Template talk:Ancient Greek dialects

Discussion of map and legend

DO NOT TRUST THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.176.108 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Macedon (the Chalcidice) is shown as "Ionic". Is this correct? Shouldn't it be Attic? And why is Lesbian Greek shown as Attic? Shouldn't it be Aeolic? Is this really what's in the source? --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lesbos is clearly shown as Aeolic, I guess you must be looking at the wrong island (perhaps Lemnos?) As for Chalcidice, yes, the source map has Ionic there. Personally I have no idea what's correct in this case, I'm just blindly following the model.

Update: According to our Chalcidice article, it was colonised between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, by settlers first from Euboea, then in a second wave from Andros, so yes, that would point to Ionic.

About the status of Macedonian (which you removed from the legend again), let me just explain the status in the source. Woodard is not mentioning XMK in the context of his main "Greek dialects" chapter at all, and shows it as outside the Greek language area in the map that accompanies that chapter. He does however have a short section on XMK in his general introduction, "Language in ancient Europe", in a row with some other fragmentary languages such as Ligurian and Illyrian (p. 9-11 in the book I was quoting). That section gives the state of the art as based on the known treatments in Katicic (1976) and Brixhe/Panayotou (1994), and ends up with a skeptical-agnostic assessment ("it remains unclear if Greek was the native language of the Macedonians [̇…] if such sets [i.e. kebalá/κεφαλή et cetera] are rightly analyzed as cognates, the Macedonian language departs conspicuously from Greek […]"). Nothing new here for those of us already familiar with the literature, of course. I just thought, since he does treat it and doesn't explicitly reject it, it wouldn't be a huge distortion of his source to have the entry in the legend. But I won't insist on it.

By the way, you also specified the time frame to "4th century" again, implying somewhere that you'd consider the earlier version "5th century". Which specific difference would that be based on? I'm quite ignorant of the details of settlement history here, just curious, what's more -4th-centuryish about this map than about the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• re the century, we can say classical period too. I conclude this must be the 4th century because the Chalcidice is "already" Atticized, but then it isn't so much atticized as "Ionicized", so I'm confused by that.
• re Woodward's treatment of XMK, Woodard is not mentioning XMK in the context of his main "Greek dialects" chapter at all ... He does however have a short section on XMK in his general introduction. This is perfectly sensible, and we should do the same. "Wikipedia does not treat XMK in its {{Greek dialects}} template, but it does have a dedicated Ancient Macedonian language article where it gives some skeptical-agnostic assessments". XMK belongs treated with other fragmentary languages of the region, not with the standard Greek dialects. Our WP:RS do that, so we do the same, it's as simple as that. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine with me, guess that's a sensible way of looking at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

About Ionian Chalcidice, see my addition above, that may actually well be compatible with 6th-5th centuries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I appreciate that you have made the "MACEDONIAN" label in the colour of "NW Greek". That's fair enough, I suppose, hinting at the agnostic assessment that XMK has been connected to NW Greek by "some authors". dab (𒁳) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• doh, Lemnos, sorry. So why is Lemnos Attic? That sounds very 4th-centurish to me. ok, Lemnos was conquered by Miltiades the Younger and thus came under Attic influence at an early time. I guess that's why it is painted Attic. In reality, of course, much of Lemnos would have remained non-Greek / "Pelasgian" until the Hellenistic period. But ok, there was an Attic colony, so this justifies the coloring. --dab (𒁳) 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Chalcidice, I see. So the Ionic, non-Attic situation is actually the pre-Atticization situation, pointing to the 5th century. I was wrong then, the map is indeed intended to show the situation in the 5th century. I suggest we just stick to "classical" though. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (what else)

click to see offtopic discussion on the status of the Ancient Macedonian language

....we keep on debating on the obvious... Wikipedia, as is commonly accepted by historians worldwide, is clear on the matter that the ancient Macedonians spoke a language if not Greek then a "close cousin" to it. I unfortunately have not read the work of Woodward (I will in the near future) but I have read many historians' works who on their part claim that Ancient Macedonian was indeed a Greek dialect and others who claim that it was a protohellenic language as seems to be attested by Herodot himself. Now, dear Dbachman, I never said that in this map we should present ancient Macedonian as a Greek dialect (although I truly believe it was and, as I hope you yourself are, am not some internet dabbler) but that it should also be obvious that it possibly/probably IS a Greek dialect. By presenting it as a clearly non-hellenic language we distort history, reality and Wikipedia's own view on the matter. So, Macedonian, SHOULD be shown on this map in a way that CLEARLY points to that point of view. It might be with a color of its own or/and with a legend CLEARLY stating this probability. Not doing that would be a clearly nationalistic act with the sole purpose to depict Macedonians as clearly non-Greeks. As for my comment on changing the date of the map back to the 7th century BC, this, according to my opinion, should be done to avoid further mixup on this matter, since the vast majority of archaeological evidence we have on the Greekness of the speech of the Macedonians comes from the 5th century and onwards, while Greek colonization had already taken place, so that the rest of the map can look OK. Thus, it is easier to accept that Macedonians did not speak Greek before this time, as is also proposed by some historians but were later hellenized. I could propose stating that it is a Greek dialect and have a legend pinpointing to the possibility that it wasn't, as should be more proper, but even that I do not do... This "Macedonia was never Greek" fairytale has to stop here. We try to find ways to inaggressively present all sides of the story and then somebody comes along to accuse anyone who does not side with the "Macedonia was never Greek" story as nationalists... FPaS, please, do what you yourself proposed and let us stop this POVed argument. And of course the map by Woodward has changed a lot from the original (unless this is another map of his?), so I guess that now we should add "based on.." and do our bests to improve on it at least where clear historical data can be found. GK1973 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Sigh. Repeated for the millionth-and-sixth time. No, we are not going to present Macedonians as either Greeks or non-Greeks. We are, however, presenting ancient Macedonian as not part of the topic area of mainstream ancient Greek dialectology. Which is a fact, like it or not, period. It's just the state of the art in this discipline. As for how close the map is to its original: I don't see your point. We say "after...", you want "based on..."; what's the difference? The original map differs from ours only in superficial details at this point. It's in black and white with hatching instead of colours; it extends to southern Italy (which I've split out into a separate map); it has fewer cities and ancient region names marked, instead it has the names of the modern states included (guess what, it says "Macedonia" where you wouldn't like to see it); it lacks the legend for "Illyrian" (don't know why); and it has "Macedonian" printed diagonally over a somewhat larger area; but crucially in the same font as "Thracian" and "Lydian". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Yeah, Woodard has Macedonian spoken entirely south of "Macedonia". I must admit to enjoying a laugh when I saw that one. As for your "crucially" bit, are you suggesting that the fact he uses the same font for Thracian and Lydian means he considers Macedonian to be a similarly non-Greek language, and, if so, that we should endorse that view? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) "after" means copy, "based" means worked on... and the map has changed a lot since its first appearance here, which also was "after...", so excuse me for not being able to determine the extend of changes you made on a map of which I do not have the original. As for the other part, "like it or not", Macedonia will be presented as a disputed linguistic area or NOT at all. You cannot present it as a NON GREEK speaking region and then say that "we are not going to present Macedonians as either Greeks or non-Greeks". Who are you trying to kid here? The map was to start with disputed and reported as false for some reasons. NOT dealing with the reasons do not do the job here. So, it is either a disputed area or not. For me it is not, for you it surely is not but for wikipedia it is. So, again, "for the millionth-and-sixth time", make it look so or this will just go on... I really do not understand your problem... Is it that you want various "contradictory" linguistic maps to appear in the article? It is as easy to produce another "linguistic map" and perplex things more by keeping both.. Is this what we are after? If so just state it and stop trying to sound neutral.. GK1973 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Are you serious, you are really proposing to hide the name of Macedonia (or "Macedonian") from the map, censoring out this simple piece of entirely uncontroversial fact (yes, Macedonia really was up there after all), just so as to not make the reader detect the shocking fact that it's not being shown as Greek? That's the weirdest form of censorship I've seen in a while. Look, dab really stated it quite clearly. We will simply do what the reliable sources do. Period. It's the f..ing Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages, that's about as close to the paradigm of a representative reliable source as you can get. And it's not alone in what it's doing. And "make it look so or this will just go on" sounds very much like a threat of continued disruption. You don't really want to sound like this in a Wikipedia discussion, it's not good for you. You are in no position to give me threats or ultimatums; I've humored your antics for long enough and I'm not going to create yet a fourth map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) To back up Fut.Perf., I am not willing do descend into any kind of Macedonian silliness with this template. It is enough to rehash the same boring facts over and over at Talk:Ancient Macedonian language. It is unacceptable to be forced discussing them again at unrelated talkpages. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC) This has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with your insistence to present Macedonia as a CONCLUSIVELY NON GREEK SPEAKING region. If you persist in this then I will also persist. It is not me who gave the first ultimatum but you. I used the same phraseology as you and you considered it threatening? Welcome to the club! So did I. So, I do not really care about your opinion and you have already confessed that the bibliography does not exclude the possibility that Macedonian was a Greek dialect just as it does not exclude the possibility that it was not. As anybody can see in the appropriate article, ancient Macedonian was probably a Greek dialect, a fact you insist on disregarding in an attempt to further idiotic political agendas. It is you who try to de facto impose on us your opinion, not we that try to hide any theories on the non-Greekness of Macedonian. I can as easily produce accounts of how Macedonian is a Doric or Doric-Aeolic dialect and you know it, since you have confronted them in the past. Wikipedia IS SUPPORTING THIS, you are not. So, again... Clearly denote in your map that Macedonian is a possible Greek (or non Greek) dialect and we are OK. Do not and of course we will keep on disputing your map. Even a CLEAR clarification that Woodard supports that ancient Macedonian is not a Greek dialect (if he really does so, for I really do not hold you as a trustworthy source on Woodward either, since this map has changed legends and dates as many times as the days in a year and still is what he suggests...), a fact that is disputed would be OK. But nooooo... your only "non-POV", "non-nationaliostic" and "academically supported mainstream" position is that Macedonian is NOT and CONCLUSIVELY NOT a Greek dialect (if it was not just a Doric or Aeolic one...). GK1973 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Plonk. As we used to say on Usenet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Oh well, except if the map wants to claim that nothing was spoken in Macedonia at the time, or that people could talk only in Chalcidice or that only Chalcidice was populated.And it seems in Thrace only few talked in the coasts. Babiniotis (for exemple) says this: μακεδονική γλώσσα: η αρχαία Μακεδονική και η ψευδώνυμη γλώσσα των Σκοπίων.Λέγοντας μακεδονική γλώσσα εννοούμε μια αρχαία ελληνική διάλεκτο δωρικής υφής, γνήσια και αρχαιοπινή ελληνική γλώσσα, που τη γνωρίζουμε από το περιορισμένο, πράγματι, υλικό που έχει διασωθεί (πρόκειται για 350 περίπου λέξεις, 150 προσηγορικά και 200 κύρια ονόματα, που μαρτυρούνται κυρίως από δύο λεξικογράφους, τον Ησύχιο και τον Αμερία). Η διάλεκτος αυτή, επειδή πρώιμα καθιερώθηκε η Αττική ως επίσημη γλώσσα (διάλεκτος) του μακεδονικού κράτους για πολιτικούς λόγους, χρησιμοποιήθηκε κυρίως στον προφορικό λόγο, γι'αυτό και δεν έχουν σωθεί πρώιμες επιγραφικές μαρτυρίες στη διάλεκτο, ενώ σώζονται 6.000 περίπου μακεδονικές επιγραφές σε αττική διάλεκτο. Μαρτυρίες αρχαίων γραμματικών, σχολιαστών, λεξικογράφων πείθουν ότι τη μακεδονική διάλεκτο τη θεωρούσαν από τις αρχαιότερες ελληνικές διαλέκτους, χρησιμοποιώντας το υλικό της για να υποστηρίξουν διάφορες ετυμολογικές και άλλες γλωσσικές παρατηρήσεις.Ως προς τη "μακεδονική" γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, πρόκειται στην πραγματικότητα για μια βουλγαρική στη δομή της διάλεκτο (κατατάσσεται από τους γλωσσολόγους μαζί με την βουλγαρική γλώσσα), που άρχισε να εκσερβίζεται με βάση τα ιδιώματα των περιοχών Prilep, Bitolja, Kicev και Veles από το 1944, όταν τα Σκόπια απετέλεσαν τη "Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας" στην ενιαία Γιουγκοσλαβία τουυ Τίτο. Ο τεχνητός εκσερβισμός της βουλγαρικής διαλέκτου των Σκοπίων και η κατασκευή (από ομάδα γλωσσολόγων) εθνικής δήθεν γλώσσας από τα επιμερούς ιδιώματα έγινε για πολιτικούς λόγους, για να αποφευχθούν οι διεκδικήσεις των Βουλγάρων, που θεωρούσαν τα Σκόπια και τους κατοίκους τους βουλγαρική περιοχή. Ο σλαβολόγος Andre Vaillant γράφει "το όνομα Bugari [δηλ.Βούλγαροι] είναι στην πραγματικότητα η εθνική ονομασία των Σλάβων της Μακεδονίας [αναφέρεται στα Σκόπια], πράγμα που δείχνει πως (οι Σλάβοι της περιοχής αυτής) υιοθέτησαν το όνομα Βούλγαροι, που τους έδωσαν οι Σέρβοι". Ο δε Ιταλός γλωσσολόγος Vittore Pisani σημειώνει:"Πράγματι ο όρος μακεδονική γλώσσα είναι προϊόν πολιτικής ουσιαστικά προέλευσης". Η τεχνητά αποψιλωμένη από το υπερισχύον αρχικά, βουλγαρικό γλωσσικό υλικό γλώσσα των Σκοπίων, από τους Βούλγαρους μεν αποκλήθηκε "κολισεφσκκή Σερβική", ως φτιαχτή γλώσσα του τότε πρωθυπουργού των Σκοπίων Λ.Κολισέφσκι, στην πράξη όμως είναι μία νεοσλάβικη βουλγαροσερβική γλώσσα μιας περιοχής που το 1918 αποτελούσε "Νότια Σερβία" ή "τη διοικητική περιφέρεια τού Βαρδάρη". Μετά τα λεχθέντα, είναι φανερό πως ό,τι αποκαλείται από τους Σκοπιανούς "μακεδονική γλώσσα" δεν έχει καμία σχέση με την πραγματική αρχαία ελληνική γλώσσα της Μακεδονίας, αλλά αποτελεί μια "ψευδώνυμη" κατασκευή για πιθανές διεκδικήσεις στην ελληνική Μακεδονία. (G.Babiniotis, Lexicon of the Modern Greek Language, pg 1038. Lexicology Centre 2002, 2nd edition, ISBN 960-86190-1-7) It is too long to translate, so it will be translated only if there is grave need to. If anyone wants to translate this, and they are able to, please go on. --Michael X the White (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I don't have time to translate the whole thing but I think this sums it up: Μαρτυρίες αρχαίων γραμματικών, σχολιαστών, λεξικογράφων πείθουν ότι τη μακεδονική διάλεκτο τη θεωρούσαν από τις αρχαιότερες ελληνικές διαλέκτους, χρησιμοποιώντας το υλικό της για να υποστηρίξουν διάφορες ετυμολογικές και άλλες γλωσσικές παρατηρήσεις. Approximate translation: Reports of ancient grammatists, commentators and lexicographers persuade that the Macedonian dialect was considered [to be by them as ] one of the more ancient Greek dialects, using its material to support various etymological and other linguistic observations. Dr.K. (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Don't bother citing Babiniotis here, Michael. FP has already derided him in the past as a nationalist propagandist. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about. Sure, Woodard doesn't include Macedonian in his map. So what? Shouldn't we strive to "do it better" than him, to paraphase FP? Shading XMK in a different colour and mentioning that its classification is uncertain would hardly be the end of the world. Nor would it be "caving in" to "Greek nationalism"; the legend would be agnostic, as it should do. And, given that it would provide the most complete picture of the greatest possible extent of the ancient Greek-speaking world, it would be good for the project, if nothing else. At the moment, the map implies, by omission, that the Greek-speaking world ended at the Macedonian border. We're simply not in a position to make that call, are we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I agree. The issue of Macedonia is not black and white and it does not end with Woodard. Let's find another expert who says the opposite and incorporate (enrich) Woodard's map with more detail. We don't have to take Woodard's word as final. Dr.K. (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) no we don't. Go and read Ancient Macedonian language for details. This template doesn't address the question, it's as simple as that. The question is of no interest to the scope of this template. If you find an academic reference showing the "greatest possible extent of the Greek speaking world", let's make a map of that. Anything else is WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

for further discussion of the Ancient Macedonian language, please go to Talk:Ancient Macedonian language. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So why do we have this disputed map? Dr.K. (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

evidence that it is? As in, academic reviews of Woodward saying he went wrong? Always happy to see citations of credible sources keep the discussion on track and avoid random filibustering. dab (𒁳) 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is provided by common logic. There are many experts who disagree with Woodard. Ergo disputed. Anyway I don't think your tone is academic. Your objectivity comes into question as soon as you classify enquiries such as mine as random filibustering. If you have a beef of any kind I don't think you should be participating in discussions needing calm and reasoned discourse. Dr.K. (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are virtually no international experts who disagree with Woodard on this. Everybody agrees the status of XMK is unknown. Virtually nobody claims to be sure it was not Greek, and virtually nobody (some Greek scholars excepted) claims to be sure it was. There is a solid academic consensus on this issue. And in practice, there is also a solid international consensus that the issue is so peripheral and unimportant and speculation about it is so futile that it just doesn't enter the big picture of what a general survey of the Greek dialects can and should do. That's the state of the art, and that's what this map represents, along with every other comparable map I've ever seen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Thanks Future. I agree with you. However based on the discussion above it appears that the map illustrates Macedonia as an exclusively non-Greek region instead of as you stated "unknown status". If that's the case why not just show it as "status unknown" rather than "not_Greek" as it is at present. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What cartographic means would we have for it? We can't shade the region, because we have no cartographic model of its extent, so we are left with the label. I already did the compromise solution of using a different colour for it (a shade of brown resembling that of Doric/NW). The Doric Greek article (the only one among the dialect articles that discusses XMK) also has a corresponding entry in the legend. That's about all there is to it, and this already goes beyond what our reliable sources do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a font in a different color does not provide the necessary result. As for "reliable sources" I do not understand what makes you keep insisting there are none (or few). You have already stated that you do not want to hear of more sources, I do not have a problem with that, but continuously stating that "this already goes beyond what our reliable sources do" is really a personal opinion and far from the truth. You know very well that most historians and linguists who have occupied themselves with the subject, have drawn the conclusion, that although there is not much evidence to support a clearly undebatable proposition, the ancient Macedonians most probably (some just probably) spoke a Greek dialect be it Aeolic, Doric or Doric-Aeolic.

As for your geographical problem... choose a timeframe at last and then things will be much easier. Macedonia Proper and Upper Macedonia would do the trick in most timeframes. Do you think that the other cartographical extents are acurate? Of course they are not but it does not matter for they are close to reality.

GK1973 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GK1973, tell us again why you keep going on about ancient Macedonia on this page? Look, I know Greeks popularly have a bee in their bonnet about Macedonia. It makes them look silly to the rest of the world. There is no need to needlessly re-affirm this impression, people have been rolling their eyes at this all over Europe for what, 17 years now. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dab, no map of ancient Greek dialects can be complete without stating Macedonia at least as a possible/probable Greek speaking territory. Now tell me why is it so important to you to conclusively exclude Macedonians from the Greek speaking peoples? I know that people from FYROM want to bury any information pointing at the Greekness of the Macedonians. Yes, people have their eyes over this issue much longer than that and Wikipedia (along with the vast majority of historians and linguists worldwide) also supports the probability you wish to conveniently not mention in the map. I am as convinced of the fact that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek as you are that they did not. Our difference is that I wish to clearly state that they probably spoke a Greek dialect and after all this is what we do here... offering a linguistic distribution of the ancient Greek dialects.

GK1973 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The great irony of it all is that nobody would object to including Macedonian in some form or other were it not for modern politics. But the "eye-rollers" of Europe, in reality a pair of Germans who happen to have read a bit more than your average Joe, have a point to prove against "Greek nationalists". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and GK1973, would you mind indenting your comments so we know who's replying to whom? Cheers. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Western group

We only have a single article on that, Doric Greek. Already the distinction Doric vs. NW Greek is tenuous. Adding "Achaean" as another separate dialect is rather stretching things imho. The three links all point to the same article in any case. --dab (𒁳) 13:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time finding anything about "Achaean Greek". Probably there is next to no material. I find it grouped agnostically with the "Western group". Nobody really seems to know more about it. Woodward probably just gave it its own colour to be on the safe side, not because anything positive can be said about it. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange that we're so quick to jump on Woodard's bandwagon in this case, yet so careful to ignore the multitude of authors who classify Macedonian as Greek? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)