Template talk:Ancient Greek dialects: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:15, 14 September 2008

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 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? --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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.
+: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? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)