# Earth cannot tolerate two suns



## tieutieu

Hi,

Please read this image: 


Can anyone tell me if what is written in Greek is correctly written? It's a quote of Alexander the Great.

There are two versions of the same sentence: which is the right one ? (the author of this article says it is the second one ... can anyone explain to me the difference?)

Thanks for your help


----------



## sotos

I can only see the difference in aspiration. The second is correct. The first seems to be printed by someone who didn't have the proper font, but still is understandable.


----------



## tieutieu

thanks ;-)


----------



## tieutieu

One more thing: can you help me with the pronunciation too  ?


----------



## apmoy70

tieutieu said:


> One more thing: can you help me with the pronunciation too  ?


Reconstructed classical => [hɛː gɛː ˈdyːo hɛːˈliuːs uːk͜ hypoˈmɛnɛːi̯]
Modern Greek => [i ʝi ˈði.o iˈli.us uç͜ ipoˈmeni]


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

apmoy70 said:


> Reconstructed classical => [hɛː gɛː ˈdyːo hɛːˈliuːs uːk͜ hypoˈmɛnɛːi̯]
> Modern Greek => [i ʝi ˈði.o iˈli.us uç͜ ipoˈmeni]



Hi,
the MGk is correct but the Classical pronunciation requires a few small corrections:

[hɛː gɛː ˈdyo hɛːˈliuːs uːk͜h hypoˈmɛneː]

1. I'm pretty sure the upsilon in δύο is short (at least in Homer it is, cf. Iliad Σ490 ἐν δὲ δύω ποίησε πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων -xx -- -xx -xx -- --, but if you have better information for Classical Attic I might be wrong on this)
2. The aspiration of the /k/ before the /h/ needs a superscript h in IPA to show it is one aspirated plosive [kh] and not a sequence of two consonants [kh]
3. ει = e: not ε:i (this would be correct in an early pronunciation for the subjunctive ending ῃ)


----------



## apmoy70

Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> Hi,
> the MGk is correct but the Classical pronunciation requires a few small corrections:
> 
> [hɛː gɛː ˈdyo hɛːˈliuːs uːk͜h hypoˈmɛneː]
> 
> 1. I'm pretty sure the upsilon in δύο is short (at least in Homer it is, cf. Iliad Σ490 ἐν δὲ δύω ποίησε πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων -xx -- -xx -xx -- --, but if you have better information for Classical Attic I might be wrong on this)


You are 100% right of course, the -α-, -ι-, -υ- are always short when they appear in the penultimate of nouns and adjectives, mea culpa


Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> 2. The aspiration of the /k/ before the /h/ needs a superscript h in IPA to show it is one aspirated plosive [kh] and not a sequence of two consonants [kh]


But the [k] becomes an aspirated [kʰ] after the liaison of the latent word-final [k] combined with the spiritus asper of the following word begining with an aspirated vowel sound; if you write it as [uːkʰ͜ hypo] then you're losing the vestigial enchainement of the final consonat and the aspirated initial vowel.
Personally I find [uːk͜ hypo] more accurate in describing the aforementioned euphonic phenomenon.


Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> 3. ει = e: not ε:i (this would be correct in an early pronunciation for the subjunctive ending ῃ)


I was under the impression that -ει- becomes /eː/ somewhere during the early Hellenistic period (mid-300's BC), I think /εːi/ is the prevalent reconstructed Classical pronunciation, isn't it?


----------



## Nikolaos_Kandidatos

Hi!



apmoy70 said:


> But the [k] becomes an aspirated [kʰ] after the liaison of the latent word-final [k] combined with the spiritus asper of the following word begining with an aspirated vowel sound; if you write it as [uːkʰ͜ hypo] then you're losing the vestigial enchainement of the final consonat and the aspirated initial vowel.
> Personally I find [uːk͜ hypo] more accurate in describing the aforementioned euphonic phenomenon.



Mmm, I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're after here. It is of course true that the aspiration of the plosive /k/ is the result of contact with the following /h/. If we're concerned with the underlying phonemes, then of course the correct is /uːk hypo/. On the other hand, if it is the phonetic result we are interested in, you can't ignore the resulting aspiration in phonetic script. I would prefer phonetic rather than phonemic notation here since what we're doing is giving pronunciation instructions, and if you write that way you might give the impression that /uːk hypo/ is pronounced [uːk hypo], which it isn't since [kh] and [kh] sound distinctly different. 

However, I might myself have been inconsistent since on second thought it is likely (just my personal opinion) the /h/ would be "assimilated" into the aspirated plosive, i.e. instead of [uːkhhypo] I should probably have written [uːkhypo]. The former would likely occur only if someone was speaking very slowly and clearly, the latter in normal speech.



apmoy70 said:


> I was under the impression that -ει- becomes /eː/ somewhere during the  early Hellenistic period (mid-300's BC), I think /εːi/ is the prevalent  reconstructed Classical pronunciation, isn't it?



No, never. Classical ει is the combined result of archaic /ee/ (what grammars call false diphthongs, due to contraction, like in ποιειν) and /ei/ (real original diphthong, like in ειδον if I'm not mistaken). Since the archaic period it is pronounced [e:], possibly [ei] in some positions, and very quickly develops into [i:] merging with long iota.

You are correct that Classical /ε:i/ becomes /e:/ around there, just like you say, merging with ει (and eventually long ι along with ει), but both before and afterwards this sound is written ηι (subscript iota in later times). The early merger of ηι and ει as /e:/ is the reason why in med-pass. 2 singular for "you want" we can write either βούλει or βούληι already in Classical Attic, the latter being the "expected" orthography for the result of contracting *βούλεαι. But only those forms that can be written ηι originally stood for the sound /ε:i/. Since υπομενει here is 3 singular active indicative, there is no option for writing υπομενηι and the ending -ει stands for an original diphthong /ei/, not /ε:i/. If it were subjunctive you would be right.


----------



## apmoy70

Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> Hi!
> Mmm, I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're after here. It is of course true that the aspiration of the plosive /k/ is the result of contact with the following /h/. If we're concerned with the underlying phonemes, then of course the correct is /uːk hypo/. On the other hand, if it is the phonetic result we are interested in, you can't ignore the resulting aspiration in phonetic script. I would prefer phonetic rather than phonemic notation here since what we're doing is giving pronunciation instructions, and if you write that way you might give the impression that /uːk hypo/ is pronounced [uːk hypo], which it isn't since [kh] and [kh] sound distinctly different.
> 
> However, I might myself have been inconsistent since on second thought it is likely (just my personal opinion) the /h/ would be "assimilated" into the aspirated plosive, i.e. instead of [uːkhhypo] I should probably have written [uːkhypo]. The former would likely occur only if someone was speaking very slowly and clearly, the latter in normal speech.


Hi again, 
I agree, [uːkhypo] is much better, perhaps with the addition of the lower ligature tie, demostrative of the liaison of the latent-word final -k- with the aspirated vowel of the next word: 
[uːk͜ʰypo]


Nikolaos_Kandidatos said:


> No, never. Classical ει is the combined result of archaic /ee/ (what grammars call false diphthongs, due to contraction, like in ποιειν) and /ei/ (real original diphthong, like in ειδον if I'm not mistaken). Since the archaic period it is pronounced [e:], possibly [ei] in some positions, and very quickly develops into [i:] merging with long iota.
> 
> You are correct that Classical /ε:i/ becomes /e:/ around there, just like you say, merging with ει (and eventually long ι along with ει), but both before and afterwards this sound is written ηι (subscript iota in later times). The early merger of ηι and ει as /e:/ is the reason why in med-pass. 2 singular for "you want" we can write either βούλει or βούληι already in Classical Attic, the latter being the "expected" orthography for the result of contracting *βούλεαι. But only those forms that can be written ηι originally stood for the sound /ε:i/. Since υπομενει here is 3 singular active indicative, there is no option for writing υπομενηι and the ending -ει stands for an original diphthong /ei/, not /ε:i/. If it were subjunctive you would be right.


Thanks, very interesting.


----------

