Well... not really. Unless you're Greek and know what they are saying.

http://www.megatv.com/omorfoskosmostoproi/default.asp?catid=17074&subid=2&pubid=6648741

He's like a cute version of Leonidas from 300, isnt he?

There are two things I have noticed some people do (in OT too) which are false and which I would like to address:

They use etymology (and generally morphology) to:

1. derive the meaning of a word
2. conclude what the object of reference of the word does or should do (supposedly either a hidden side of it that etymology reveals to us or the direction one person believes the object of reference should take in the future)

-1-

First, it is important to speak about the distinction between:

• Semantically compositional/transparent words: words whose mophology does correspond adequately to the layers of meaning of that word. In other words, the parts that they are made of, if looked into, do give us the definition of the word relatively easily. [1]
• Semantically opaque/non-transparent/non-compositional words: the opposite; words whose morphology is not enough or is even misleading if we try to derive a definition from it. [1]

So, from the moment we are aware of the distinction, we see that using the etymology for that purpose is false for at least a large portion of any language's lexicon. BUT, the distinction is many times not clear-cut. Sometimes it depends upon what can be considered redundant or obvious so that it doesnt need to be part of a word. For instance in the second example of semantically transparent words (see below) the portion (something or someone) is in parentheses (I put it) because while it doesnt exist morphologically, it follows that when we observe, we observe something or someone so it is basically part of the verb; so it doesnt need a morphological representation. A rule we can follow in this example is this: could we have something else there in stead of "something or someone"? Obviously not. That part is therefore redundant and we dont consider the word to be semantically opaque.

But not all doubtful examples are as "easy" as this one. There can be words where it wont be easy to cIassify them. Therefore, one cant just say: "oh then I will use etymology for the first category" because (a) to a degree the distinction is based on impression for many words (the impression a word may create for a person - what that person finds redundant/obvious and so on). Even when the doubt is miniscule, the use of etymology can really mislead, especially if a person decides to mix it along with arbitrary pragmatical cross-analysis, i.e. if they dont know what they are doing. And (b)

Examples

Semantically transparent words:

• unbelieveable : not able to be believed (as we see there is correspondence between the morphemes and the several elements of the definition) [a]
  
• observation : the action or process of closely observing or monitoring (something or someone) (again here there is correspondence between the morphemes and the meaning - although only correspondence for one of the definitions; the most literal/simple one - see link for more definitions) [b]
  

Semantically Opaque words:

• protest : a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something (looking at the etymology of the word there is most certainly little correspondence between form and meaning)
  

The word can be broken down as such: from pro- "forth, before" + testari "testify". In the end, the etymology of the word, if followed is not enough to give us the meaning of the word since there is no morphological representation of "dissapproval" or "objection" (in this case of opacity it gives us an older meaning of the word or if we look into the other words that contain the same root, a different (of course related, but still inaccurate) meaning) (inevitably we look into older meanings of the stem root of the word since it doesnt survive on its own nowadays or we look into other words that exist nowadays which derive from the same root - see link d). [c], [d]

• discount : a deduction from the usual cost of something (same here as above)

The word can be broken down as such: from dis- "lack of, not/do the opposite of/apart, away" + computare "to count". So in essence the etymology would tell us that the word means "I count backwards (if that makes sense)" or if we look at an older meaning of the verb (= add up) that it means "to abstract/to deduct". The verb's morphology though has no element denoting what we abstract and from what (something which is part of the definition). But the verb, as we know, refers to money (or other form of payment) from the price of something (as the definition says). Therefore, the etymology is proven inadequate in our effort to derive meaning from it. [e], [f], [g]

Citations:

[1] Αγγελική Ραλλη, Μορφολογία: page 87, chapter 3.2

-2-

Number 2 will be posted in the future as I am still thinking about arguments based on actual linguistic data, in stead of just using examples, which although will be adequate I still feel there could be a more elaborate rebuttal.

_______________________

PS: If something doesnt make sense to you it means that its a hard concept, or I worded it weirdly (English isnt my first language) or I brainfarted. Whichever it is, let me know. :P

All comments are welcome as I didnt make this blog as an authority on linguistics. I am just experimenting putting what I learn into practice.

What if the sun refused to shine?
What if the clouds refused to rain?
What if the wind refused to blow?
What if the seas refused to wave?
What if the world refused its turn?
What if the stars would hesitate?

What if, what is isn't true?
What are you going to do?
What if, what is isn't you?
Does that mean you've got to lose?
Digging for the feel of something new

What if the silence let you dream?
What if the air could let you breathe?
What if the words would bring you here?
What if this sound could bring you peace?

What if, what is isn't true?
What are you going to do?
Digging for the feel of something new
What if, what is isn't you?
What are you going to do?

It came from your thoughts, your dreams and visions.
Ripped up from your weeks and indecisions

What if the sun refused to shine?
What if the clouds refused to rain?
What if the world refused to turn?
What if the clocks would hesitate?

What if, what is isn't true?
What are you going to do?
What if, what is isn't you?
Does that mean you've got to lose?
Digging for the feel of something new

Does that mean you've got to choose?
The feel of something new
Does that mean you've got to lose?
The thoughts you cannot use
What are you gonna do?

Another unoriginal blog with one of my fabourite SP songs which I think imo is perhaps one of their two best (along with Daphne Descends).

Today while returning from Crete with the ship, I saw a very big turtle swimming right to the left of the ship.

It must have been 30-40cm in diametre. It was pretty cool. It was cute moving its front feet back and forth.

So for several years now I am torturing myself by analysing my behavior, my thoughts etc.

And when it comes to general behavior I have come to the conclusion that I tend to want to do (and get pleasure from it though) things that I would like others to do to me. In essence I guess I am acting based on the principle "be the change that you want to see in the world". But anyway I am not mentioning that to compliment myself. Read further down.

So I realised that this happens in other things as well. Such as relationships.

Being the loner that I am, I often sit down and think what it would be like having a relationship (either friendly or intimate but this is more about the intimate ones) and I picture myself doing all the things I always thought I wanted someone else doing for me. Such as listening to their problems and comforting them with a hug, you know staying like that while the person in need of comfort is crying and all and I am helping them and we are doing each other good by simply being there, you know.

And its not like I no longer want to be in the position of the one receiving that comfort. I just impulsively prefer doing it myself first. Idk why I go at such lengths (not a literal question here; I can figure out why).

Its strange and interesting at the same time but it confuses me even if I can rationalise it. I just always pictured myself being the "protected" one in the relationship (...........hm now I sound as if I have experience in relationships *big lol*).

But it just seems that at certain activities in a relationship I may feel like being the protected one and at others its the opposite.

Idk if it is about "discovering" myself or whatever but I cant say I can cope with all that discovery lately (last few years).

Here is an ancient Greek text excerpt:

___________

Ὅτι μὲν ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Άθηναῖοι, πεπόνθατε ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν κατηγόρων, οὐκ οἶδα: ἐγὼ δ' οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον. Καίτοι ἀληθές γε ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδὲν εἰρήκασιν.

~From Plato's Apology

___________

And this is how the above would be pronounced with (A) the ancient greek pronunciation and (B) the modern greek pronunciation:

(A) Transliteration (almost identical as to what a phonemic transciption would show)

Hóti mèn humeîs, ô ándres Athēnaîoi, pepónthate hupò tôn emôn katēgórōn, ouk oîda: egṑ d' oûn kaì autòs hup' autōn olígou emautoû epelathómēn, hoútō pithanôs élegon. Kaítoi alēthés ge hōs épos eipeîn oudèn eirḗkasin.

Notice and remember that: ai is not pronounced here like it is pronounced in English. ai = a + i, not 'e' as in "air" or 'ei' as in "bait". More like the letter i in the word "kite". Same for ei. It sounds like the letter a in words like "gate".

Also a clarification: where th appears, the pronunciation is actually similar to the English t -> tʰ (full stop of air with a short expiration of air afterwards)

Now...

(B) Phonemic transcription (modern greek pronunciation)

[oti men imis, o anδres aθinei, peponθate ipo ton emon katiγoron, uk iδa: eγo δ' un ke aftos ip' afton oliγu emaftu epelaθomin, uto piθanos eleγon. Keti aliθes je os epos ipin uδen irikasin]

------

The comparison of certain words show how different the pronunciation is:

Athēnaîoi / aθinei (Άθηναῖοι )

• The aspirated plosive θ (th) became fricative (θ )
• The letter Eta is no longer pronounced as an open-mid front unrounded vowel /e:/ but as a simple /i/ (note: the distinction of long/short vowels doesnt exist in Greek anymore)
• The diphthogns οι, ει and αι were pronounced as oi, ei and ai respectively (in most cases). Now they are pronounced as /i/, /i/ and /e/ respectively. Those diphthongs were pronounced in the duration of only one syllable. Meaning that although for instance the diphthong οι consisted of two phonemes ( /o/ and /i/ ) they were both pronounced as one syllable (which is the very definition of a diphthong anyway); to put it crudely, fast and not separately.
• The syllable separation would be this for the two pronunciations: A-the-nai-oi / a-θi-ne-i --- Conclusion: same amount of syllables, but less phonemes (8 and 6 respectively).

hupò, egṑ, oîda / ipo, eγo, iδa (ὑπὸ, ἐγὼ, οἶδα )

• The vowel υ (upsilon) was pronounced as /u/ (in the attic dialect as the french y). Now it is pronounced as a simple /i/ (Modern Greek has 3 vowels that all sound /i/: υ (upsilon), η (eta) and ι (iota) while in ancient greek those three sounded dinstinctly different).
• The rough breathing diacritical mark denotated an aspiration before the pronunciation of an initial vowel. In this case the vowel upsilon. But that aspiration was "gone" from Greek (although the diacritical mark remained up until a few decades ago) for more than a millenium now. Therefore there is no longer a h- sound in words like υπο.
• The plosives g, d (and b) later became voiced fricatives γ, δ (and v). Now the phonemes /g/, /d/ and /b/ are represented with γκ, ντ and μπ respectively.

(and other changes of course that this text doesnt show but those I presented are of the most prominent)

------

MY OPINION:

I prefer the modern Greek pronunciation by far. Perhaps because up until a few years ago I didnt even know there was a difference so I got used to it, but I also like the several simplifications that occurred (as is obvious by the examples): the monophthongization of the 3 diphthongs, the ommission of the rough breathing and the distinction of long and short vowels. Generally the vowels became much less (from 12 (if you count the distinction of short and long) to just 5).

On the other hand it is true that it has added variety to its consonants by the creation of the fricative category (and the ommision of the aspirated plosives - which means that the variety remained the same but I like fricatives more so... :P) but that has added to the language's appeal imo.

To me, modern Greek pronunciation on ancient greek texts sounds so eloquent and beautiful while the ancient greek pronunciation sounds... flamboyant (not with a homosexual implication though); I mean too complex, too "full", while modern greek pronunciation is more "clean". Also in ancient greek pronunciation, for the most part there seemed to be a 1:1 ratio when it came to phonemes and letters or at least it leaned towards that direction. I like it that this "broke" from Koine Greek onwards. Because on one hand the phonemic portion of the language changed drastically but the alphabet and the combinations that it allows remains the same for the most part. And I like this discordant evolution but also how independant of that discordance there is still compatibility and a very well founded one (despite the numerous and constant mistakes in orthography by many Greeks :P).

Imo, the Greek languages was refined through its evolution no matter what some purists may say (those that compare ancient Greek to modern Greek). Although we must appreciate the effort put by those other purists when they were trying to establish the katharevousa, who in the process coined many terms that are very frequently used today, replacing many turkish, italian and other foreign loan-words. But anyway that note is besides the theme of the blog.

And as a side note I am against the switch of Greek orthography to a phonematic one as it has been suggested in the past by some Greek philologists. That is to simplify the alphabet as well. If language is to evolve naturally towards that direction, so be it, but so grand drastic forced changes in language shouldnt occur. I am against that generally.

______

I hope some will have the patience to read all that. :)

So, I have been playing Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, the last two days (which is a very good game but gets really hard throughout the campaign dammit!) and POOF what do I find?

House's assistant (or whatever she is to be called) as my campaign assistant! :x

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

I cant complain; she is good (although I prefer the assistant of Red Alert 2) but she just gets me out of the atmosphere. I cant focus and think that I am at war, I just think "Oh, the girl from House MD :|".

Whenever she appears giving me information/advice and whatnot in the pre-mission videos I cant stop smiling and feel like laughing or averting my site because I cant get her out of my head as the doctor that she is in the TV series and that ruins it dammit.

And then I keep thinking:

"Hm, did they discover her through the game?"

"Wow she must have hated filming for the game looking for someone to hire her for a actual role"

etc

Anyway.........

So, on the 21st it was my birthday. I turned 20! :)

I guess now I dont fit my username. =P

And for some reason I am in the mood for this song. Enjoy.

PS: Disregard the title. It was part of sth I edited out. I may make a different blog about it. But I cant find a title that I like for this one.

Yesterday I started tutoring a Junior High School girl in Ancient Greek.

It was our first "cIass" and I was unprepared. Anyway we did a few quizes.

Today I was really hyped up to prepare more quizes for her. This year they had just learnt the middle voice of Ancient Greek verbs so we would do a revision on that.

I had searched my verb index for "normal" verbs. I started creating the quiz in a big notebook I have.

I wrote all the tenses down, and ommited some of the persons so that she would fill them in after I would have her study the "prototype" verb, and after she would have inflected the verb for me, out loud.

I was half way writing down the second verb (there are 3 verbs I would write down, one for each category of verbs) when my sister called me that her parents decided to not continue the cIasses cause, as my sister told me, she would go to a φροντιστηριο (private schools which specialise in some lessons and prepare students for school; yeah our educational system is full of holes) next year.

=|

But anyway there was some good out of this since it was an opportunity for me to start studying again on my Ancient Greeks since I never "went along" with it very well. Mostly about grammar and diction; learning the rules and such. But I was always good in translation for some reason even though I rarely separate the periods or try to analyuse the text diction-wise before translating.

Um, yeah, thats all.

One of the things I hate, is when people act like friends or generally friendly but behind your back they laugh at you, make fun of you, spread rumours about you, and while you havent given them the right to.

I have faced that situation before and I felt awful. The worst part is that I should have seen it coming. When it all ended I regretted that I sought to be in a group of people and didnt cut off my relationship with my so-called friends just because at some point I felt the need to have friends and not be secluded like I used to be.

I dont know how that has affected me; if I am super careful or changing myself thinking that its my incompatible character that makes me not "fit in". I dont know because I get mixed reactions from myself; I really dont know what to do.

At the same time I may be fearing that some people I know and look at them as possible friends may be talking about me behind my back in a very bad way, and I may be trying to shift my behavior to avoid that by being pleasant.

I know that in the end I am only "harming" myself.

What bothers me right now, is being treated as a laughing spot (?). You know when a group of people keep you in their company because you are hilarious, but in the sense that you are laughable and in front of you they are all like "GEORGE HEY!!!" and behind your back they go "WHAT A DUMBASS"/"THAT GUY IS AN IDIOT LOL" (well they dont say lol in real life but you get the point).

But the thing is that even though I may fear that the above may be going on, I still cant be sure that this is not me being paranoid.

This is so annoying me right now...

Why cant people be honest? If you dont like me or dont appreciate me tell it to my face.