[Potemkin]

I am a Greek born and raised in Greece by Greek parents, my woman is not. My children thus, will be mixed, but i will make them Greeks. Lets say that say in 20 years , if you meet my children, and ask them what they are? And they reply...Greeks? Will you mock them because their bloodline is not pure?

Exactly the same goes for those impure Hellenic bloodlines that ruled over Egypt and Byzantium.

The idea of a 'Greek bloodline' is as meaningless as the idea of a 'British bloodline', and for the same reasons: during the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire, Greece was repeatedly overrun by barbarian tribes. Look at the marble statues of ancient Greek youths, then look around you at the modern-day Greeks. Are they physically identical? You seem to want to tie Greek nationalism to some sort of ethnic basis. This is simply not tenable. And surely the glory of Greece is that its culture spread around Europe, and indeed formed both the basis and the greatest achievement of European culture. Europe as a whole became Greek. This is the eternal empire of Greece - not armies or palaces, but the words of the poets and the thoughts of the philosophers. The empire of Greece on earth was transient and limited, as all earthly empires are; the empire of Greece in the mind is eternal. This is why I find all this wrangling over whose empire lasted the longest or who conquered the most territory simply childish and petty. All these empires have crumbled into dust. Who cares about them now? It is Greek culture which is the eternal monument and the eternal empire of Greece, and that is something in which all races and nations can share. That's all I have to say on this topic.

[Kiroff]

Latin died, Italian is a by-product, very close to Latin but it is another language, not simply a dialect.

Modern Greek is not another language compared with Ancient Greek, it is exactly that Modern Greek.

How many languages are based on Greek and how many are based on Latin?

I mean, if Greek was as widespread(which it was), we would see languages with Greek roots, but they are always either Celtic, Aryan, Latin, Punic/Semitic, or otherwise. The reason why Spanish is based on Latin and not Iberian is because the people there became Romans and only diverged from Latin in several centuries. Greece, on the other hand had nowhere to diverge to, which is why it changed relatively little. Latin was a language of a nation, not just an ethnos.

The Greeks besides a few cases in Archaic Greece, never considered the purity of their bloodline as important, and mixed frequently, and still do. So did the Romans as well.

I am a Greek born and raised in Greece by Greek parents, my woman is not. My children thus, will be mixed, but i will make them Greeks. Lets say that say in 20 years , if you meet my children, and ask them what they are? And they reply...Greeks? Will you mock them because their bloodline is not pure?

Exactly the same goes for those impure Hellenic bloodlines that ruled over Egypt and Byzantium.

You just disproved your own point.

Being a Roman means that you take Roman culture as your own. Roman != Latin. Latins have a tribal bond, Romans have a cultural bond. The word Roman simply means that it is the culture of a city state called Rome that grew into a great empire. That's why

First of all, Roman Culture and ethnicity were part of the Greek culture and ethnicity.

Is just funny. Roman culture incorporated Greek culture into itself. Just like it incorporated Etruscan and Gallic culture. The Roman lifestyle ("The Roman Way") is completely different from the Greek one, and so do the laws, pasttimes, and ideals that accompany it. The Roman metaculture is a lot like the American or Canadian one - it encompasses ideas previously alien to itself and makes them its own. In the Roman view, anyone with Roman citizenship is a Roman. In 212 Roman citizenship was extended to all free subjects of the Empire.

Potemkin:

Let's agree to this: Greeks wrote the specs, Romans made the implementation. We're still debugging and rewriting it all.

[noemon]

The idea of a 'Greek bloodline' is as meaningless as the idea of a 'British bloodline', and for the same reasons: during the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire, Greece was repeatedly overrun by barbarian tribes. Look at the marble statues of ancient Greek youths, then look around you at the modern-day Greeks. Are they physically identical? You seem to want to tie Greek nationalism to some sort of ethnic basis.

Potemkin, ethnic purity has nothing to do with racial purity.

The Modern Greeks are very mixed people racially, and their bloodline is so mixed, you wont know where and who.

But ethnically the Greeks are very pure, i can assure you.

Ethnic puricity has to do with the idea of an ethnos and hence the ethnic-ethnos, of a nation, not with pure racial descent.

I am a Greek, because i walk, talk, and act like a Greek, i share certain customs with my fellow Greeks, but also i share a common ancestry not necessarily pure common ancestry but none the less ancestry. And Greece in this sense has sustained its ethnic character, our language is unchanged, our myths, our songs, everything is unchanged despite the mixing that we went through the ages, the ethnic identity survived and is flourishing.

It is tenable, the Greeks became one nation, many thousand of years ago, not 200 years ago when modern nationalism appeared, there are many Greeks that never fell under any occupation, Mani is a great example where my dad is from, these people never payed any taxes to nobody. And these people never mixed with others, not even other Greeks. The famous Maniots. It is also here where the revolution begun, with the great motto Victory or Death, instead of the usual Freedom of Death of the rest of Greece, because Mani always had its freedom, it is usually these people that you find around the phora preaching the Greek arguments, still, and it is these people, that control the armed-forces, who do the lobbying and etcetera.

The idea of the ethnos for the Greeks begun when they established the Olympic Games(for Greeks only) and that is why our calendar begins from that specific date.

Now, if i mix with a foreigner my children will not be any less Greek if i make them Greeks, this is ethnicity for us and this is nationalism for us as well. In other words it takes one Greek parent and Greek education to become an ethnic Greek, you are not racially pure because only one of your parents is Greek, but you are ethnically pure. If you look up the definition of ethnicity, you will see that ethnicity's primary marker is language, customs and a sense of common ancestry, not a pure common ancestry. This is the definition the Greeks gave to the term and it is the definition that is still used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
You still need to have some ancestry a link, cause or else you would be just culturally Greek. And it has always been this way. That is why you find Greeks in America or Australia that cannot speak a word of Greek but declare as Greek Americans or Greek Australian, there are almost 4 million people in America declaring Greeks. And Melbourne has got a bout half a million one generation Greeks.

And surely the glory of Greece is that its culture spread around Europe, and indeed formed both the basis and the greatest achievement of European culture. Europe as a whole became Greek. This is the eternal empire of Greece - not armies or palaces, but the words of the poets and the thoughts of the philosophers. The empire of Greece on earth was transient and limited, as all earthly empires are; the empire of Greece in the mind is eternal. This is why I find all this wrangling over whose empire lasted the longest or who conquered the most territory simply childish and petty. All these empires have crumbled into dust. Who cares about them now? It is Greek culture which is the eternal monument and the eternal empire of Greece, and that is something in which all races and nations can share. That's all I have to say on this topic.

Thank you for beautiful words, i just need to add something as well.

The glory of Greece is that it left this mark on the world, which is undoubtable, but also the glory of Greece is that it never lost its sense of identity. And that is never, the tradition in literature is unbreakable, even during Ottoman times, which were the worse. The Greek literature has never stopped producing, it is continuous. The Roman is not, the Jewish is not, the Egyptian is not. Only, the Chinese literature tradition follows the same continuous unbreakable pattern and that is in the whole of the planet.

Kiroff

Latin was a language of a nation, not just an ethnos.

Ethnos literally means nation, and vice-versa.

Being a Roman means that you take Roman culture as your own. Roman != Latin. Latins have a tribal bond, Romans have a cultural bond. The word Roman simply means that it is the culture of a city state called Rome that grew into a great empire. That's why

Nope, Latins have a tribal bond, Romans have an ethnic bond, and Romance(Romanized) have a cultural bond.This is how it goes.

And for the Greeks, the Ionians have a tribal bond among them, just like the Aeolians and the Dorians. The Greeks have an ethnic bond among them. And the Hellenized people aka Western Society, have a cultural bond.

[Thunderhawk]

The Alphabet hasn't changed one single bit, for the past 3000 years now.

Really?
Are Linear A and Linera B the same as modern athenian Greek?
Ive been told letters have been dropped and others changed over the centuries, over the various Greek languages.

(Upon further thought, I may have the time scale off.)

Latin died, Italian is a by-product, very close to Latin but it is another language, not simply a dialect.

English today is not the same as English in the 1300s.
Heh, English used in Jamaica, England and Sierra Leon are rather different at times. Is English a dead language because its modern form(s) are so different from its old form?

Furthermore, for Latin to die it would have to be abandoned en mass for something else. Italian has become quite seperate from its Latin roots, but the link is still there. A person 50 years old is much different from when he was 5, yet they are both the same person, if not in the same state.

And for the Greeks, the Ionians have a tribal bond among them, just like the Aeolians and the Dorians. The Greeks have an ethnic bond among them. And the Hellenized people aka Western Society, have a cultural bond.

Gauls had little incommon with Rome historically or culturally, and often in opposing sides, untill Julius Ceasar. Soon after Gauls became members of the army, merchants, nobles, etc.. Their culture was infused into Roman culture, and Roman culture was brought to them. The Gaulic peoples as part of Rome created much of the history of the Roman empire.

They spoke a similar language - it took time to develop, but it has. They have common history, they helped make it with the Latins (and many others) after all. They have a common culture.

How is a romanized Gaul not a Roman?

[noemon]

Really?
Are Linear A and Linera B the same as modern athenian Greek?

Linear A and B is before the alphabet. Read the link i gave you and you on the Lang and you will see the diff.

The Gaulic peoples as part of Rome created much of the history of the Roman empire.

They spoke a similar language - it took time to develop, but it has. They have common history, they helped make it with the Latins (and many others) after all. They have a common culture.

How is a romanized Gaul not a Roman?

Ok, sure. Ask somebody else, and someone will explain to you, why. Am finished here.

[Alexandros]

Really?
Are Linear A and Linera B the same as modern athenian Greek?
Ive been told letters have been dropped and others changed over the centuries, over the various Greek languages.

(Upon further thought, I may have the time scale off.)

Yup you did mix up the time scale a bit but since approx. the 7th cent. the alphabet is basically the same, deriving from Cretan Hieroglyphics that strongly influenced Linears A and B' and also the Proto-Canaan and later Phoenician scripts.

English today is not the same as English in the 1300s.
Heh, English used in Jamaica, England and Sierra Leon are rather different at times. Is English a dead language because its modern form(s) are so different from its old form?

Furthermore, for Latin to die it would have to be abandoned en mass for something else. Italian has become quite seperate from its Latin roots, but the link is still there. A person 50 years old is much different from when he was 5, yet they are both the same person, if not in the same state.

Of course Old English isn't the same as modern english, actually they're totally different, hence why O-E is classified as one of the "dead languages", just like Latin is.

While the first "gave birth" to modern english and the second to a number of languages, the fact that none of the speakers of its original form exist, unfortunately make it a dead language.

[Thunderhawk]

While the first "gave birth" to modern english and the second to a number of languages, the fact that none of the speakers of its original form exist, unfortunately make it a dead language.

History is not comprised of finite units, it is a continuous stream. As is the development of language. If all the Romance languages were abadoned then Latin would be truely dead. Saying "Italian" rather then modern Latin is to make it easy to compartmentalize, just as we do for difficult periods of time: Stone age, Bronze age, Iron age, etc..

A child does not "die" and then get reborn into an adult, it grows. With language its a bit more complicated and occurs over many lifetimes, but the metaphor holds.

Ok, sure. Ask somebody else, and someone will explain to you, why. Am finished here.

Because your responce would be the same ethnic/race bit you are pushing, which is not applied to the concept of "Roman" any more then it does to "American", "Canadian" or any other grouping that is independent of blood heritage.

[starman2003]

The Greeks invented science

Generally the classical world was pretty poor at science. One notable achievement was the accuracy with which Eratosthenes measured the size of Earth around 200 BCE. But there was little real progress either in science or invention. See Elton WARFARE IN ROMAN EUROPE 350-425. For all practical purposes a hoplite or legionary was equipped and armed the same way as a tenth century Byzantine soldier. Compare that with the technical (at least) achievements of the West in a comparable period of time from 1000-2000.

[Alexandros]

History is not comprised of finite units, it is a continuous stream. As is the development of language. If all the Romance languages were abadoned then Latin would be truely dead. Saying "Italian" rather then modern Latin is to make it easy to compartmentalize, just as we do for difficult periods of time: Stone age, Bronze age, Iron age, etc..

A child does not "die" and then get reborn into an adult, it grows. With language its a bit more complicated and occurs over many lifetimes, but the metaphor holds.

None of the Romance languages are Latin they simply derive from it and thats a totally different concept. If we were to take your analogy as accurate, then we'd also have to suggest that Proto-Indoeuropean (if it ever did exist) is still alive because its "children" are..

But this is not the case, as already mentioned a language is classified as dead when native speakers cease to exist and since there is no single population to consider Latin or as in my example PIE as its "mother-tongue" they are both "dead".

Its that simple

[Doomhammer]

What is this I hear of latin being dead? Says who? Aside from the fact that modern English, French, Italian etc. (btw, even "etc" is latin) all share the same ancestor (latin), the latin alphabet was adopted by many countries.

[Alexandros]

What is this I hear of latin being dead? Says who? Aside from the fact that modern English, French, Italian etc. (btw, even "etc" is latin) all share the same ancestor (latin), the latin alphabet was adopted by many countries.

I can't see how on earth an alphabet is considered proof of the existance of a language since a language may exist even without a written form of communication since its strictly based on sounds.. but neither can I understand the inability to comprehend what is actually very simlpe.

I'll quote the definitions for "dead language" as presented in dictionary.com

dead language

*n. A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

*a language that is no longer learned as a native language

*a language no longer spoken, eg Latin

Conclusion.
When there is no single population to consider a language (any language) as their native language, it is classified as a "dead language"

[Doomhammer]

I can't see how on earth an alphabet is considered proof of the existance of a language since a language may exist even without a written form of communication since its strictly based on sounds.. but neither can I understand the inability to comprehend what is actually very simlpe.

It does show that the Romans invented something which is widely used across the world.

*n. A language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community.

The Vatican and many Italian people. Latin is also taught in German public schools. There is also a reason why people call languages like SPanish, Italian and French "latin languages". lol

*a language no longer spoken, eg Latin

Again, there are people who speak latin.

Conclusion.
When there is no single population to consider a language (any language) as their native language, it is classified as a "dead language"

Translation:
"Conclusion. I have proven that latin is dead and thus proved that Greeks were better than Romans. I have satiated my nationalistic feelings and therefore, no longer face dissonance."

[Alexandros]

It does show that the Romans invented something which is widely used across the world.

Totally incorrect. The Romans did no such thing, they simply worked on the Hellenic Alphabet which derives from Phoenician which clearly depicts influence from earlier Cretan and Egyptian scripts, so its nothing more than a borrowing and that does not constitute an invention.

The Vatican and many Italian people. Latin is also taught in German public schools. There is also a reason why people call languages like SPanish, Italian and French "latin languages". lol

Romance languages are NOT Latin, they are Latin derived which is a totally different issue and anyone that has ever read a sentence of Latin can confirm that they are very far from it.
Furthermore, learning Latin in school does not support your thesis one single bit.
As already provided by definition a "dead language" is that which bears absolutely no native speakers, so when you prove that the Latin language is taught not for purely educational purposes but to bestow them with the absolute essentials for communication in their everyday lives, then and only then is your argument considered of some value.

Unfortunately for you, German youth don't ask the baker for "crustum" but for "brot"

Again, there are people who speak latin.

A handfull, most Latin scholars can't even utter more than a couple of words that aren't classed as some of the historic quotes, but again, they do not use it as their native language and that is the whole point !

Translation:
"Conclusion. I have proven that latin is dead and thus proved that Greeks were better than Romans. I have satiated my nationalistic feelings and therefore, no longer face dissonance."

Again the exact same pathetic form of argumentation you celebrated in Megalommatis' topic.

WHERE did I ever use the word "better" or even get into the debate of who has contributed more to our western way of thought??

While its more than obvious that I strictly debated and proved that Latin is indeed a "dead language" and by doing so, corrected the misconception which you share. Accepting the fact that you were wrong is out of the question because you are driven by your inferiority complex.

So accept your ignorance on the issue, go see some specialist so that you may deal with your complexes and forget about rediculous accusations of nationalism that will get you nowhere.

[Potemkin]

Unfortunately for you, German youth don't ask the baker for "crustum" but for "brot"

German is not a Romance language.

As already provided by definition a "dead language" is that which bears absolutely no native speakers, so when you prove that the Latin language is taught not for purely educational purposes but to bestow them with the absolute essentials for communication in their everyday lives, then and only then is your argument considered of some value.

I agree with Alexandros here. Latin clearly is a dead language, and to argue otherwise is rather perverse. As we used to say at my old school:

Latin's a dead language,
As dead as can be.
It killed all the Romans
And now it's killing me!

[Alexandros]

German is not a Romance language.

I didn't suggest it was. The bakery example was used to prove that learning Latin in school does not make it "alive".

[Doomhammer]

so when you prove that the Latin language is taught not for purely educational purposes but to bestow them with the absolute essentials for communication in their everyday lives, then and only then is your argument considered of some value.

Ok. I'll go with that.

Again the exact same pathetic form of argumentation you celebrated in Megalommatis' topic.

WHERE did I ever use the word "better" or even get into the debate of who has contributed more to our western way of thought??



So accept your ignorance on the issue, go see some specialist so that you may deal with your complexes and forget about rediculous accusations of nationalism that will get you nowhere.

Then why do you make language such a big issue in this topic? What relevance does language have in this thread? Latin is a dead language, Greek apparently is not. Ergo, in the context of this thread, the point of you discussing this must be... ?

While its more than obvious that I strictly debated and proved that Latin is indeed a "dead language" and by doing so, corrected the misconception which you share.

Thus you have achieved nothing (as far as the topic is concerned).

Accepting the fact that you were wrong is out of the question because you are driven by your inferiority complex.

You would correct in your assumption if I actually cared about what someone said on the internet; especially in such a trivial issue as this.

[Thunderhawk]

If every Jamaican started speaking English as is spoken by the Queen, Jamaican English would effectively be dead. English however would remain. "Middle" English is dead, English is not. Regional and temperal variants can come and go, yet if the language in other forms survives and is used, the language continues.


Latin circa -100 BCE to ~400 AD is dead, latin circa 2k AD is quite alive, and spoken by some 60+ million people. Are the two interchangable? no. Middle English and modern English are not interchangable, yet both are English. English is not dead because there are speakers of its 'modern' variant, dispite its 'middle' variant being dead.


Growth and development could be interpreted as the death/End of an earlier stage, but the process does not kill that which is growing.

[Doomhammer]

Growth and development could be interpreted as the death/End of an earlier stage, but the process does not kill that which is growing.

There are many anti-internationalist fools who argue that the use of foreing jargon and education in foreign languages lead to the destruction of languages. They forget that all languages are in a state of transformation. It is an unavoidable consequence of human interaction.

[Potemkin]

There are many anti-internationalist fools who argue that the use of foreing jargon and education in foreign languages lead to the destruction of languages. They forget that all languages are in a state of transformation. It is an unavoidable consequence of human interaction.

Exactly. Most of the jargon and technical terms in English are lifted straight from Greek and Latin. Does this mean that English is a dying language? It's absurd.

[Doomhammer]

Exactly. Most of the jargon and technical terms in English are lifted straight from Greek and Latin. Does this mean that English is a dying language? It's absurd.

But can we say latin is dead then?