Romaic or Modern Greek Grammar

236 Pages·2016·13.05 MB·English

by  Sophocles E.A.

H
%&
#
^
5 9 <3*
\#
^ = ^
*S 5>
* r£
^\4
^4. >«.
.
C
%."
\/' . %•/
:*
^ ^^
<£
<£
V ^v
%,
c\ .
^
3*
<% \#*
•
^ %
'
s
S -t ** ss aV> s ^r <*> * ** s ^
^ o
F° \* ^****** ,\* *
& - r' A^
^
J?
•/%
^
"^
C v
•/^ * v * .
S^t ^o^ ^0^
^ z *, ^ ^
> o ^ * o ,- ^> \Vy „ -v * o „ '^
# ":^^
^0^ ^0^
^ ^ ^^ ^ :
O ,
,^ V* ^
V
,#
v*

** V
ROMAIC
MODERN GREEK GRAMMAR.
BY
SOPHOCLES.
E. A.
JLdiC
BOSTON:
HICKLING, SWAN, AND BREWER.
1857.
a
Y^\tf>
*(**>
EnteredaccordingtoActofCongress,intheyear1857,by
HICKLING, SWAN, AND BREWER,
intheClerk'sOfficeoftheDistrictCourtoftheDistrictofMassachusetts.
CAMBRIDGE
:
ELECTROTYPED BY METCALF AND COMPANY.
£>?*
INTRODUCTION
uGreek is read almosteverywhere," says Cicero.1 And the
Greek inscriptions of the Alexandrian and Roman periods,
found in regions widely remote from each other, in Spain, in
Mesopotamia, and from ^Ethiopia to Sarmatia, attest the cor-
rectness of this statement. When, in the course of time, its
turn came to stand on the defensive, the language of Greece
was enabled by its singular tenacity to resist all external at-
tacks. The modern pronouns, personal endings, case-endings,
and numerals, clearly show that the combined forces of barba-
rism could make noimpression upon its centre. TheLatincon-
quered the West; but it retreated somewhat precipitately from
Greek ground. The Bulgarians were compelled to adopt the
language of their neighbors, the Slavi; but the Slavic had to
yield to the Greek wherever it came in immediate contact with
it. As to the Turkish population of Greece, they are indebted
to their creed rather than to their native pridefor the preserva-
tion oftheir Tatar dialect.
The Romaic or Modern Greek, the language of the modern
Greeks,and the leading language ofthe Levant,is the offspring
of Mediaeval Greek. In its orthography and etymology it is
essentially the same as Ancient Greek. But it diifers from the
parent stock in many particulars. Thus,
I. All its vowel-sounds are isochronous, no distinction being
made between long and short.
1 Cicer. proArch. 23. Nam siquisminoremgloriae fructumputat
ex Graecis versibus percipi quam ex Latinis, vekementer errat: pro-
pterea, quod Gracca leguntur in omnibusfere regionibus, Latina suis
finibus, exiguis sane, continentur.
IV INTRODUCTION.
II. Its rhythmdepends not on quantity, as in Ancient Greek,
but on accent.
III. In general, the meanings of its words do not belong to
the ancient language, although for the most part legitimately
developed from it.
IV. In its syntax it is essentially different from classical
Greek.
V. It has discarded the dual number.
VI. Masculines and femininesofthe classicalthirddeclension
are inflected after the analogy ofthe first.
Y1I. The ancient diminutives have taken the place of their
primitives.
VIII. It has no nouns ofthe common gender.
IX. The relations which, in Ancient Greek, are denoted by
the genitive and dative, are, in Modern Greek, generally ex-
pressed by the accusative with prepositions.
X. Its pronouns, with the exception of the personal, demon-
strative, and interrogative, are periphrastic.
XL Its future, perfect, and pluperfect are periphrastic, as in
English.
XII. The third person oftheimperative is periphrastic, as in
English.
XIII. It has no middlevoice, thepassive supplying its place.
XIV. It has no optative mood; its place being supplied by
the subjunctive and indicative.
XV. It has no infinitive; its place being supplied by the
subjunctive with ud, or by the indicative with on. Except the
infinitive after the auxiliary verbs 6e\<o and e^w. Except also
the infinitive with the article.
XVI. Itsparticiple active is indeclinable, as in English.
XVII. Its perfect participle passive has no augment what-
ever.
XVIII. With the exception of eljxai, to be, it has no verbs
in jxt.
XIX. All its prepositions take the accusative.
XX. It has no adverbs in -a>s.
But important as arethese deviationsfromtheclassicalstand-
ard, the modern dialect is so intimately connected with the an-
cient, that a critical knowledge of the former without a corre-
sponding knowledge of the latter is wholly out of the question.
In fact, a Greek's mastery of his mother tongue is just in
proportion to his acquaintance with Ancient Greek.
Dialects, in the usual sense of the term, do not exist in Ko-