The Romans were Hellenized B.C

Of course Greek and Latin are two different languages. But Latin has more similarities in comparison with the Greek than with the other ancient Indoeuropean languages. But we can't claim that it's a descendant of the Greek language. Only the Latin alphabet derives from the Greek.

 

hugoestr

You must be joking. Where in this topic was I ever agressive, where do I 'attack' anyone and especially you???
It seems like you and Komnenos are holding a little grudge after our homo dispute. No prob. you'll get over it.

Interestingly enough, even though you quote my posts, you never once managed to present not even one single quote of my using the word "descendent" simply because I never did.

True I strongly support the well known fact that ancient Hellinic has  strongly influenced Latin, but according to your sources, even though we know of the indisputable fact of roots, prefixes, suffixes and literally thousands of loan words, there are linguists that would deny a strong connection???
Who exactly named these wanna-be's linguists???

Cicero?
Yeah one example to prove what exactly, that he attempted to denounce his proven past?
The article presents a list of names that all wrote in the Hellinic lang. Hell even Ceasar's last words were in Hellinic as Roman historians admit:

"And in this wise he was stabbed with three and twenty wounds, uttering not a word, but merely a groan at the first stroke, though some have written that when Marcus Brutus rushed at him, he said in Greek, 'You too, my child?"
Suetonius L X X X I I.
Link

So we either come to the conclusion that none of them, not even one knew what they were talking about or there is alot more behind these "stories" than some would like to admit.

Why do you think that this is some attempt to "elevate" the Hellinic culture? Is this not a history thread?
This topic is nothing more than quoting ancient writers either Romans or Hellines, it's nothing more than history. Do you honestly believe that there is any more reliable source than the historians/writers of that time?

"Besides, my linguistic argument was made as more evidence that the Romans are not Greek descendents"

Direct descendants maybe not, but based on the fact that the Sabines were a Hellinic people, the Roman myths speak of Troyan descent and our knowledge of the many Hellinic colonies in Italy. Make it simple logic that they had strong connections, not only cultural but also by blood.


Edited by Phallanx

Iskender Bey ALBO

True that is one of the theories but unfortunately no real evidence to support it. What is quite interesting is that they introduced "Quirinus" which was as most sources support a "God of war". As I mentioned before, they used the "term" quiris/quiretes for their people, which is translated as citizen.

Now, we know that the Romans had a name for citizens, "civitas".
The names quiris-quiretes obviously derives from the Hellinic, name kouros-kouretes which means "young men of fighting age" and therefore warriors, �young men, young warriors,� as seen in Iliad 19. 193, 248.
(Notice the similarity to the God's name)

Here is a reference to text that explain the differences between Latin and Greek.

Latin didn't grow out of Greek. They are two separate descendents of Proto-Indo-European. See Andrew L. Sihler, A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), which is an extensive rewrite of Carl D. Buck, A Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, (Chicago, 1952), updated to include Myceneaean sources. Buck is still worthwhile though, especially for the sections on the fundamentals of historical linguistics (pp. 35-63).

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/22/003.html

Here is a description of the book:

Description Like Carl Darling Buck's Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (1933), this book is an explanation of the similarities and differences between Greek and Latin morphology and lexicon through an account of their prehistory. It also aims to discuss the principal features of Indo-European linguistics. Greek and Latin are studied as a pair for cultural reasons only; as languages, they have little in common apart from their Indo-European heritage. Thus the only way to treat the historical bases for their development is to begin with Proto-Indo-European. The only way to make a reconstructed language like Proto-Indo-European intelligible and intellectually defensible is to present at least some of the basis for reconstructing its features and, in the process, to discuss reasoning and methodology of reconstruction (including a weighing of alternative reconstructions). The result is a compendious handbook of Indo-European phonology and morphology, and a vade mecum of Indo-European linguistics--the focus always remaining on Greek and Latin. The non-classical sources for historical discussion are mainly Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, and Germanic, with occasional but crucial contributions from Old Irish, Avestan, Baltic, and Slavic.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Linguistics/~~ /c2Y9YWxsJnNzPWF1dGhvci5hc2Mmc2Q9YXNjJnBmPTMwJnZpZXc9dXNhJnB yPTEwJmJvb2tDb3ZlcnM9eWVzJmNpPTAxOTUwODM0NTg=

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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