# History of pronunciation of vowels in Greek



## bearded

Hello everyone

I was taught that in ancient Greek the sound of 'eta' (today ita) was a long open e.  Sheep uttered a sound composed by 'beta, eta,eta...''.
Now, in order to understand how 'eta' has reached the modern sound of i, it appears necessary to me that there was a transition period during which 'eta' was pronounced as long closed e, and finally became i.  Would anyone be able to tell me when 'eta' was pronounced as closed e, and how long this lasted before it turned to i ?  
( please note that I have indicated as e the Engl.sound in bed, take, etc. and as i the Engl.sound in rid, bee...). 

Many thanks in advance.


----------



## apmoy70

Hi bm,

We have evidence (epigraphic and others) that before the spelling reform of 403 BC (where Attic and Ionic orthography converged to a common spelling system and a new alphabet was introduced the so-called _Euclidian_), the letter H (eta) was used as a diacritical mark to indicate the presence of spiritus asper before a vowel (a /h/ sound) at the beginning of the word, as it appears on the stelae that were used as boundary marks at the ancient Agora in Athens by Cleisthenes: 
http://s4.postimg.org/8t9wl4y99/Arhaia_Agora08_09.jpg

The engravings read HOROΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΤΕΣ ΑΛORΑΣ = *«Ὅρος εἰμὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς»* --> _I'm the boundary mark of Agora_

As you can see for yourself, the Attic alphabet did not use H in τῆς but E (τές, epsilon) which leads us to assume that the pronunciation of eta in the Classical and late Classical periods, was somewhat similar to the the short /e/ (close-mid pronunciation) of epsilon, probably long /ε:/ (open-mid unrounded); somewhere during the early Hellenistic period (mid-300's BC) /ε:/ becomes /e:/, and roughly by the late Hellenistic age (probably middle of 1st c. BC) the completion of the vowel raising of η /e:/ to ι /i:/ and subsequently, the loss of vowel-length dinstinctions is already far advanced.


----------



## ahvalj

I don't agree that the Greek used _ε_ for both the short and the long sounds because both differed originally mostly in quantity. The Greek alphabet originated from the Phoenician one and it simply didn't possess enough vowel letters for every variety. 

At some point before the 5th century BC, Attic and Ionic had three kinds of long _e_:
(1) the original proto-Greek _ē_: _τίθημι_
(2) the vowel that had developed from the proto-Greek _ā_ (preserved in Doric and partly even in modern Tsakonian): _φημί_
(3) the vowel that had resulted from the monophthongization of _ei_: _εἶμι_ "to go" and from the compensatory lengthening of the short _e_: _ἐιμί_ "to be" (<*_esmi_).

The vowel (2) must have passed through the stage ǣ (_ā>ǣ>ē_), both theoretically and because it reverted in Attic back to _ā _after _r _and_ i_. In the 5th century, however, vowels (1) and (2) probably had already merged since they were written the same way. The distinction between (1–2) and (3) was, however, maintained (and is traditionally maintained even now, 2500 years later). It is usually thought that the (3) was more closed than the (1–2) and became _i_ earlier — this is suggested in particular by borrowings into classical Latin where _η_ is reflected as _ē_, whereas _ει_ as _ī_.

Beware however, that this is the situation in Ionic and Attic: other dialects had their own peculiarities.


----------



## apmoy70

^^
Sο the Athenian of mid 5th c. BC used E for representing both the short-ε or the long-η jut because the Phoenician alphabet lacked enough vowel letters? 
Isn't this also a proof that both letters were pronounced somewhat similarly? 
Just look at the osctracon with the name of Themistocles engraved on; the Athenian who wanted Themistocles ostracised, used Θ for representing both the aspirated voiceless alveolar stop tʰ  and the unaspirated one t, does that aslo mean that the Phoenician alphabet lacked enough consonants, or that simply tʰ and t sound similar:
http://s24.postimg.org/ao3eem279/themi.jpg
ΘΕΜΙΣΘΟΚΛΕΣ  = Θεμιστοκλῆς [tʰemistoˈklɛːs]


----------



## ahvalj

The Phoenician alphabet had no proper vowel letters at all: the signs for vowels were abstracted by Greeks, Lydians, Lycians, Carians etc. from signs for semivowels (_Ι_ and _Υ_) or specific Semitic guttural consonants (the rest): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Greek_alphabet#Restructuring_of_the_Phoenician_abjad 
As you can see, all the available Phoenician letters were used and only Ω among vowels was introduced anew. 

That _ε_ and _η_ had different timbers is easily proved by the fact that the lengthened _ε_ always produced a vowel written _ει_ in Attic (_ἐιμί _in the example above [sorry for the wrong stress] and in myriads of other cases). In a parallel manner, the lengthened _ο_ gave _ου_, not _ω_ in Attic. 

By the way, Wikipedia has a detailed article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_phonology


----------



## berndf

I am not sure what you are debating. You both agree on the development /ε:/>/e:/>/i:/>/i/, don't you.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I am not sure what you are debating. You both agree on the development /ε:/>/e:/>/i:/>/i/, don't you.


We're debating the dark beginnings of this development.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> We're debating the dark beginnings of this development.


That has never been part of the question. Apmoy only said that in 500BC Attic the sound was close enough to the short e to use the same letter for both but he also said it was most likely /ε:/.


----------



## ahvalj

I am actually defending the pride of _ε_, which I think wasn't the short counterpart of _η_ (in contrast to what apmoy70 wrote), and explaining that the original _η_ had absorbed an even more open vowel (_ē<ǣ<ā_). This is called _context_.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> This is called _context_.


Which is quite irrelevant for the question. Nobody disagrees that _η_, _ε__ι and ε_ where distinct phonemes, probably /ε:/, /e:/ and /ε/. Classical Attic scribes certainly had no awareness of any proto-Greek origins of these phonemes.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Apmoy only said that in 500BC Attic the sound was close enough to the short e to use the same letter for both but he also said it was most likely /ε:/.


The rise of _ει _[_e:_] was a constant process in Attic and Ionic Greek during several centuries: first from the compensatory lengthenings of _ε,_ then from _e+e_ on syllable boundaries. I cannot recall a single instance when _ε_ was lengthened to _η_ in these two Greek varieties, which suggests that the timber of _ε_ and _η_ (as well as _ο_ and _ω_) was different enough (in _Θεμιστοκλῆς_ the final _ῆ_<_εη_ with _η_ lengthened back in IE in non-neuter nominatives of s-stems, *-_kʲlewe:s_). 

Even if not this evidence, I wouldn't rely on the letter usage for the reason explained above: the repertoire of Greek vowel letters was very limited.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> I cannot recall a single instance when _ε_ was lengthened to _η_ in these two Greek varieties


Which again nobody ever suggested. Classical spelling implies that _η_, _ε__ι and ε_ were three distinct phonemes. And the question is about how these three phonemes developed into modern /e/ and /i/.


----------



## sotos

bearded man said:


> Would anyone be able to tell me when 'eta' was pronounced as closed e, and how long this lasted before it turned to i ?



But did this happen to all Greek-speaking world or was a local phenomenon recorded by the dominant orthograpic system? Still today in many words H and Ε are interchangeable. e.g. ξηρός - ξερός, although the "e"  versions are frequently oral and "vulgar" but not written e.g. ψήνω (fry) - (ψένω), μηρός (thich) > μερί.


----------



## mataripis

I thought that H is soft eh and ih.Epsilon is regular E.Ypsilon is long /short hard I as in Y of Spanish.


----------



## berndf

mataripis said:


> I thought that H is soft eh and ih.Epsilon is regular E.Ypsilon is long hard I as in Y of Spanish.


In modern Greek H is a simple /i/.


----------



## mataripis

Then why Greeks write Ellhnika with Soft ehta in that word?Elihnika ! I am sure yperohos is short hard I similar to Y of Spanish! The article H is pronounced as Ih not I or Y. For example H Leksis - Ih Leksihs!Ancient Greeks were aware of soft and hard e,i, o that are also existing in most languages.


----------



## berndf

mataripis said:


> Then why Greeks write Ellhnika with Soft ehta in that word?Elihnika ! I am sure yperohos is short hard I similar to Y of Spanish! The article H is pronounced as Ih not I or Y. For example H Leksis - Ih Leksihs!Ancient Greeks were aware of soft and hard e,i, o that are also existing in most languages.


Modern Greek has only one flavour of /i/, irrespective of whether you spell it _ι, η_ or_ ει_. There is no such thing as a "soft" or "hard" /i/. I have actually no idea what you mean by that (could you explain?). Classical Greek distinguished between two sorts of "i": long and short. And both were spelled _ι__. _The modern merger where historical long _ι_, historical short _ι,_ _η_ and _ει_ are indistinguishable was completed in late Koine Greek.


----------



## gburtonio

berndf said:


> Modern Greek has only one flavour of /i/, irrespective of whether you spell it _ι, η_ or_ ει_. There is no such thing as a "soft" or "hard" /i/. I have actually no idea what you mean by that (could you explain?). Classical Greek distinguished between two sorts of "i": long and short. And both were spelled _ι__. _The modern merger where historical long _ι_, historical short _ι,_ _η_ and _ει_ are indistinguishable was completed in late Koine Greek.



Both οι and υ (with capital letter: Υ) are also pronounced /i/ in modern Greek, although υ can change when paired orthographically with other vowels. One of the interesting things about Greek is that pronunciation is almost entirely predictable from the spelling but the reverse isn't true – you can hear a word but not have a clue how to spell it, primarily (but not only) due to the different ways /i/ can be written.


----------



## mataripis

berndf said:


> Modern Greek has only one flavour of /i/, irrespective of whether you spell it _ι, η_ or_ ει_. There is no such thing as a "soft" or "hard" /i/. I have actually no idea what you mean by that (could you explain?). Classical Greek distinguished between two sorts of "i": long and short. And both were spelled _ι__. _The modern merger where historical long _ι_, historical short _ι,_ _η_ and _ει_ are indistinguishable was completed in late Koine Greek.


I know little knowledge about Greek sounds but what I mean is the actual sounds of soft and hard vowels. For example ypsilon, epsilon and ehta/ihta. Note that they appeared too in English. Ypsilon as in Italics. Epsilon as in entry. Ehta/ihta as in entry(the last vowel is soft ih), panther- the vowel e here has the sound of soft e(ehta).there are also soft and hard o. Omikron as in over.0hmega as in ato(h)m.


----------



## berndf

gburtonio said:


> Both οι and υ (with capital letter: Υ) are also pronounced /i/ in modern Greek


Yes, of course, sorry. I was concenrating on the fates of classical front vowels. There are so many vowel mergers is modern Greek...


----------



## berndf

mataripis said:


> I know little knowledge about Greek sounds but what I mean is the actual sounds of soft and hard vowels. For example ypsilon, epsilon and ehta/ihta. Note that they appeared too in English. Ypsilon as in Italics. Epsilon as in entry. Ehta/ihta as in entry(the last vowel is soft ih), panther- the vowel e here has the sound of soft e(ehta).there are also soft and hard o. Omikron as in over.0hmega as in ato(h)m.


What is a "soft vowel" or a "hard vowel"? I still don't understand what you mean by that?

At any rate, modern Greek has only five vowels, /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/ and /u/. All other distinctions have existed previously are lost; long-short, open-closed or any other distinctions that might at one time have existed.


----------



## mataripis

Then let those vowels undistinguishable.


----------



## bearded

@ berndf
I know old distinctions are lost, as you say, but maybe some new ones have appeared in Modern Greek:  e.g. in the word 'lògos' (lòghos) the first o is opener than the second, and in phère (fère = bring!) the first e is opener than the second, and in 'morò' (baby) the second o is opener than the first...


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> @ berndf
> I know old distinctions are lost, as you say, but maybe some new ones have appeared in Modern Greek: e.g. in the word 'lògos' (lòghos) the first o is opener than the second, and in phère (fère = bring!) the first e is opener than the second, and in 'morò' (baby) the second o is opener than the first...


If it were so it wouldn't have any phonemic relevance. But I doubt it is true. Spanish, Greek and Hebrew (modern day varieties on all cases) share the same five letter vowel system. We once had a discussions about Hebrew segolat word, e.g. words with the pattern CèCeC. Most people perceive the first segol as more open than the second one, native and non-native speakers alike. But this did not withstand a formant analysis. This perception seems to be related to phonetic (not phonemic!) length difference (I shortened the first vowel with an audio aditor and the phenomenon disappeared). Vowels in stressed syllables tend to be longer than those in unstressed syllables in many languages, including Hebrew. I never made any phonetic analysis, but I would bet it is the same in Greek.


----------



## bearded

Actually, I did not mention length, but opening/closure of vowels (also probably depending on stress, that is true).


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> I did not mention length.


Exactly. I told you that I have reason to believe that this was your mistake:


berndf said:


> Most people perceive the first segol as more open than the second one, native and non-native speakers alike. *But this did not withstand a formant analysis*.


And further:


berndf said:


> *This perception seems to be related to phonetic (not phonemic!) length difference*


----------



## apmoy70

gburtonio said:


> Both οι and υ (with capital letter: Υ) are also pronounced /i/ in modern Greek, although υ can change when paired orthographically with other vowels. One of the interesting things about Greek is that pronunciation is almost entirely predictable from the spelling but the reverse isn't true – you can hear a word but not have a clue how to spell it, primarily (but not only) due to the different ways /i/ can be written.


There where attempts some decades ago to reduce historical orthography to the simplest phonetic one, which produced the solecisms of *«άνκελος»* [ˈankelos] instead of *«άγγελος»* (angel), *«ςτένος»* ['stenos] instead of *«σθένος»* (valence), *«ςίςκεπσι»* ['siscepsi] instead of *«σύσκεψη»* (conference). 
Thank God for the historical orthography even if it makes life so difficult


----------



## ahvalj

apmoy70 said:


> There where attempts some decades ago to reduce historical orthography to the simplest phonetic one, which produced the solecisms of *«άνκελος»* [ˈankelos] instead of *«άγγελος»* (angel), *«ςτένος»* ['stenos] instead of *«σθένος»* (valence), *«ςίςκεπσι»* ['siscepsi] instead of *«σύσκεψη»* (conference).
> Thank God for the historical orthography even if it makes life so difficult


Well, since you have switched to dimotiki (which I regret), you should have said goodbye to the historical orthography as well, otherwise the result feels too eclectic.


----------



## mataripis

apmoy70 said:


> There where attempts some decades ago to reduce historical orthography to the simplest phonetic one, which produced the solecisms of *«άνκελος»* [ˈankelos] instead of *«άγγελος»* (angel), *«ςτένος»* ['stenos] instead of *«σθένος»* (valence), *«ςίςκεπσι»* ['siscepsi] instead of *«σύσκεψη»* (conference).
> Thank God for the historical orthography even if it makes life so difficult


I see but in reality the old and new forms are interchageably used when needed.according to book with title "teach yourself- Greek"!


----------



## bearded

> berndf:
> I would bet it is the same in Greek


You were right when you wrote 'native and non-native speakers alike'.  As a matter of fact, some Greek friends of mine, to whom I have put the question, say that in a word like lògos they cannot sense any difference in the length of the two o (both equally short), but just a difference in opening (first o more open than the second). Human ears cannot, of course, be as precise as a phonetic analysing device.


----------



## Perseas

bearded said:


> You were right when you wrote 'native and non-native speakers alike'.  As a matter of fact, some Greek friends of mine, to whom I have put the question, say that in a word like lògos they cannot sense any difference in the length of the two o (both equally short), but just a difference in opening (first o more open than the second). Human ears cannot, of course, be as precise as a phonetic analysing device.





berndf said:


> Vowels in stressed syllables tend to be longer than those in unstressed syllables in many languages, including Hebrew. I never made any phonetic analysis, but I would bet it is the same in Greek.


I've read about tests carried out with phonetic devices on vowel length of specific Modern Greek words and the result is indeed that stressed syllables are longer.



bearded said:


> As a matter of fact, some Greek friends of mine, to whom I have put the question, say that in a word like lògos they cannot sense any difference in the length of the two o (both equally short), but *just a difference in opening (first o more open than the second)*.


A question: Wouldn't it be more possible for the opposite to occur? I.e. the unstressed syllable be opener, in _lògos_, for example. I'm referring to the bold which is mine. (By "opener" I mean that the tongue is positioned a bit further from the roof of the mouth).
Open vowel.


----------

