Reading the Greek Classics in Modern Greek?

I speak several Romance languages and I can understand most of the vocab in Latin, if they grammar or the phrase is simple, I can get the gist of what they say without ever studying Latin. The cultured register hasn't changed a bit, but you must have a deep knowledge of your language. Isn't like that in Modern Greek?

does anyone have a comparison between attic and koine? i cant find one

The words are different, just check basic vocab and you will see. MG is to AG what Italian is to latin.

but the italian words are practically latin with some phonetical and morphological changes
any abstract word is latin

The same text in Latin:
Verba quaedam ex Italica in Latinam Phoneticum et circumfundo admodum mutationes.
Quis est ex latine vocabulo abstracto exprimantur

any Romance speaker can understand almost all the words individually

what do you mean?

Modern Greeks are insufferable in that regards. Sadly many western classicist who travel and work there continue to spoil them.

They are also spoiled too much by others in general, due to muh classical european heritage, only in the last two decades Greeks received a bad rap, turning them from founders of Western Civilization to basically Orthodox turks, mostly due to German contempt.

> Orthodox turks

But that's what modern Greeks basically are, aren't they? They don't have a whole lot to do with the Greeks of Plato's time, genetically speaking. Too much mixing happened since then.

Sure, what I'm saying is that for 200 years Greeks were considered as if they were Western European, and only recently their Mediterranean-Eastern-Orthodox etc aspects are taken prominence.
Many famed people supported Greece and Greeks solely because of their reputation as founders of western civilization and nothing else. iirc, a french politician who was vehemently for Greece entering EU later on said he regretted that decision, saying they were far too different than '' us western europeans''.

Nowadays no one worships Greeks except for dumb liberal classicists who work at American-British etc schools, who still spoil them lot.

t. someone who spent 2 years in Blegen.

are there any ancient greek audiobooks? can you read ancient greek with the modern pronunciation?

This has been disproven many times, several genealogy studies have shown us to be very similar to the ancient Greeks. This is just western racism showing its ugly face as usual.

There wasn’t that much miscegenation going on during ottoman times, people stayed in their own communities.

I don't know but wouldn't be surprised to see one or two, Cambridge Reading Greek series had a cd that spoke the text in attic.
You can read ancient greek in modern pronunciation but you would butcher it, though I would say it is easy to go between erasmian-modern pronunciation.
more like Turks are muslim greeks. the average t*rk looks far more like Papadoupoulos than a steppe nomad.

the thing is, they are no longer Greeks, they have been invaded by hordes of Turks, Slavs and Albanian, like what has happened with France
They like to think they are Greek because it makes them accomplished, but they are just subhuman Turks and Semitics.

Bro, a Greek is a Greek, what we are talking about is that there are no longer Greeks, you are Albania 2.0, all the Greeks left or have been influenced to the filth that surround them

Yes, precisely. Many Turks are descendants of Greeks and Armenians and Assyrians who converted to Islam and assimilated into Turkish culture. Cities like Smyrna (Izmir) were majority Greek up until a century ago and then they either fled, were murdered or converted.

sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

I have no clue what you are on about, but you don’t have to dig deep on the web to find out what I’m saying is true.

The people from my region (Epirus) was the same people as Albanians up until not long ago so of course there are similarities between albania and parts of Greece

It would be easiest to learn ancient Greek - trust me - just as Nietzsche did. Which in turn lead him to writing his first book "The Birth of Tragedy".

Can you read most ancient greek shit after 3-4 years?

> (OP)
>just as Nietzsche did
Nietzsche was not an amateur in any shape or form. He was a prominent scholar and philologist before turning himself into the famous philosopher.

A lot of Turks who arrived in Anatolia were pagans, most converted to Islam but some converted to Christianity instead, Karamanlides for example.
In Greece proper the populations stayed separated for the most part.

They didn't. Asia Minor had Christians and Greece had muslims, that were genocided/killed/forced to migrate/migrate etc after between 1820 to 1950.

Yes but they stayed segregated in areas where Muslims were the minority.

Thats a good topic which had a lot of scholarly debate, Stefanos Vrynois wrote a lot about this and many of his ideas are challanged today.
I find Turkification of Asia Minor particularly interesting.
but there is also the notion that your religion, not your nationality or language, determined whether you were a greek or turk.

I think you would never be able to read it comfortably without a dictionary or footnotes, too many idiomatic expressions and hapax legomenon. I don't know how much would it take though, anyone can enlighten us?

bump

They're the same language. It'll probably take you 2-3 years to become fluent in Modern Greek, after that you could learn Ancient Greek in another 2 years. It's just a matter of learning new words and a much more complex grammar, but they're literally the same language, so don't worry. Learning one is learning the other.

What said. Nietzsche was studying Ancient Greek and Latin at a prep school in his early teens. He was also a phenom.

Man, I feel sorta gypped for not even having the opportunity to choose Ancient Greek/Latin in school.

Where are you from? In Spain I took 3 years of Latin in HS, besides French and English from primary school.

>MG is to AG what Italian is to latin.
Well obviously. Who would think that wouldn't be the case?

From a town of 40 thousand in the grand countryside of Hungary. All you could choose from was English, German, and Russian ( because that was mandatory before '89 so some teachers still had the credentials to teach it).

The important question is if you took advantage of your school syllabus and learnt English, German or Russian, because if they taught Latin but the level of teaching was low or based on pure rote memorization, it could have done more harm than good and ended up hating the language, like some Italian fellows I know.
If you really have the desire to learn Latin you still have time. Remeber that Cato the older learnt Greek when he was 80.

Big disagree with this. Modern and Ancient Greek are the same language. Learn the contemporary version before the ancient.
This isn't true. Modern Greek and Ancient Greek are much more similar than Italian is to Latin. Greek is one of the most conservative languages in Europe and compared to the majority of European languages, it hasn't changed very much. The biggest changes are in the grammar, which has simplified drastically. The pronunciation has supposedly changed, but nobody can prove this.
Consider what I said above. Learning Modern Greek is worth it. It's the same language as Ancient Greek linguistically speaking and will facilitate your jump to Ancient. The best way to do this really is just to work backwards from Modern to Koine to Ancient, and all the steps in between. After studying nothing but Modern Greek for two months I was able to understand 30-40% of an Ancient Greek text. This is possible especially for you since you already have experience learning foreign languages. But I'm serious, learning one is learning the other; it's just more natural to go from contemporary to ancient.

I'm 22 now and I have a C1-level control of English and an okay-ish ( B2 ) level of German. I'm currently trying to make the latter catch up to the former.

Honestly, I'm a bit scatterbrained when it comes to languages. I want to learn French after English and German because it would bring the most immediate benefit out of the languages I want to learn in my lifetime, but my heart pulls me in several tangential directions at the same time.

After that, I want to dedicate myself to Greek and Latin for as long as it takes to read some Homer, Cicero ( he's supposed to be really hard, I know ) Plato, and Vergilius. My mother had these old-ass books in Hungarian about Greek and Roman mythology which I read several times over in elementary, so I'm just kinda fond of the period in general.

At least I'm privy to a body of literature not many outside of Hungary are privy to in terms of language, I guess lol.

>The pronunciation has supposedly changed, but nobody can prove this.
The fact that the Romans transliterated phi as ph, as opposed to a simple f, is enough proof that the letter used to be pronounced as an aspirated p, not as an f. Mutatis mutandis, theta and chi also were first aspirated plosives (as fricatives they could also have been confused with f and h). Other things like vowel changes (which is far more frequent than consonant changes by the way) can easily corroborated by the frequency of spelling errors through time, e.g. if they spelled ι as η, ει, οι etc., and is also supported by Latin transliteration (otherwise the Romans would just write e instead of ae, i instead of oe etc., as in fact they start to do in Vulgar Latin, but oe becomes e instead of i). That's not even touching other diphthongs, voiced consonants etc. So yes, there is plenty of proof that the pronunciation has changed across 2000 years.

You might be right; Erasmus was a good scholar. But strictly speaking, nobody knows what Ancient Greek sounded like. We can conjecture rightly but it'll always be conjecture.

In the same vein you might well say nobody truly knows how anyone spoke at least two centuries ago, or whether Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes etc. actually ever existed, because they weren't actually there.

>In the same vein you might well say nobody truly knows how anyone spoke at least two centuries ago
To some extent this is true; we've lost many dialects since then.

>whether Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes etc. actually ever existed, because they weren't actually there.
I don't see how this follows.