The Romans were Hellenized B.C

This goes for the guy who comments when he doesn't know what he is talking about:


Read the thread carefully, and then contribute.

hello responding to this person who believes there is no connection between latin and greek. magna graecia {little greece} or italy was a greek colony and remained so through the pagan roman empire and even during the greco roman era of constantinople numerous southern italian cities, calabresi, sicilians , bari ravenna etc etc were allgreco roman cities who's inhabitants spoke greek until norman invasions which changed the the structure of greco roman society in italy. so when we talk about latin there are two forms ancient latin{which is very similar to greek} medieval latin which is more merovingian or nordic because of barbarian conquests around 10th century italy. when the last greco roman city fell in italy around 10t h century bari--roman civilisation finally died in italy but continued in the east in antollia and polis constantinople. the renaissance can be coined as early as 1204 when crusaders and venetians re educated themselves with the relics they sacked from the queen of ciites constantinople. all primary resources talk of roman greeks as synonomous entites even if they formed different tribes of latin and hellene respectively --they had a shared culture under the republic so know that rome was a greek city and i could not care less for the elgin marbles--but care for our christian holy relics stolen from constantinople in 1204 -this is more important. roman society claimed its universal jurisdiction of european people of all races. we could all claim to it. but respect it mediterranean roots and its fathers strategos romanos the renaissance was the re emergence of greek culture in italy. it came when refugees from constantinople migrated to italy and taught the italians craft sculpture, literature etc.

Edited by hugoestr

Hah, maybe some Menippo's or Romennipos will pop up too.

Why do people use my name, there was a stratego's, and now romanosstrategos, i thinkl theres only room for one around here

 

Edited by strategos

magna grecia means big greece, not little

this reply is directed against the austrian guy with his name
komnenos.
these words spoken on this page are the truth.
rome was a greek city. there is too much evidence for this.
germans and austrlians have an unusual fascination with greek
and byzantium history.
the reasons for this and what antagonises me is that germans
claim byzantium and roman heritage as there own.
there continual interest, museum display biases,
constantinople relics in private collections of germans, german
specialists in ancient greek language, replicating the
patheonon in 3d dimensions on computer funded in gemrnay
etc etc--show there interest is more a belief they have some
common heritage or rather i believe a cultural inferiority
complex.
the core of this problem is that western historical perspective is
biased with the claim of roman identity.
the barbarians of the west always accepted that the roman
emperor had universal jurisdiction of its citizens from
contantinople, but in the 18th century the re romantisation era
in germany led to germans founding the false claim that " we
also like the byzantium's had a 1000yr reich and that was the
holy roman empire".
so what was in effect a sporadic bunch of loosey fitted
confederate of feudal kingdoms always at war with eachother
now modern historians call the holy roman empire. yeah right!!
voltaire' is right when he said that this holy roman empire
claimed by the germans was neither holy neither roman and
neither an empire
but the germans have claimed this empire existed since the
coronation of chalamagne a violent brute who was a
barbarians and of course illiterate.
the dark ages never occured in the east but only in t he west
where the roman civil structures were displaced until napoleon
code and the roman revolution turned french revolution in the
18th century. the incredible part is that these barbarians
enslaved europe right up to the 18th century .
but in roman society that continued in the east until the
crusaders sake of 1204, people were not slaves but citizens to
a republic. like every french person knows in that scene of a fim
with billy zane and the beautiful girl embrace with the beret
speaking about the revolution and the old respublica
the empire of the romans of constantinople

strategos romanos

It is probably the best course of action, if somebody cares to elaborate on the subject. However, I have read somewhere in the forums that the term IE is to be used only for anthropology and not for linguistic classification. Linguists, enlighten us.

Originally posted by hugoestr ]They both descend from the proto-language indo-european. We can make very similar ties between Spanish and Persian , for example. This doesn't mean that Spanish descended from Greek.

Well we know that Spanish was "developed" from vulgar Latin with influence from Arabic and Basque but anyway, do you know of any site etc. we could find the original Sanscrit prefixes and suffixes?
That would be quite interesting.


Edited by Phallanx

Originally posted by AIAS Carl D. Buck may support that there is "little in common" between Latin and Hellinic but does he explain the coincidence of prefixes, suffixes and roots? If these two languages are 'alien' to each other and are "studied as a pair for cultural reasons only" why do we find the previously mentioned connections? Some examples: We know of "letter changes" (don't know the correct 'term") in adopted words like: �->L        as seen in ����� -> silo � -> R      as seen in ������ -> rabies � -> L       as seen in �������� ->Ulysses � ->T       as seen in ������ -> studeo � -> G       as seen in ����� -> genus H -> E       as seen in �������� -> thesaurus O -> U       as seen in ������ -> umber � > F or D    as seen in ���� -> fores � -> M        as seen in   ���� -> Deus We also know that the Hellinic rough breathing is "covered" in Latin by "inserting" the letters h, s, v The letter "y" was introduced from the contemporary Hellinic alphabet to mark the "y" sound, inexistent in Latin, but frequently found in the numerous Hellinic loan words. "z" was also introduced from the contemporary Hellinic alphabet to mark the "dz" sound, especially at the beginning of these words. Roman speakers evidently used a series of voiceless aspirated stops, written ph [�], th [�], ch [x], originally borrowed from Hellinic words but also occurring in native words (pulcher= beautiful.) We also find the "rh", not distinguished phonetically from "r", which was written only in the beginning of the Hellinic loan words (like rhetor, rhombus etc.) Some Prefixes and Suffixes of Hellinic origin in the Latin language: prefixes Hellinic form -> Latin adoption ��- (doric ��)   -> in- ���- (doric ��)   -> es- ��- or ��-   -> ex- ���- or ���-   -> cum- ����-   -> pros- ���-   -> pro- ���-   -> ana- ����-   -> cata- ���-   -> dia / di- ����-   -> met- ����-   -> para/prae- ����-   -> anti- ���(�)-   -> amphi- ���-   -> epi- ����-   -> per- ���-   -> ab- ���-   -> sub- (rough breathing is transformed into "s") ����-   -> super- ����-   -> ad- ����-   -> at- ��- (from ���)   -> re- ��-   ->eu- hyper-, hemi-, archi- and some more I obviously missed suffixes -�� -> -us -�� -> -um -�� -> -ae -�� -> -er -�� -> -or -�� -> -is -�� -> -en -����� -> -ars -���� (doric ����) -> -unt So if there is no connection, influence, similar origin or whatever other term one may choose to use. Why do we have these well proven examples?

They both descend from the proto-language indo-european. We can make very similar ties between Spanish and Persian , for example. This doesn't mean that Spanish descended from Greek.

So if there is no connection, influence, similar origin or whatever other term one may choose to use.

A failed try at distorting the counter-argument. Read again the thread to follow the discussion correctly.

Come on, guys, the Romans were not hellenised. The Romans were just inspired by the hellenic civilisation, in some things. Nothing else. The only thing that this thread provides is more ground for controversy. Let's talk about history instead...

Carl D. Buck may support that there is "little in common" between Latin and Hellinic but does he explain the coincidence of prefixes, suffixes and roots?

If these two languages are 'alien' to each other and are "studied as a pair for cultural reasons only" why do we find the previously mentioned connections?

Some examples:

We know of "letter changes" (don't know the correct 'term") in adopted words like:

�->L        as seen in ����� -> silo
� -> R      as seen in  ������ -> rabies
� -> L       as seen in  �������� ->Ulysses
� ->T       as seen in  ������ -> studeo
� -> G       as seen in �����  ->  genus
H -> E       as seen in �������� -> thesaurus
O -> U       as seen in ������ -> umber
� > F or D    as seen in ���� -> fores
� -> M        as seen in   ���� -> Deus

We also know that the Hellinic rough breathing is "covered" in Latin by "inserting" the letters h, s, v

The letter "y" was introduced from the contemporary Hellinic alphabet to mark the "y" sound, inexistent in Latin, but frequently found in the numerous Hellinic loan words.
 "z" was also introduced from the contemporary Hellinic alphabet to mark the "dz" sound, especially at the beginning of these words.

Roman speakers evidently used a series of voiceless aspirated stops, written ph [�], th [�], ch [x], originally borrowed from Hellinic words but also occurring in native words (pulcher= beautiful.) 
We also find the "rh",  not distinguished phonetically from "r", which was written only in the beginning of the Hellinic loan words  (like rhetor, rhombus etc.)


Some Prefixes and Suffixes of Hellinic origin in the Latin language:

prefixes

Hellinic form -> Latin adoption

��- (doric ��)   -> in-
���- (doric ��)   -> es-
��- or ��-   -> ex-
���- or ���-   -> cum-
����-   -> pros-
���-   -> pro-
���-   -> ana-
����-   -> cata-
���-   -> dia / di-
����-   -> met-
����-   -> para/prae-
����-   -> anti-
���(�)-   -> amphi-
���-   -> epi-
����-   -> per-
���-   -> ab-
���-   -> sub- (rough breathing is transformed into "s")
����-   -> super-
����-   -> ad-
����-   -> at-
��- (from ���)   -> re-
��-   ->eu-

hyper-, hemi-, archi- and some more I obviously missed


suffixes

-�� ->  -us
-�� ->  -um
-�� ->  -ae
-�� ->  -er
-�� ->  -or
-�� ->  -is
-�� ->  -en
-����� ->  -ars
-���� (doric ����) ->  -unt

So if there is no connection, influence, similar origin or whatever other term one may choose to use. Why do we have these well proven examples?