do you know that I wasn't able or willing to ask permissions from the university of Thessaloniki to use a bunch of their examples in wikipedia? Why wasn't this research made in October after having listed the article for copyvio reviewing as wikipedia states? Why do you insist on arguing with someone who has no intention of changing the status quo and has already stated that he would rewrite the text in order to unstub the article? No matter what you think you must at least admit that there's enough open questions not to breach wikipedia's 7-day guideline on this topic. Thank you. Miskin (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some information that might be useful to you: Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays. commons:Commons:Licensing may also be helpful in this regard. Most of the WMF servers are located within the U.S., so we are obliged to follow U.S. copyright.  In addition we consult the copyright of the country where the work originated.  If permission of the copyright holder is sought so that the work or derivatives of it can be included here, that permission gets recorded on the article talk page, after a copy of the permissions email goes to OTRS (see Requesting_copyright_permission). I would ask that you avoid characterisations of contributors such as "wiseass"; they don't add anything to the discussion and will simply anger other editors. Having said all that, I would be very glad to see a revised article on Medieval Greek which, though well sourced, does not pose any copyright problems. Thanks, -- ArielGlenn (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Miskin, let me be perfectly clear here. There is no question that Wikipedia, which has servers in the United States, is subject to U.S. copyright law, which specifically applies to all works produced in countries that are members of the Berne Convention (which definitely includes Greece, and all but a handful of other countries in the world). Under U.S. copyright law, Wikipedia is sheltered from copyright infringement suits so long as it takes care to have in place processes for removing infringing works. You, however, are not protected by this provision. The owners of the copyright can file a lawsuit against you, in the United States or wherever you live. They can force Wikipedia to divulge your true identity (and don't imagine that Wikipedia will resist a court order requiring the conveyance of such information). They can get a judgment against you and have your local government seize your bank account. In this country, that happens every single day. So please do not take copyrights lightly. bd2412  T 08:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's now quite clear what happened. So, I hope that the previously deleted edits will be removed again. I also want to say that I have confidence in user Miskin's skills and willingness to contribute constructively to the newly started article but I expect an apology for their offensive words. --Flyax (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your confidence but as you've probably guessed by now I'm not gonna make any edits because I can't be bothered with this type of thing anymore. I'm tired of wikipedia's hypocrisy on things like copyright issues and maintaining neutral point of view. It's a waste of precious energy and time. Good luck with editing this article (that something tells me it will retain a stub status for a very long time). Miskin (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing I'd like to add is that by now I highly support that the article should be renamed to 'Byzantine Greek', which is undisputedly the most popular English terminology for the given topic. Miskin (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a problem. That phonological history (progression of sound changes) was extremely informative and enlightening. We need to reconstruct all that. As you could tell from my userboxes, I don't give an expletive about copyrights. But even if we have to abide by them, there must be a way the conceptual data can be digested if it was true history. The wholesale deletion of this data is...just grievous. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Still disputed...
Still disputed for the above mentioned reasons --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean the dating? What we all need to be aware of is that there is never any objective truth about such period boundaries. They are for the most part conventional labels, nothing more. What we ought to have in the article is a short section called "periodization", discussing the various labels and cutoff times that have been proposed in the literature. There will doubtless be many different versions out there, as with almost any language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be much easier if you just renamed this aricle to Byzantine Greek. It's both the most popular and best descriptive name. Miskin (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not since Byzantine Greek is an invention of the XIX century by the 'Germans'. Just like 'Byzantine Empire'. Everything was Greek based on medieval Greek sources. Thus 'Medieval Greek' and 'Greek Christian Orthodox Empire'. I wonder why the 'Germans' would distribute that large quantity of lies... oh, wait! 78.55.25.172 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A sample list of words first attested in Med. Greek
That would be cool & useful, a sample of words first attested in Medeival Greek: buzi(on)?, poungion? etc. In Romanian there is pungă (bag, the most common Romanian word for bag), which according to the 2002 NODEX is from New Greek punghi, while buzi(on) is the source of buzunara, Ro. buzunar (pocket, the most common Romanian word for pocket, in fact I can't find or think of a synonym). Alex (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

loanwords from other languages small comment
some of the loanwords included dont have a certain origin so im not sure if they are good for showcasing the different languages that influenced greek...both alb louloúdi and slav gouna eg have been thought of as latin loans into greek also..perhaps they should be replaced by words that have certain origins (like loutsa<alb llucë puddle of water and kounadi/kounavi/ps/ and /xs/>/ks/ affected letters ψ and ξ "internally". This implies that we are suggesting that ψ/ξ were double consonants for φσ/χσ–and went through the same sound changes as φ/χ from aspirated plosive to fricative. This is inline with Wiktionary's pronunciation keys for Greek, which have words like ψυχή as /pʰsyː.kʰɛ᷄ː/>/ɸsy.ˈxi/>/psi.ˈçi/ or ἄξιος as /ákʰsi.os/>/ˈaxsios/>/ˈaksios/. However, I have not seen any other source which says that these pronounced /pʰs/ and /kʰs/ and not /ps/ and /ks/, remaining unchanged since ancient times. Despite the Old Athenian writings of ΦΣ/ΧΣ, Horrocks believes that this actually "impl[ies] that [s] was perceived as having an acoustic effect on the preceding plosive analogous to aspiration" (Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, pg. 40) If indeed we are claiming that ψ/ξ were aspirated plosives>fricatives, please find sourcing. If not, remove this point. Keep in mind also that, for consistency's sake, Wikipedia's page on "Psi (letter)" states that, "In both Classical and Modern Greek, the letter indicates the combination /ps/" and the one on "Xi (letter)" also has it as [ks] in ancient and modern times.

Iotacist (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Iotacist


 * Thanks for spotting this. I have to admit I find it hard to parse what the expression "happened internally to ψ" is even supposed to mean. But I quite agree a sound development of /pʰs/ > /fs/ > /ps/ (in words spelled with <ψ> throughout) is implausible. I would otherwise have assumed that the line about /fs/ > /ps/ was meant to refer to cases like "καύσω" > "κάψω". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval Greek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703174017/http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/ to http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/greek/grammarofmedievalgreek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge Grammar of Medieval Greek
Just wondering: I heard that the Cambridge Grammar of Medieval Greek in book form is supposed to come out this year. Does anyone know when?Iotacist (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Iotacist

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval Greek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722001959/http://www.toufexis.info/archives/77 to http://www.toufexis.info/archives/77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A question of φ
Wasn't an important development in Medieval/Middle/Byzantine Greek the sound change /ɸ/ > /f/ for the letter φ (or /pʰ/ > /ɸ/ > /f/ for the letter φ, depending upon how early one begins the "Middle" period of Greek's development)? This was a relevant datum that I learned about the historical evolution of Greek phonology in my studies, and I can no longer find it anywhere on the page. It seems that a discussion of this development was lost somewhere in the years this page has been updated. Either way, a discussion of this transition of /ɸ/ > /f/ (if not also /pʰ/ > /ɸ/) seems warranted. - --Webspidrman (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Consonants
[fθ] → [ft] (φθόνος ['fθonos] → φτόνος ['ftonos])

But αὐθέντης → αφέντης, i.e. the origin of [f] mattered? Or was it an exception? 89.64.68.220 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Article name
Is there any good reason why the native name "Romaic" is kept so obscured behind numerous "scientific" names, despite it being the endonym and adequately describing it's own relation to Greek history? RadomirZinovyev 23:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)