Ancient Greek phonology

Ancient Greek phonology is the study of the phonology, or pronunciation, of Ancient Greek. Because of the passage of time, the original pronunciation of Ancient Greek, like that of all ancient languages, can never be known with absolute certainty. Linguistic reconstructions have been widely debated in the past; however, a good approximation can be established and there is now a consensus in scholarship.

Other stages of Greek

The reconstructed sound systems of Greek at several stages of its history can be found in Koine Greek phonology. Summaries of the reconstructed sound systems of Greek at several stages of its history can be found in Ancient Greek (on classical Attic Greek), Koine Greek, and Greek language. Only the pronunciation of the classical Attic dialect of the 5th century BC, including its later development towards Koine Greek, is explored here. The practical pronunciations of Ancient Greek used in teaching and literary study today is discussed in Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.


Attic Greek phonemically contrasted long and short vowels. The vowel inventory of Attic Greek, as reconstructed, contained five short and seven long vowels as distinct phonemes. Their exact pronunciation at any particular period is difficult to establish with precision, but the following scheme, proposed by Allen (1968), is generally accepted. The following tables show the vowels in IPA notation, together with the corresponding letters of the Greek alphabet, as used in classical Attic orthography.

hort vowels

The diphthongs (Polytonic|δίφθογγοι) developed differently during and after classical times. Two of them, ει and ου, had already been monophthongized (see above). All the other front-offglide diphthongs were ultimately monophthongized too. This happened early, during or soon after the classical period, in the case of the long diphthongs Unicode|ᾱι, ηι, ωι, where the offglide was muted and became represented in later orthography by a mere subscript (Unicode|ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ). IPA|/ai/ was monophthongised to IPA| [ɛː] in post-classical Greek, and after the abandonment of vowel length in the Roman age, it eventually merged with IPA|/e/. IPA|/oi/ and IPA|/yi/ merged with IPA|/yː/ and in the Byzantine age with IPA|/i/.

In the remaining back diphthongs (αυ, ευ, ηυ), the offglide became consonantal during the Hellenistic age, ultimately leading to Modern Greek IPA|/av/, /ev/, /iv/. IPA|/ɔːu/ was rare and did not occur in classical Attic (but did in Ionic).


In comparison with the vowels, the structure of the consonant inventory of Greek has remained relatively stable over time as far as the number of distinctive sounds is concerned. However, the phonetic nature of many sounds is thought to have changed radically, as a whole set of plosive sounds has turned into fricatives.


All the following sounds are thought to have been plosives in Attic Greek. Ancient grammarians (beginning with Aristotle, "Poetics" ) collectively refer to them as polytonic|ἄφωνα.

All of the "mediae" changed to voiced fricatives later (IPA| [v] , IPA| [ð] , IPA| [ɣ] ~ [ʝ] ), and all of the "aspiratae" changed to voiceless fricatives (IPA| [f] , IPA| [θ] , IPA| [x] ~ [ç] ). These are also their values in Modern Greek. The changes are assumed to have happened in antiquity, during the time of Koine Greek, but probably after the time of classical Attic Greek. The changes probably started with the voiced velar IPA| [ɡ] > IPA| [ɣ] ~ [ʝ] (in the 3rd century BC) and were completed some time during the first centuries CE with the aspiratae.

In the case of the labials, the change must have proceeded through the intermediate stage of bilabial fricatives [IPA|β] and [IPA|ɸ] , as the modern values are not bilabial but labio-dental.

Other consonants

Apart from the plosives, the consonant inventory of Classical Greek contains two nasals (/m/, /n/), two liquids (/l/ and /r/) and two fricatives (/h/ and /s/) which are further discussed in separate subsections below. Ancient grammarians classified the nasals, liquids and /s/ together as "hemiphona" (polytonic|ἡμίφωνα), by which they probably meant that unlike the "aphona" (polytonic|ἄφωνα), these sounds could be sustained in pronunciation without vocalic support.

As the terminology of "aphona" and "hemiphona" applied to letters of the alphabet rather than phonemes, the letters ψ, ξ and ζ each standing for a consonantal cluster and collectively referred to as polytonic|διπλά ("double letters"), were also grouped with the "hemiphona", presumably because they all contained a sibilant as an element. The pronunciation of ζ is not entirely clear. For metrical purposes it was treated as a double consonant, thus forming a heavy syllable (see below), but it is unclear whether it should be regarded as representing IPA| [zd] or IPA| [dz] , or perhaps both at different periods. The arguments for each pronunciation are put forward in Zeta (letter). During the classical period, its pronunciation changed to IPA| [z] . The two other polytonic|διπλά were probably pronounced IPA| [pʰs] and IPA| [kʰs] in Classical Attic (they were written <ΦΣ> and <ΧΣ> in the old alphabet), but the aspiration of the first element was phonologically irrelevant.


These are the bilabial nasal IPA|/m/, written μ and the alveolar nasal IPA|/n/, written ν. Depending on the phonetic environment, the phoneme /n/ was realized in speech in four distinct manners:
* before the labials IPA|/b/, IPA|/p/, and /IPA|pʰ/, it changes to IPA| [m] and it is there represented in writing by μ. So for example: polytonic|ἐμβαίνω, ἐμπάθεια, ἐμφαίνω. The same is true when the labial is followed by IPA|/s/, as in polytonic|ἔμψυχος;
* before the nasal IPA|/m/, there is still assimilation in place of articulation but gemination occurs and the two nasals are pronounced together as a prolonged bilabial nasal IPA| [mː] and represented in writing by μμ. E.g.: polytonic| ἐμμένω;
* before the velars IPA|/ɡ/,IPA|/k/, /IPA|kʰ/ the phoneme IPA|/n/ was realized as IPA| [ŋ] and is there represented in writing by γ. So for example: polytonic|ἐγγύς, ἐγκαλέω, ἐγχέω. The same is true when the velar is followed by IPA|/s/, as in polytonic|συγξηραίνω, but this occurs less often. Hence, the spelling γγ does not represent the geminated plosive IPA| [ɡː] (compounds with the preposition Polytonic|ἐκ and a stem beginning with IPA|/ɡ/ probably had IPA| [ɡː] , but traditional orthography has Polytonic|ἐκγ- in such words);
* In all other environments the phoneme IPA|/n/ is realized regularly as IPA| [n] .

On occasion, the IPA|/n/ phoneme participates in true gemination without any assimilation in place of articulation, as for example in the word polytonic|ἐννέα. Artificial gemination for metrical purposes is also found occasionally, as in the form polytonic|ἔννεπε, occurring in the first verse of Homer’s Odyssey.


Ancient Greek has the liquids IPA|/l/ and IPA|/r/, written λ and ρ respectively.

The letter λ (lambda) probably represented a "clear" /l/ as in Modern Greek and most European languages, rather than a "dark" /l/ as in English in coda position. When IPA|/n/ precedes IPA|/l/, the first consonant assimilates to the second, gemination takes place, and the combination is pronounced IPA| [lː] , as in <polytonic|συλλαμβάνω> from underlying <*polytonic|συνλαμβάνω>.

The letter ρ (rho) probably stood for an alveolar trill sound, IPA| [r] more like Italian ("rusticana") or Modern Greek than the English or French "r" sounds. Word initially, ρ is invariably written with the "spiritus asper" as polytonic|ῥ-, probably representing a voiceless or aspirated allophone of IPA|/r/ (IPA| [r ̥] or IPA| [rʰ] ), hence the traditional transliteration "rh". The same orthography is sometimes encountered when IPA|/r/ is geminated, as in <polytonic|συρρέω>, sometimes written <polytonic|συῤῥέω>, giving rise to the transliteration "rrh". This example also illustrates that IPA|/n/ assimilates to following IPA|/r/, creating gemination.


Before the "mediae" and "aspiratae" became fricatives, Greek probably only had two fricative phonemes: the sibilant IPA|/s/ written with a sigma (Σ,σ,ς), and the glottal IPA|/h/. The former is likely to have had a voiced allophone IPA| [z] before other voiced consonants, which was not distinguished from sigma in writing.

IPA|/h/ could only stand in word-initial position. In Attic, it was originally written with the letter Η. Partly before and partly during classical times, IPA|/h/ was lost in pronunciation in Ionian and Aeolian but Attic preserved the sound longer than these dialects. In Ionic, where it had been lost early, the letter Η was then co-opted to serve as a vowel letter. On adoption of the Ionic alphabet in the other dialect areas (in Athens in 403 BCE), the sound IPA|/h/ ceased to be represented in writing. In some inscriptions it was instead indicated by a symbol formed from the left-hand half of the original letter. Later grammarians, during the time of the Hellenistic Koine, developed that symbol further into the "spiritus asper" (polytonic|δασεῖα), which they no longer treated as a letter in its own right but as a diacritic written on the top of the initial vowel. Correspondingly, they introduced the reverse diacritic called "spiritus lenis" (polytonic|ψιλή), which indicated the absence of aspiration. These signs were not adopted universally until the Byzantine age.

The letter digamma, written polytonic|Ϝ, ϝ, was used in some dialects to represent the sound IPA|/w/ in syllable-initial position. This sound had been lost in Attic and Ionic before the classical period, and the letter was no longer used except as a numeral (= 6, later replaced by ς). The IPA|/w/ of other Greek dialects and of foreign languages was normally rendered with <β> and later also with <ου>.

Doubled consonants

Gemination was distinctive in Ancient Greek, so doubled consonants would have been prolonged in pronunciation, as confirmed by metrical considerations and the modern Greek dialect of Cyprus. Doubled consonants do not occur at the start or end of words. φ, θ, χ are not doubled in the orthography, the combinations πφ, τθ, and κχ being used instead (compare doubled rho above).

A doubled sigma in most Ancient Greek dialects (and in Koine) &mdash; σσ &mdash; is generally replaced in Attic by a doubled tau &mdash; ττ. Some authorities have postulated that this represented an affricate pronunciation (IPA| [tʃ] or IPA| [ts] ), but there is no direct evidence for this.


In Ancient Greek the distinction between heavy and light syllables is important as the key element in classical versification. A "heavy" syllable (sometimes called a "long" syllable, but this risks confusion with long vowels) is a syllable that either contains a long vowel or a diphthong, or ends in a consonant. If a single consonant occurs between two syllables within a word, it is considered to belong to the following syllable, so the syllable before the consonant is light if it contains a short vowel. If two or more consonants, a double consonant (ζ, ξ or ψ) or a geminated consonant, occur between syllables within a word, the first of the consonants goes with the first syllable, making it heavy. Certain combinations of consonants, namely aphona plus liquids or nasals (e.g τρ or κν) are exceptions, as in some circumstances both consonants go with the second syllable &mdash; a phenomenon known as "correptio attica". The ancient grammarians called a heavy syllable with a short vowel "polytonic|θέσει μακρά - long by convention" (this was mistranslated in Latin as "positione longa"), and a syllable with a long vowel "polytonic|φύσει μακρά - long by nature - natura longa"


In Ancient Greek one syllable of a word was normally accented. Unlike Modern Greek, this was a pitch accent, meaning that the accented syllable was pronounced at a higher pitch than the other syllables; Dionysius of Halicarnassus states that the interval was approximately that of a fifth in music. In standard polytonic orthography (invented in the Hellenistic age, but not adopted universally until Byzantine times), the acute accent (polytonic|ὀξεῖα) is used to indicate a simple accented syllable. In long vowels and diphthongs the accent could fall on either half (or mora) of the syllable, if it fell on the first mora, so that the syllable had a high tone followed by a low tone, it is indicated in polytonic orthography by the circumflex (polytonic|περισπωμένη): e.g. /ée/ = polytonic|ῆ ~ /eé/ = polytonic|ή.

The accent can fall only on one of the last three syllables of a word, and if the last syllable contains a long vowel or diphthong, it can fall only on one of the last two syllables. The circumflex can only fall on the last two syllables, and only if that syllable contains a long vowel or diphthong. An acute accent on a final syllable (except before a pause or an enclitic word) is regularly replaced in the orthography by a grave accent (polytonic|βαρεῖα): this may indicate a lowering of tone, but the evidence from ancient authors is unclear on this point.

If the penultimate syllable is accented, it normally has the circumflex if it contains a long vowel or diphthong and the last syllable contains a short vowel, otherwise it has the acute. An accented final syllable can have either the acute (or grave) or the circumflex.

In some inflected forms, final αι and οι are treated as if they were short vowels.

Types of arguments and evidence used in reconstruction

The above information is based on a large body of evidence which was discussed extensively by linguists and philologists of the 19th and 20th centuries. The following section provides a short summary of the kinds of evidence and arguments that have been used in this debate, and gives some hints as to the sources of uncertainty that still prevails with respect to some details.

Internal evidence

Initial systematicity between letters and sounds

As is the case whenever an alphabetic script is devised or adopted for a language, a significant degree of systematicity, if not a one to one correspondence, is at play between the letters of the alphabet and the sounds of the language it represents. This renders spelling mistakes unlikely "by design" for as long as the pronunciation of the language remains unchanged, following the adoption of the alphabet. As the pronunciation undergoes change over successive generations of speakers, either the spelling conventions end up changing in an attempt to reflect the corresponding changes in pronunciation, or else the spelling remains conservative, and a traditional spelling becomes established. In the former case, which may be termed a spelling reform, the date of introduction of the reform provides a date "a quo" for the corresponding changes in pronunciation. In the latter case, when a historical orthography is established, spelling mistakes by writers with imperfect knowledge of the writing conventions become the principal tools that allow linguists to reconstruct pronunciation and date its evolution over time.

pelling mistakes

* If it is found that scribes very often confuse two letters, then it can be inferred that the sounds denoted by the two letters had merged into one in speech. This happened early, for instance, between <ι> and <ει>, a little later between <υ> and <οι>, between <ο> and <ω>, and between <ε> and <αι>, later still between <η> and the already merged <ι> and <ει>.

* If it is found that scribes very often omit a letter where it would be needed in standard orthography, or that they falsely insert it where it did not belong (hypercorrection), then it can be inferred that the sound denoted by that letter had been lost in speech. This happened early with word-initial "spiritus asper" (IPA| [h] ) in most forms of Greek. Another example is the occasional omission of the subscripted iota of long diphthongs (see above).

Spelling mistakes are an important type of evidence, but they have their limitations. They only prove that the phonetic development in question existed in the language of the particular scribe, not that it was adopted universally by all speakers of the language at the time. Ancient Greek was not homogeneous or static, but a language divided in many regional variants and social registers. Many of the linguistic features characteristic of Late and Modern Greek was probably anticipated in some dialects and some registers of Attic already in the Classical Age, but the older varieties seem to have persisted for centuries.

Onomatopoeic words

Greek literature sometimes contains representations of animal cries in Greek letters. The most often quoted example is "polytonic|βῆ βῆ", used to render the cry of sheep, and is used as evidence that beta had a voiced bilabial plosive pronunciation and eta was a long open-mid front vowel. Onomatopoeic verbs such as μυκάομαι for the lowing of cattle (cf. Latin mugire), βρυχάομαι for the roaring of lions (cf. Latin rugire) and κόκκυξ as the name of the cuckoo (cf. Latin "cuculus") suggest an archaic [u:] pronunciation of long upsilon, before this vowel was fronted to [y:] .

Morpho-phonological facts

Sounds undergo regular changes, such as assimilations or dissimilations, in certain environments within words, which are sometimes indicated in writing. These can be used to reconstruct the nature of the sounds involved.
* <π,τ,κ> at the end of some words are regularly changed to <φ,θ,χ> when preceding a "spiritus asper" in the next word. Thus, e.g.: polytonic|ἐφ' ἁλός for polytonic|ἐπὶ ἁλός or polytonic|καθ' ἡμᾶς for polytonic|κατὰ ἡμᾶς.
* <π,τ,κ> at the end of the first member of composite words are regularly changed to <φ,θ,χ> when preceding a "spiritus asper" in the next member of the composite word. Thus e.g.: polytonic|ἔφιππος, καθάπτω
* The Attic dialect in particular is marked by contractions: two vowels without an intervening consonant were merged together in a single syllable; for instance uncontracted (disyllabic) <εα> (IPA| [e.a] ) occurs regularly in dialects but contracts to <η> in Attic, supporting the view that η was pronounced IPA| [ɛː] (intermediate between IPA| [e] and IPA| [a] ) rather than IPA| [iː] as in Modern Greek. Similarly, uncontracted <εε>, <οο> (IPA| [e.e] , [ο.ο] ) occur regularly in Ionic but contract to <ει> and <ου> in Attic, suggesting IPA| [eː] , [οː] values for the spurious <ει> and <ου> diphthongs in Attic as opposed to the [i] and [u] sounds they later acquired.

Non-standard spellings

Morphophonological alternations like the above are often treated differently in non-standard spellings than in standardised literary spelling. This may lead to doubts about the representativity of the literary dialect and may in some cases force slightly different reconstructions than if one were only to take the literary texts of the high standard language into account. Thus, e.g.:

*non-standard epigraphical spelling sometimes indicates assimilation of final <κ> το <γ> before voiced consonants in a following word, or of final <κ> το <χ> before aspirated sounds, in words like polytonic|ἐκ.

Metrical evidence

The metres used in Classical Greek poetry are based on the patterns of light and heavy syllables, and can thus sometimes provide evidence as to the length of vowels where this is not evident from the orthography. By the fourth century AD poetry was normally written using stress-based metres, suggesting that the distinctions between long and short vowels had been lost by then, and the pitch accent had been replaced by a stress accent.

External evidence

Orthoepic descriptions

Some ancient grammarians attempt to give systematic descriptions of the sounds of the language. In other authors one can sometimes find occasional remarks about correct pronunciation of certain sounds. However, both types of evidence are often difficult to interpret, because the phonetic terminology of the time was often vague, and it is often not clear in what relation the described forms of the language stand to those which were actually spoken by different groups of the population.

Important ancient authors include:

* Dionysius Thrax
* Dionysius of Halicarnassus
* Aelius Herodianus

Cross-dialectal comparison

Sometimes the comparison of standard Attic Greek with the written forms of other Greek dialects, or with the humorous renderings of 'alien' dialectal speech (e.g. Spartan Doric) in Attic theatrical works, can provide hints as to the phonetic value of certain spellings.

Towards the end of the 5th century BC, attic authors sometimes transcribe by σ the sound of Spartan θ : polytonic| ναὶ τὼ σιώ (att. θεώ), παρσένε, ὀρσά (ὀρθή), ἀγασώς (ἀγαθούς) in Aristophanes ("Lysistrata") and we also find polytonic|σύματος (θύματος) in Thucydides with the latter spelling found even in Spartan inscriptions of the fourth century BC. It can be inferred that in Spartan Doric, <θ> was already a fricative (at least in pre-vocalic position) and could be made fun of, since Attic maintained the plosive pronunciation.


The spelling of Greek loanwords in other languages and conversely, the spelling of foreign loanwords in Greek, can provide important hints about pronunciation. However, the evidence is often difficult to interpret or indecisive. It must be noted that the sounds of loanwords are often not taken over identically into the receiving language. Where the receiving language lacks a sound that corresponds exactly to that of the source language, sounds are usually mapped to some other, similar sound.

In this regard, Latin is of great value to the reconstruction of ancient Greek phonology because of its close proximity to the Greek world which caused numerous Greek words to be borrowed by the Romans. At first, Greek loanwords denoting technical terms or proper names which contained the letter "Φ" were imported in Latin with the spelling "P" or "PH", indicating an effort to imitate, albeit imperfectly, a sound that Latin lacked. Later on, in the first centuries AD, spellings with "F" start to appear in such loanwords, signaling the onset of the fricative pronunciation of "Φ". Thus, in the second century AD, "Filippus" replaces "P(h)ilippus". At about the same time, the letter "F" also begins to be used as a substitute for the letter "Θ", for lack of a better choice, indicating that the sound of Greek theta had become a fricative as well.

For the purpose of borrowing certain other Greek words, the Romans added the letters "Y" and "Z" to the Latin alphabet, taken directly from the Greek one. These additions are important as they show that the Romans had no symbols to represent the sounds of the letters "Υ" and "Ζ" in Greek, which means that in these cases no known sound of Latin can be used to reconstruct the Greek sounds.

Comparison with older alphabets

The Greek alphabet developed from the older Phoenician alphabet. It may be assumed that the Greeks tended to assign to each Phoenician letter that Greek sound which most closely resembled the Phoenician sound. But, as with loanwords, the interpretation is not straightforward.

Comparison with younger/derived alphabets

The Greek alphabet was in turn the basis of other alphabets, notably the Etruscan and later the Armenian, Gothic, and Cyrillic. Similar arguments can be derived in these cases as in the Phoenician-Greek case.

For example, in Cyrillic, the letter В ("ve") stands for [v] , confirming that beta was pronounced as a fricative by the 9th century AD, while the new letter Б ("be") was invented to note the sound [b] . Conversely, in Gothic, the letter derived from beta stands for [b] , so in the 4th century AD, beta was still a plosive in Greek.

Comparison with Modern Greek

Any reconstruction of Ancient Greek needs to take into account how the sounds later developed towards Modern Greek, and how these changes could have occurred. In general, the changes between the reconstructed Ancient Greek and Modern Greek are assumed to be unproblematic in this respect by historical linguists, because all the relevant changes (spirantization, chain-shifts of long vowels towards [i] , loss of initial [h] , restructuring of vowel-length and accentuation systems, etc.) are of types that are cross-linguistically frequently attested and relatively easy to explain.

Comparative reconstruction of Indo-European

Systematic relationships between sounds in Greek and sounds in other Indo-European languages are taken as strong evidence for reconstruction by historical linguists, because such relationships prove that these sounds must go back to an inherited sound in the proto-language.

History of the reconstruction of ancient pronunciation

The Renaissance

Until the 15th century (during the time of the Byzantine Greek Empire) ancient Greek texts were pronounced exactly like contemporary Greek when they were read aloud. From about 1486, various scholars (notably Antonio of Lebrixa, Girolamo Aleandro, and Aldus Manutius) judged that this pronunciation appeared to be inconsistent with the descriptions handed down by ancient grammarians, and suggested alternative pronunciations.

Johann Reuchlin, the leading Greek scholar in the West around 1500, had taken his Greek learning from Byzantine émigré scholars, and continued to use the modern pronunciation. But Erasmus (1494&ndash;1553) questioned whether ancient Greek might have been pronounced differently. In 1528, Erasmus wrote "De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus", a philological treatise clothed in the form of a philosophical dialogue, in which he developed a new system of pronouncing ancient Greek and Latin. However, Erasmus is said to have continued to use the traditional system for teaching. The two models of pronunciation became soon known, after their principal proponents, as the "Reuchlinian" and the "Erasmian" system, or, after the characteristic vowel pronunciations, as the "itacist" (or "iotacist") and the "etacist" system, respectively.

Erasmus' reconstruction was based on a wide range of arguments, derived from the philological knowledge available at his time. In the main, he strove for a more regular correspondence of letters to sounds, assuming that different letters must have stood for different sounds, and same letters for same sounds. That led him, for instance, to posit that the various letters which in the itacist system all denoted IPA| [i] must have had different values, and that ει, αι, οι, ευ, αυ, ου were all diphthongs with a closing offglide. He also insisted on taking the accounts of ancient grammarians literally, for instance where they described vowels as being distinctively long and short, or the acute and circumflex accents as being clearly distinguished by pitch contours. In addition, he drew on evidence from word correspondences between Greek and Latin as well as some other European languages. Some of his arguments in this direction are, in hindsight, mistaken, because he naturally lacked much of the knowledge developed through later linguistic work. Thus, he could not distinguish between Latin-Greek word relations based on loans (e.g. polytonic|Φοῖβος &mdash; "Phoebus") on the one hand, and those based on common descent from Indo-European (e.g. polytonic|φῶρ &mdash; "fūr") on the other, and he also fell victim to a few spurious relations due to mere accidental similarity (e.g. Greek polytonic|θύειν "sacrifice" &mdash; French "tuer", "kill"). In other areas, his arguments are of quite the same kind as those used by modern linguistics, e.g. where he argues on the basis of cross-dialectal correspondences within Greek that η must have been a rather open e-sound, close to IPA| [a] .

Erasmus also took great pains to assign to the members in his reconstructed system plausible phonetic values. This was no easy task, as contemporary grammatical theory lacked the rich and precise terminology to describe such values. In order to overcome that problem, Erasmus drew upon his knowledge of the sound repertoires of contemporary living languages, for instance likening his reconstructed η to Scots "a" (IPA| [æ] ), his reconstructed ου to Dutch "ou" (IPA| [oʊ] ), and his reconstructed οι to French "oi" (IPA| [oɪ] ).

Erasmus assigned to the Greek consonant letters β, γ, δ the sounds of voiced plosives IPA|/b/, IPA|/g/, IPA|/d/, while for the consonant letters φ, θ, and χ he advocated the use of fricatives IPA|/f/, IPA|/θ/, IPA|/x/ as in Modern Greek (arguing, however, that this type of IPA|/f/ must have been different from that denoted by Latin ).

The reception of Erasmus' idea among his contemporaries was mixed. Most prominent among those scholars who resisted his move was Philipp Melanchthon, a student of Reuchlin's. Debate in humanist circles continued up into the 17th century, but the situation remained undecided for several centuries. (See Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching.)

The nineteenth century

A renewed interest in the issues of reconstructed pronunciation arose during the 19th century. On the one hand, the new science of historical linguistics, based on the method of comparative reconstruction, took a vivid interest in Greek. It soon established beyond any doubt that Greek was descended in parallel with many other languages from the common source of the Indo-European proto-language. This had important consequences for how its phonological system must be reconstructed. At the same time, continued work in philology and archeology was bringing to light an ever-growing corpus of non-standard, non-literary and non-classical Greek writings, e.g. inscriptions and later also papyri. These added considerably to what could be known about the development of the language. On the other hand, there was a revival of academic life in Greece after the establishment of the Greek state in 1830, and scholars in Greece were at first reluctant to accept the seemingly foreign idea that Greek should have been pronounced so differently from what they knew.

Comparative linguistics led to a picture of ancient Greek that more or less corroborated Erasmus' view, though with some modifications. It soon became clear, for instance, that the pattern of long and short vowels observed in Greek was mirrored in similar oppositions in other languages and thus had to be a common inheritance (see Ablaut); that Greek <υ> had to have been [u] at some stage because it regularly corresponded to [u] in all other Indo-European languages (cf. Gr. polytonic|μῦς : Lat. "mūs"); that many instances of <η> had earlier been [a:] (cf. Gr. μήτηρ : Lat. "māter"); that Greek <ου> sometimes stood in words that had been lengthened from <ο> and therefore must have been pronounced [o:] at some stage (the same holds analogically for <ε> and <ει>, which must have been [e:] ), and so on. For the consonants, historical linguistics established the originally plosive nature of both the aspirates <φ,θ,χ> [ph,th,kh] and the mediae <β,δ,γ> [b,d,g] , which were recognised to be a direct continuation of similar sounds in Indo-European (reconstructed *bh,*dh,*gh and *b,*d,*g). It was also recognised that the word-initial spiritus asper was most often a reflex of earlier *"s" (cf. Gr. polytonic|ἑπτά : Lat. "septem"), which was believed to have been weakened to [h] in pronunciation. Work was also done reconstructing the linguistic background to the rules of ancient Greek versification, especially in Homer, which shed important light on the phonology regarding syllable structure and accent. Scholars also described and explained the regularities in the development of consonants and vowels under processes of assimilation, reduplication, compensatory lengthening etc.

While comparative linguistics could in this way firmly establish that a certain source state, roughly along the Erasmian model, had once obtained, and that significant changes had to have occurred later, during the development towards Modern Greek, the comparative method had less to say about the question "when" these changes took place. Erasmus had been eager to find a pronunciation system that corresponded most closely to the written letters, and it was now natural to assume that the reconstructed sound system was that which obtained at the time when Greek orthography was in its formative period. For a time, it was taken for granted that this would also have been the pronunciation valid for all the period of classical literature. However, it was perfectly possible that the pronunciation of the living language had begun to move on from that reconstructed system towards that of Modern Greek, possibly already quite early during antiquity.

In this context, the freshly emerging evidence from the non-standard inscriptions became of decisive importance. Critics of the Erasmian reconstruction drew attention to the systematic patterns of spelling mistakes made by scribes. These mistakes showed that scribes had trouble distinguishing between the orthographically correct spellings for certain words, for instance involving <ι>, <η>, and <ει>. This provided evidence that these vowels had already begun to merge in the living speech of the period. While scholars in Greece were quick to emphasise these findings in order to cast doubt on the Erasmian system as a whole, some western European scholars tended to downplay them, explaining early instances of such orthographical aberrations as either isolated exceptions or influences from non-Attic, non-standard dialects. In doing so, some scholars seem to have been influenced by an ideologically motivated tendency to regard post-classical, especially Byzantine and Modern Greek as an inferior, vulgarised form of the language, and by a wish to see the picture of ancient Greek preserved in what they regarded as its 'pure' state. The resulting debate, as it was conducted during the 19th century, finds its expression in, for instance, the works of A. N. Jannaris (1897) and T. Papadimitrakopoulos (1889) on the anti-Erasmian side, and of Friedrich Blass (1870) on the pro-Erasmian side.

It was not until the early 20th century and the work of G. Chatzidakis, a linguist often credited to have first introduced the methods of modern historical linguistics into the Greek academic establishment, that the validity of the comparative method and its reconstructions for Greek began to be widely accepted among Greek scholars too. The international consensus view that had been reached by the early and mid 20th century is represented in the works of Sturtevant (1940) and Allen (1968).

More recent developments

Since the 1970s and 1980s, several scholars have attempted a systematic re-evaluation of the inscriptional and papyrological evidence (Teodorsson 1974, 1977, 1978; Gignac 1976; Threatte 1980, summary in Horrocks 1999.) According to their results, many of the relevant phonological changes can be dated fairly early, reaching well into the classical period, and the period of the Koiné can be characterised as one of very rapid phonological change. Many of the changes in vowel quality are now dated to some time between the 5th and the 1st centuries BCE, while those in the consonants are assumed to have been completed by the 4th century CE. However, there is still considerable debate over precise datings, and it is still not clear to what degree, and for how long, different pronunciation systems would have persisted side by side within the Greek speech community. The resulting majority view today is that a phonological system roughly along Erasmian lines can still be assumed to have been valid for the period of classical Attic literature, but biblical and other post-classical Koine Greek is likely to have been spoken with a pronunciation that already approached the Modern Greek one in many crucial respects.

Recently, there has been one attempt at a more radically revisionist, anti-Erasmian reconstruction, proposed by the theologian and philologist C. Caragounis (1995, 2004). On the basis of the inscriptional record, Caragounis dates virtually all relevant vowel changes into or before the early classical period. He also argues for a very early fricative status of the aspirate and medial consonants, and casts doubt on the validity of the vowel-length and accent distinctions in the spoken language in general. These views are currently isolated within the field.

ee also

*Ancient Greek
*English pronunciation of Greek letters
*Greek language
*Greek orthography
*Koine Greek
*Koine Greek phonology
*Medieval Greek
*Modern Greek
*Modern Greek phonology
*Pronunciation of Ancient Greek in teaching


Recent literature

*W. Sidney Allen (1987): "Vox Graeca: the pronunciation of Classical Greek", Cambridge: University Press, (3rd edition, ISBN 0-521-33555-8) (A preview is available at [ Google Books] )
*C. C. Caragounis (1995): "The error of Erasmus and un-Greek pronunciations of Greek". "Filologia Neotestamentaria" 8 (16) [] .
*C. C. Caragounis (2004): "Development of Greek and the New Testament", Mohr Siebeck (ISBN 3-16-148290-5).
*A.-F. Christidis ed. (2007), "A History of Ancient Greek", Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0-521-83307-8): A. Malikouti-Drachmann, "The phonology of Classical Greek", 524-544; E. B. Petrounias, "The pronunciation of Ancient Greek: Evidence and hypotheses", 556-570; idem, "The pronunciation of Classical Greek", 556-570.
*G. Horrocks (1997): "Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers". London: Addison Wesley (ISBN 0-582-30709-0).
*C. Karvounis (2008): "Aussprache und Phonologie im Altgriechischen". Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (ISBN 978-3-534-20834-0).
*M. Lejeune (1972): "Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien", Paris: Librairie Klincksieck (reprint 2005, ISBN 2-252-03496-3).
*H. Rix (1992): "Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre", Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (2nd edition, ISBN 3-534-03840-1).
*A. L. Sihler (1995): "New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin", New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press (ISBN 0-19-508345-8).
*S.-T. Teodorsson (1974): "The phonemic system of the Attic dialect 400-340 BC." Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis (ASIN B0006CL51U).
*S.-T. Teodorsson (1977): "The phonology of Ptolemaic Koine (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia)", Göteborg (ISBN 91-7346-035-4).
*S.-T. Teodorsson (1978): "The phonology of Attic in the Hellenistic period (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia)", Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis (ISBN 91-7346-059-1).
*L. Threatte (1980): "The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions", vol. 1: "Phonology", Berlin: de Gruyter (ISBN 3-11-007344-7).

Older literature

*G. Babiniotis: "Ιστορική Γραμματεία της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, 1. Φωνολογία" ("Phonology")
*F. Blass (1870): "Über die Aussprache des Griechischen", Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
*I. Bywater, "The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Precursors", Oxford: 1908. Defends Erasmus from the claim that he hastily wrote his "Dialogus" based on a hoax. Mentions Erasmus's predecessors Jerome Aleander, Aldus Manutius, and Antonio of Lebrixa. Short review in "The Journal of Hellenic Studies" 29 (1909), p. 133. [ JSTOR (by subscription)] .
*E. A. S. Dawes (1894): "The Pronunciation of Greek aspirates", D. Nutt.
*E.M. Geldart (1870): "The Modern Greek Language In Its Relation To Ancient Greek" (reprint 2004, Lightning Source Inc. ISBN 1-4179-4849-3).
*G. N. Hatzidakis (1902): "Polytonic|Ἀκαδημαϊκαἶ ἀναγνώσματα: ἡ προφορὰ τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἑλληνικῆς" ("Academic Studies: The pronunciation of Ancient Greek").
*A. Jannaris (1897): "An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect As Written and Spoken From Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time." London: MacMillan.
*A. Meillet (1975) "Aperçu d'une histoire de la langue grecque", Paris: Librairie Klincksieck (8th edition).
*A. Meillet & J. Vendryes (1968): "Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques", Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion (4th edition).
*Th. Papadimitrakopoulos (1889): "polytonic|Βάσανος τῶν περὶ τῆς ἑλληνικῆς προφορᾶς Ἐρασμικῶν ἀποδείξεων." Athens.
*E. Schwyzer (1939): "Griechische Grammatik", vol. 1, "Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbildung. Flexion", München: C.H. Beck (repr. 1990 ISBN 3-406-01339-2).
*W. B. Stanford (1967): "The Sound of Greek".
*E. H. Sturtevant (1940): "The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin", Philadelphia (2nd edition).

External links

*University of California/Berkeley [ Practice of ancient greek pronunciation]
*Wired for books [ The Iliad recited in ancient greek]
* Society for the oral reading of Greek and Latin Literature [ Recitation of classics books]
*Dionysios Thrax, " [ Art of Grammar] "
*Erasmus, " [ De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus] " (in Latin)
*Brian Joseph, " [ Ancient Greek] ", " [ Modern Greek] "
*Harry Foundalis, " [ Greek Alphabet and pronunciation] "
*Carl W. Conrad, " [ A Compendium of Ancient Greek Phonology] ": about phonology strictly speaking, and not phonetics
*Randall Buth:, " [ polytonic|Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά: Notes on the Pronunciation System of Phonemic Koine Greek] "
*Chrys C. Caragounis:, " [ The error of Erasmus and un-Greek pronunciations of Greek] "
* Sidney Allen " [ Vox Graeca] " (only a preview available, but still useful).

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.