User talk:Rkosovsky

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edit to Ancient Greek phonology
You changed the /o:/ phonetic value to /u:/ in the vowels table, citing Allen. Now, of course, the consensus is that the sound in question was /o:/ at some early stage and became /u:/ at some later stage (that much is quite uncontroversal), so neither version is strictly wrong, but are you sure that your source specifically states it already was /u:/ at the time the article is describing? Because if you look at the context, the surrounding text of our article explicitly takes the stage where the sound was /o:/ (whenever that was) as a basis of its discussion, and then describes the change to /u:/ on that basis. Right now you made the table contradict the text.

Also, if the table is to say /u:/, it needs to go one row higher up in the table. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm really not sure what you are trying to achieve there. You're aware that you know have the passage about  and  inserted twice, right? Could you please discuss your edits on the talk page? Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry about the table error. I only meant to move the second passage to the diphthong section, IMHO it did not make sense to have some diphthong in the vowel section. About the /u:/, yes I am sure I even provided the citation. Did you really have to remove all the citations? The passage appears twice because of your revert. My edits were based on the Allen book, which I have right in front of me. Rkosovsky (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I was the 66.234.34.114 edit. If you are willing to place th Rkosovsky (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, I guessed that was you. Now, if you have the book in front of you, can you please check again exactly what time frame Allen means when he describes the system with  = /u:/, and more importantly, when he dates the preceding stage when the sound was /o:/, and the intervening sound shift? As for whether to place the passage in the long vowels or in the diphthongs section, it's basically moot: at the early stage the article was describing, the  and  combinations were crucially both, so they belong in both sections. And now you've described a stage where  was /u:/, but nevertheless placed it in the diphthongs section, which is a bit self-contradictory, because at that point it no longer was one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "..by the mid 4 c. the earlier Attic [ō with a . beneath (Advanced)] had become a fully close [ū],^40 as it certainly had by Roman times" 76-77 then later on 77 "In adopting a single pronunciation for ου, it seems preferable to choose [ū] rather than [ō with a . beneath (Advanced)] ...:. Rkosovsky (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On a another note the section on ν is wrong. In the case of compound nouns or phrases spoken as a unit νγ, νκ, νχ is pronounced as [ŋ], νβ, νπ, νφ is pronounced as [m], and ν is assimilated, i.e. ν is pronounced as the consonant, before the following consonants λ, μ, ρ, σ. Allen 33-34. I did not want to edit this in case I got into more trouble. The page is also missing the cases ενγ, ενκ, ενχ -> [eŋ] and εκθ, εκφ -> [ekʰ] and εκβ, εκδ, εκλ -> [eg] Allen, 17. Can I add these? Rkosovsky (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. But in the case of the vowels, that basically confirms the earlier version. "Mid 4 c." is significantly later than classical Attic, which is conventionally taken to mean 6th-5th c. Also, the passage you quote seems to be talking primarily about a practical issue, giving advice about adopting a reading pronunciation for use today, not really about reconstruction, which is what our article is about. For earlier Attic, the very quote you give does confirm the /o:/ value. I would suggest we return the tables to the way they were, but if you like we can add a note or something pointing out the difference between that system and the conventional modern reading pronunciation (if the o:-u: thing is the only significant difference). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What Allen says is that there is no definite evidence that by the 4th cent. ου was pronounced as [u:], but there is circumstantial evidence that the change happened before the 5th BCE. Therefore, on page 78, he shows that change as happening in the time period Pre-5c. at around the same time that the long υ changed from [u:] to a [y:]. In any case it would not be a pure [o:] but an Advanced [o:], a long o with a dot beneath it. Also, since the ει,ου are technically diphthongs don't they belong in the diphthong section, where I moved them in my second edit? Can I make the changes to the ν? Rkosovsky (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No,  and  are not "technically diphthongs". At the early stage the article was describing, they are partly diphthongs and partly not; at the later stage when  has become /u:/ they are clearly no longer diphthongs. Anyway, basically, it doesn't really matter terribly much whether the changes in question were slightly before classical Attic or during it or slightly after. The article was making a reasonable choice by picking one – essentially arbitrary – snapshot stage in the reconstructed history, describing that as a system, and then describing the changes shortly before and after on that basis. The presentation in the tables should just be consistent in picking this one system. And it made a reasonable choice in picking the stage that was most symmetrical and logical. I don't really see how your version makes the presentation more logical. Let me also say that the article as it was was once written by some of the finest experts on the topic we ever had here on Wikipedia; these guys really knew what they were doing. – About the consonants, no opinion; I haven't checked that part of the article yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that the article is poorly written. I am saying that it is contradicting Allen. The recommended pronunciations of Allen have become the standard pronunciation. I see them in my Mastronarde book. The question is: should wikipedia reflect the best current scholarly work, or wikipedia users. Is it not possible for Wikipedia users to be mistaken? Is the purpose of requiring citations, which the article lacks, not to eliminate these user errors? IMHO, if Allen gives a "clear recommendation" (78) that ου should be pronounced [u:], then it should. BTW Diphthong - "A union of two vowels pronounced in one syllable" (OED), so even if they are pronounced as a monosyllable ει,ου are by the OED diphthongs. Rkosovsky (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But it isn't contradicting Allen. It is just about something different. Allen is talking about "recommendations" how to pronounce it today. That's not what our article wants to do, it talks exclusively about how it was pronounced in the past. The facts the article presented are not contradicting Allen, because Allen too says that this stage existed, precisely as the article describes it. As for the definition of "diphthong", no, I'm afraid you are mistaken. A diphthong is, by definition, a union of two different spoken sounds. As soon as it's pronounced as a single sound, it's no longer a diphthong. That it's still written as two vowel symbols is immaterial (then it's a digraph, but not a diphthong.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying the distinction between digraph and diphthong. The footnote on page 77 gives the date as (6-5c.) for the o: to u: change, so the change occurred within the time period of the article. Anyway, I am going to end this thread. IF you want, you can make the changes. Allen says the changes happened before the 5th century, so it should be u:, but since you are the admin it can be o:. Rkosovsky (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)