From Wikimedia Incubator
< Wp‎ | grcWp > grc > Οὐικιπαιδεία:Ἀγορά

Welcome to the Ἀγορά!

< Οὐΐκαδε

Άρχαῖα Ἑλληνικὰ κείμενα ἐν τῇ Νεοελληνικῇ Οὐικιθήκῃ καὶ τῇ Ἀρχαιοελληνικῇ Οὐικιπηγῇ εὑρεθῶσι.

Note on terminology: Grc Wikiprojects are referred to as Οὐίκι projects. They used to be reffered as Βίκι and Ϝίκι projects.

τὶ αὕτη ἐστίν[edit | edit source]

This is a test site for the ancient greek wikipedia (see the request here).--Lefcant 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Texts[edit | edit source]

There are already more than a hundred text there, including all of Esop's fables and the complete New Testament and Septuagint. 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC) w:en:User:AndreasJS

Shouldn't texts go at wikisource?--Ioshus 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are there; I corrected it.-- Lefcant 15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone[edit | edit source]

Get the joke that Οὐίκαδε is a pun on οἴκαδε, but wikineologized? Or will everyone think it's a mistake?--Ioshus 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I got it, and I'm anything but perfect in ancient greek, so I think it's comprehensible. ;-) But why do we need a link form the discussion to the article? Or is it just for fun?-- Lefcant 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Just while it's in incubator mode... There's no one button click on the left to get back to the Greek test, the icon takes you back to the main incubator page. I guess I could always click "article"... so I guess yeah, just for fun =] --Ioshus 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I got a chuckle. Could it be a portmanteau?? Oreibates 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
HA! Definitely. Unlike its use in almost all Latin applications, here the ouiki prefix has actually lost a letter, and oikade has lost two letters. So yes, good eye! --Ioshus 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Ancient Greek wiki[edit | edit source]

Could those who are interested in editing on Οὐικιπαιδεία (should we be approved) please put their names under "Users interested in forming an editing community" in the proposal summary at the top of the proposal page? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Ioshus 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We need star a agressive promotion to make our project a success[edit | edit source]

  • Every body shoud have promote this project in each forum of classic languages, and inside universities and institutes where Ancient greek is teach o know
I would try to badger some people into participating, since I know plenty of people who are much better at Greek prose composition than I am. But I am not sure if any of them will be able to find the time to contribute (some classics students have to study for 70-90 hours a week!) This has been my experience whenever I have tried to persuade people to contribute to Vicipedia. I think it would be best to aggresively advertise ourselves on other wikis. Leigh (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I have had the same experience. I have tried to get many people to join Vicipaedia, almost none of whom actually have. Add to the problem that I know far more Latin scholars then Attic scholars, and well, there we are...--Ioshus 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR NEW ARTICLES[edit | edit source]



Yes, he/she is right and note that the request has been conditionally approved, if we quit all kind of work on it, it is still possible to be rejected... Another question: does everyone understand the text on the main site? I wrote it together with a classics tutor, so I hope it is free of mistakes. If there are unclarities feel free to leave a message here.-- Lefcant 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: Will articles get as easily deleted as in 'the real' Wikipedia, because of being 'not wikified' κτλ. or is there some more patience because of the 'incubator' status?—PURRAKHS 14:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello! In effect, an article on a "legitimate" subject will not be deleted for not being wikified or because it is badly written. There is indeed more patience due to the draft status of the project. Of course, such sloppy articles could start getting tagged. --Omnipaedista 10:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Suda[edit | edit source]

I was wondering what people here thought about incorporating text (the odd sentence here and there, not whole articles) from the Suda into our articles, as en wiki often does with the 1911 Britannica, so that the article has a skeleton which we shall then be able to flesh out. I do not have a problem with it myself (as long as the text is wikified, and checked for factual accuracy, and we do not become too reliant on it). Leigh (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we (or at least I) can learn much about writing encyclopedia articles in ancient Greek from the Suda. But I would think it best to mark text from the Suda as such (ὥς φησι ἡ Σοῦδα, vel sim.) This follows the en wiki practice of marking text from the Encyc. Brit., if I'm not mistaken. On the issue of factual accuracy, the Suda is often our only source for a fact, making fact-checking impossible. And sometimes things that are probably untrue (e.g. Aeschylus killed by a falling turtle) would still be good fodder for Οὐικιπαιδεία. But I agree that it would be best to exclude egregious errors. I might like to try to put a bot together to automate the retrieval of Suda text, but I have a lot to learn first. Oreibates 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would go even further. I believe the early version of en.wikipedia was seeded with articles en masse from the out-of-copyright EB. Why not do the same with the text of the Suda from http://www.stoa.org/sol/ ? (Subject to licensing, I guess. But can a medieval text be copyright? So long as annotations are not reproduced, this must be PD.) Errors, problems with NPOV and fact can then be edited out as the community grows. I suspect we could win the cooperation of the folks at the Stoa in extracting this. (I can't speak for them, however, although I used to be an editor at the SOL.) Why not the whole thing? GabrielBodard 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation of Ancient Greek Wikipedia Imminent![edit | edit source]

See [1]. Leigh (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Translators Needed[edit | edit source]

We only have to translate the interface (or at least most of it) before Οὐικιπαιδεία is created. We need as many people as possible to log into Betawiki, become translators, translate interface messages and, most importantly of all, fix the mess that I have inevitably made of some of the translations. Leigh (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthography[edit | edit source]

Shouldn't there be spirits on the rho's? As far as I remember, the rho always takes a spirit unless it occurs as a doubled rho.

When they begin the word, yes. Leigh (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Grave accent (Bareia-Βαρεῖα)[edit | edit source]

I would like to give some information about the grave accent (Bareia). We use it:

  • instead of acute accent (oxeia-ὀξεῖα), when a word is stressed on the last syllable (λήγουσα), e.g. ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴρ
  • when follows nothing (e.g. only space, as in titles) we put grave accent (Bareia-βαρεῖα), e.g. Ἑλληνιστὶ

But we use in the same position the acute accent (oxeia-ὀξεῖα), when:

  • after the word follows a sign of punctuation, e.g. full stop (τελεῖα στιγμή "."), half stop (μέση ἢ ἄνω στιγμή "•"), comma (κόμμα ἢ ὑποδιαστολή ","), interrogative (ἐρωτηματικόν ";") and exclamative (θαυμαστικὸν ἢ ἐπιφωνηματικόν "!"); e.g. χειμὼν βαρὺς ἐπῆλθε καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα στρατεῦσαι ἐπὶ τὸν Ὀρχομενόν. Any other sign isn't counted as a punctuation sign (e.g. ":", "()", "«»", "-", "="); e.g. ὁ ἀνὴρ (οἶδας σαφῶς περὶ τούτου) ἦν σοφός.
  • follows an englitic word and the stress of it is transisted on the last syllable of the previous word, e.g. ἄνθρωπός τις, κήρυκές τινες, σφαῖρά τις, στρατιῶταί τινες, εἴ τίς φησί μοι ταῦτα, (in the last example the accent of the μοὶ goes on the φησὶ-the accent of the φησὶ goes on the τὶς-and the accent of the τὶς goes on the εἰ!)
  • the words τίς-τί (when used as an interrogative) and ἰδού, bear always the oxeia (ὀξεῖα), e.g. τί φράζεις μοι ταῦτα; ἰδού ἐγὼ καινὰ ποιῶ τὰ πάντα.

Sorry for the style; I'm not teaching, I only want to clear this detail. --Neachili, 23 August 2007, 03:48 (EET).

The Church of Greece places vareia on ἰδού on their Septuagint whenever a stressable word follows with no pause and I think this ἰδού issue mgiht be a Katharevousa thing. I've never heard of it as proper ortography in any kind of Ancient Greek, Attic, Koine, Byzantine Koine or Ecclesiastic. Aslo if nothing follows we should use oksys (acute) not vareia (grave), such as in titles. Only when an orthotonic word follows the oksys turns into vareia.

Open Betawiki in ancient greek[edit | edit source]

recently has been open the BETAWIKI OF ANCIENT GREEK.

Just a question[edit | edit source]

I would like to contribute to Ancient Greek Wikipedia, but I don't know how to use Greek letters on my computer. How do you do it? -- 12:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of computer you have. In any case, we have some advice for first-time users in the frequently asked questions section. Leigh (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)




ΟΙΜΟΙ ΤΑΛΑΣ, we have been denied![edit | edit source]

See [2]

I think it is very unfair that the rules can be changed in the middle of a request, particularly as so much work has been invested in the project and the project should really have been created months ago, but was not thanks to delays with the interface translation (which is hardly a priority). Well, θεοὺς μάχεσθαι οὔτις ἀνθρώπων σθένει... Leigh (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Go to Wikia and propose it. They'll probably host it without issue; I mean, they took in the Klingon wikipedia. In all likelihood you can do the same. 03:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion about it, with a passional defense of our proyect in the board of language subcommittee titled Latina Wikipedia closing and hellenic wikipedia opening that is currently continued in the list of wikimedia title Allow new wikis in extinct languages?. if you want to susbcribe to the list enter here. you can help providing good arguments to get a reconsideration Crazymadlover

Let's continue the work!!![edit | edit source]

currently there is a discussion in the wikimedia foundation forum, about to revert the restrictive current policy; for in the future newly to allow wikipedias in historical languages; linked to this, recently it has been rejected a proposal to delete our incubator. then, it is neccesary to continue the work in this incubator, when a future modification of policy happens, it will be already. remember that all the work won't be delete, it will remain saved. Crazymadlover

Greetings from the other greek test-project. ;-) I am so glad to read the message above! Continue your good work! Unfortunately I am not able to contribute in ancient greek language. Nevertheless, in my function as test administrator of pontic greek test-project (cough, cough) I wish to express my solidarity to all of you and your effort! My best wishes to you, or as they say in pontic greek: υγείας και χαιρετίας! --Sinopeus 02:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rules of contributions[edit | edit source]

I think in some rules of contribution as in wikipedia articles as betawiki translations.

1.- avoid loanwords of "barbarian languages", at least they were inevitables.

2.- preserve the original mean of the classical word. and refuse modern words that disturb its meaning: for example: we must refuse the word Oxygene (acid maker) not just to be absolutely improper (for its real chemical properties), worse its derivatives words: the english word oxydes (metal stains, CO2), in greek, mean that they are acids (as clohydric, nitric o sulfuric acids). it is completely absurd.

it is more accurate the term "stoicheion pyritokon" as leihgvsoptimusmaximus suggests (as its real chemical propertie: supporter of the combustion).

3.- all the articles must write in polytonic


I think that we should have a page for discussing what the best Ancient Greek translations of modern concepts, discoveries and inventions are. Leigh (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

500 most used Mediawiki messages[edit | edit source]

hello. we must effort to complete the translation of mediawiki messages, specially of the 500 most used:


it is and important goal to succeed.


Αrticles that the Ancient Greek Wikipedia should have[edit | edit source]

please help to translate and edit the pages suggested in:

Δέλτοι ἅσπερ δεῖ ἁπάσας τὰς Ϝικιπαιδείας περιέχειν

you please suggest another articles, too


Babel messages[edit | edit source]

we can also translate the babel interface to ancient greek



Κυρία Δέλτος[edit | edit source]

is this name proper? isn't there another word to express "main page"? Crazymadlover

I don't know who came up with it (SPQRobin I suppose), but I think it is proper, since the only word that translates main is κυρία, feminine allomorph of the adjective κύριος "potent, main". Unless you mean, that it is not a good rendering of main page's meaning. In this case it is true that a phrase like
Πρωτίστη Δέλτος (most significant page, prime page) would be more appropriate. Omnipaedista 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of regular contributors[edit | edit source]

85% of the interface has been translated (including the Babel messages and the 500 most used Mediawiki messages) and many important articles have been created (though some of them are still "stubby"). However, as one can see here, after a very fruitful summer of substantial activity, the number of regular contributors has diminished to two again; moreover, no new articles are created, and no more content is generated. After the second denial of the project many of its original contributors have inevitably given up; moreover, recently we've had a third denial. My point is that even if the current policy on classical languages changes, we still have to show that there is activity in the incubator and that our project isn't dormant. (I could go on and start adding new pages all by myself, but the whole philosophy of a wikipedia is that there is a vivid community of peers who review the quality of each other's work; and this isn't what we currently have here).
Omnipaedista 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the current policy about the ancient languages that discourages more people to participate. That would change if they are permitted again, many people are eager to contribute. Fortunately, the new community language proposal policy is close to take final shape. I'm very optimistic. Crazymadlover.

Biggest Ancient Greek Dictionary[edit | edit source]

You can find interesting this dictionary. Accordying to its authors is the biggest ancient Greek dictionary written nowadays. Disgracefully is a Greek-Spanish Dictionary, then it is not as accesible for everyone as we want.



Discussed further here. Omnipaedista 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoken articles[edit | edit source]

Recent discussion between Omnipaedista and CuteHappyBrute, about audio files of Ancient Greek phrase has made that i think in the future: spoken Ancient Greek articles, definitly it must be pronounced in restored pronuntiation. I particularly enjoy Mark Miner performance. Crazymadlover.

I guess it's not so hard to have at least one spoken article here. In Vicipaedia, there is only one: w:la:Ecclesia Catholica Romana (recited according to the Ecclesiastical pronunciation). All it takes, after one has recorded a sample, is to upload it to the Commons and then input to the spoken article's wikipage a special template (which I've already designed and saved in my sandbox) that includes a link to the audiofile, and info about its use/its identity. All that remains is someone to actually upload such a file; I might do it when I get the chance. As for Miner, thanks C.m.l. for introducing him to us; there's also a link to this file in the en-wiki article on Menander, as I've just discovered. I gotta say that this is by far the most accurate/flawless performance of reading grc I've ever heard! Omnipaedista 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The article to be recited must be a featured one. Crazymadlover.
Additional example in German Wikipedia. Crazymadlover

Admins and bots[edit | edit source]

I've just went through the catalogue of Wp/grc pages and realized that several of them are redirects based on uncommon typoes; useless pages, that is. I'd like to see them deleted but spotting them one by one, and then asking an Incub-admin to do it may not be the best solution. My point is that maybe the Wp/grc test project should have its own test administrator just as the Wp/pnt test has Sinopeus and Makedonier (see here). A test-admin could also protect some pages in case of revert wars (it's never happened so far, of course, nor it's predicted to, but I'm speaking in principle). I'm not totally sure if I wanna make a request for this privilege, though. Leigh or C.m.l. could become admins, as well. Anyway, I've just thrown the idea here and I hope it's discussed in the near future. Another suggestion that I wanna make is about the creation of an interwiki-adding bot (I have in mind Vicipaedia's Robbot; one of many there). A few days ago, I had to update some of the interwikis of the grc articles manually, and I decided that this was my first and my last time that I do a bot's job ;) The problem is that I dunno anything about how does somebody actually program one, so I suggest asking for help to the Latin or the English wikipedians (or whomever else is willing to help). Omnipaedista 08:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose you. Your work is flawless, you're one of the editors that have the best Grc-level. Your productivity is high, among others reasons. Moreover, as Leigh told me, he is, right now, very busy; and I have not sufficient Grc-level. Crazymadlover.
OK then, thanks. I'll try to make a request for test-adminship as soon as possible. Omnipaedista 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Done by now. I am currently a test-admin. As for the bots, we will have to wait till the project opens. --Omnipaedista 06:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Τὸ ἐκ τῆς τημερινῆς γλώττης χρυσᾶ ἀντλεῖν[edit | edit source]

I recommend here consulting not only your copies of Smyth but (esp. in the constructing of neologisms) your living Greek friends. The website Translatum.gr will be of use, and I commend this enjoyable little treatise to you by F.M. Wyndham, who studied ancient Greek at Harrow & Oxford but found it of great profit to pay due attention to modern Greek. Τύχῃ ἀγαθῇ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:55 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly thank you for bringing up all these issues. Consensus on most of them was built “ages” ago and since then every “veteran” here takes it for granted. See here a sample of what I'm talking about: translatewiki:Portal_talk:Grc. First, I have to comment on a criticism of yours that you've eventually withdrawn: 'The form Ϝικιπαιδεία would never have existed, but Ϝικιπαίδεια, as in ἐγκυκλοπαίδεια'. I assume you've withdrawn it because you've realized that when the last syllable of a polysyllabic grc word contains two morae, the melodic tone is not allowed to be in any other place than this last syllable or the second mora (if there are two) of the penultimate syllable. (Maybe these complex moraic rules should be described in some page) Second, in the sentence 'Δέλτοι ἅσπερ δεῖ ἅπασαι αἱ Ϝικιπαιδεῖαι περιέχειν' Ϝικιπαιδεῖαι is the subject. Third, δέλτος versus σελίς is explained here. Fourth, in the phrase 'τί ἐστιν', ἐστίν behaves like a disyllabic enclitic part of speech and loses its acute/grave tone. As for the “ἄντλησις proposal” (lexical “pumping” from el), i.m.o., you're basically right (under certain conditions), but this issue deserves to be discussed more properly another time. --Omnipaedista 16:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You were right about a linguistic point, after all. It's true that δεῖ is a verb that gets constantly mistreated here by all of us out of negligence. Just a few days ago, I've noticed that Leigh had syntaxed δεῖ with casu dativo personali (δεῖ σοι "you have the need") in a sentence where it should've been syntaxed with accusativo: δεῖ σε "it's needed that you" (translatewiki:MediaWiki:Talkexists/grc). And I've just noticed that in the above sentence Ϝικιπαιδεῖαι couldn't possibly be a subject in nominativo cause δεῖ is impersonal and in case of indirect discourse, it has two "objects", the one of which must be in accusativo i.o.t be the subject οf the other (which is a complemetary infinitive). I'ma review all the occurrences of this verb immediately and make the necessary corrections. Regarding εὑρεθῶσι: I'm not sure who wrote it, but it seems correct. It renders the en sentence "are to be found" and the corresponding el-kath (Katharevousa modern Greek) "ἵνα εὑρεθοῦν" to grc-att (Attic ancient Greek) sufficiently. Comment: I'm beginning to believe that this project is indeed the most pedantic in the history of wikis; we must have surpassed even Vicipaedianos in tediosity ;) --Omnipaedista 08:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction of all messages and articles accomplished and the sentence is now 'δέλτοι ἅσπερ δεῖ ἁπάσας τὰς Ϝικιπαιδείας περιέχειν'.
--Omnipaedista 11:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the digamma (ϝ)[edit | edit source]

I don't know if the digamma in the name of Wikipedia is good. Wouldn't οὐικιπεδία or something like this be better? 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Digamma is the best way to transliterate W. The equivalence is perfect. Crazymadlover.
For more than a year Οὐκιπαιδεία was indeed the name of this project. However, C.m.l. and I (we are the main contributors here along with Leigh) decided that the digraph <ου> rendering [w] creates far too much confusion. For an explanation of this, see here. The point is that <ου> in A.Greek was either a digraph for [uː] (as in ποῦς) or a rendition of the diphthong [ou] (as in ἀκόλουθος); <β> is inappropriate too, since up until the early Medieval Greek it was only used to denote [b]. The only letter that ever denoted unambiguously a [w]-sound in a context-independent way was the digamma (there is also <υ>, but it can be used as a rendition of [w] only in certain combinations of melodic tones and vowels, such as <αῦ> and <εῦ>).
Omnipaedista 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the digamma is a lousy, horrendous idea. It was no longer used in Classical Attic Greek; besides, "Washington" is transcribed as Ouasington in the America page of this test, "ou" is the traditional way of transcribing "w".

Besides, it is a ridiculous anachronism to use digamma with the minuscule polytonic Byzantine orthography, such hybrid monstrosity never existed in Greek. This wiki is written in Chimera Greek! If you wanna use digamma, use the Majuscule no-diacritic classical orthography, it is less of a monster. 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The other argument for using ου instead of the digamma is that this was the universal practice of Greeks in the Hellenistic and Roman periods when they needed to transcribe Latin proper names containing v. E.g. Οὐαλεριανός = Valerianus. To reject the ancient Greek practice in favor of the digamma is overly pedantic. 21:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the statement that "ου is the traditional way of transcribing w" is as far from truth as possible. To be accurate, it is only one of the many traditions of transcribing /w/ to Hellenic languages, especially popular in the stages of Early Koiné (before 1st c. B.C.E.) and Katharévousa (1796-today). In earlier stages (during the first two millennia B.C.E.), when a massive borrowing of foreign words from to AGreek occured, the [w] phone has been transcribed either using <ϝ> {*wedimn- > ϝέδιμνος}, <β> {*wrak- > βράκαλον}, or <υ> {mostly preclassically *wak-intj- > ὑάκινθος, but also hellenistically in certain Latin names Aquilla > Ἀκύλας}, or <ο> {*sorw-a > σορόα}, or <ου> {*wit- > οὔιτον}; see pages 7 & 15 of' famous overview paper ( www.indo-european.nl/ied/pdf/pre-greek.pdf ). So here, all we did was to choose the most optimal and unambiguous of the many ancient (circa 9th-6th B.C.E.), though non-Attic, oral/written traditions.
Second, we're well aware of the fact that many people will find the combination of digamma with diacritics chimeric. However, there is a standard "policy" in revived languages wikipedias for using a slightly more optimal writing system for their languages than the corresponding traditional ones, e.g.: Wicipǣdia uses <g> (a letter not belonging to the classical Old English version (7th c.) of the Latin alphabet) instead of <ȝ>, and Vicipaedia uses <u> [u(ː)] in cases where <v> [w] behaves as a syllabic phoneme, though this convention scarcely occured in Classical Latin. And of course, the combination of digamma with diacritics is not "our" innovation; that's a standard practice for all modern printed editions of Aeolic Greek Lyric Poetry (these poems were collected in papyri during the Alexandrine era, and the philologers of that time used for their transcriptions both a digamma-like letter and their contemporary diactitics). On a more general perspective, many other elements of this test may be perceived Chimeric, as well, such as the use of non-Ionic dialectal Hellenic adverbs (in certain technical articles), or of nouns/adjectives directly taken from Katharévousa; of cource, this practice is in accordance with the "policies" of other revived languages: Wicipǣdia uses non-Anglo-Saxon dialectal Anglic words where is needed, or even anglosaxonizes Modern High German or Modern Icelandic ones in order to keep the Germanic character of the language, and Vicipaedia occasionally uses words from Vulgar Latin (that contains many germanicisms and hellenicisms) and Neolatin (16th-20th c. Latin), despite the fact that its core-language is a Classical Latin one. Omnipaedista 03:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) All that is very nice and well, but if, as you say, this is to be an Attic wiki, then you should limit yourself to the standard Attic alphabet. Otherwise, you will have someone else argue that koppa or some other letter from the various epichoric alphabets is the perfect way to transliterate some peculiar term. No alphabet can perfectly transcribe every loan-word. The point should be to use the standard and accepted alphabet and to work within its confines, especially in a situation like this, where there is ample evidence of what the Greeks themselves, when constrained by the lack of the digamma, in fact did. Yes, the Alexandrians were aware of the digamma and used it in editing older, dialectical poetry, but none of them felt that it was necessary or desirable to resurrect the letter to transcribe the many Latin words and names that it became necessary to transcribe as Rome came on the scene. The consonantal u of Latin was rendered by ου until β as a fricative came to seem more appropriate, especially as its development converged with that of Latin u/v. The example of Aquilla > Ἀκύλας is off the mark, since this is not the transliteration of consonantal u, but rather of the combination qu (cf. the ancient transliteration of "-que" as "κυ"). The invocation of policy on the Old English wiki would seem to undercut your argument, because there they have not revived an ancient, defunct letter, but rather replaced the defunct letter with one hallowed by the precedent of later usage. All of the practices which you say others might regard as Chimeric are simply allowing for the language to have a continuous legacy to our times. The Chimera of the digamma attempts to undo that continuous history. 02:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I invoked Old English and Latin i.o.t. explain how slight modifications of classical alphabets are permitted in Revived Languages; of course, I recognize that the specific historic case of Ϝαῦ (whose name and actual use, btw, was generally unknown to the Alexandrine grammarians) doesn't correspond exactly to the case of yoȝ or u-latīnum. Continuing my argument, I note that in these wiki-editions, there was only one "digression" from "classicality" allowed; thus, in the Latin wiki, the jot has been strictly banned, and in the Old English one, the digression of having the digraph th replacing eð and þorn was not allowed. Here the one digression was the use ϝαῦ, and there shouldn't be any worries about ϛῖγμα, ͱῆτα, ϳῶτα (the letter used in reconstructed ProtoGreek), ϻάν, ϙόππα, ͳαμπῖ, or ϸώ. The need to use them has never been raised during the past two years. I was the only one here, pedantic enough, to transliterate palatalized phones from foreign languages, but I did it only very occasionally, and only by using extra diacritics such as apostrophes and hats, as is done in the alphabet of Pontic Greek. As for the historic examples you gave, I didn't deny that Οὐαλεριανός or Οὐάσιγγτων are existing historic forms of transcriptions. The first is an example of the way that the Latin [w] was transcribed during the Koine period (before there were any fricatives in Greek), and the second one of the way that the transliteration of the english [w] was made in Kath. I have to mention that in this case, Attic doesn't help a lot since its speakers tended to dismiss [w] sounds all together. But the practice of Koine and Kath. cannot serve as an alternative either, since they are absolutely impractical, as well, and irrepairably incompatible with Attic. Just consider the following: Latviani - Λάτϝιοι - Λάδβιοι/Λάτουϊοι[lát.wi.oj]/Λατουΐοι[la.tuu.í.oj], Ludovicus - Λουδοϝίκος - Λουδοβίκος [luu.do.bí.cos], Smirnov - Σμιρνόϝ - Σμιρνόφ [smir.nóph], Smirnova - Σμιρνόϝα - Σμιρνόβα [smir.nó.ba], Minkowskii - Μιγκόϝσκῑ - Μιγκόφσκῑ [miŋ.kóph.skii]. (Note also the contrast btn. slav-ia:slov-acia - σλαυ[slaww]-ία:σλοϝ[slow]-ακἰα - σλαυ[slaww]ία:σλοβ[slob]-ακία.) It is quite clear that the latter transcriptions are far more "barbaric" and "monstrous" (in lack of better adjectives) both for Attic Greek and the languages from which the names come from, than the use of a letter/phoneme from Aeolic Greek. Finally I honestly cannot understand why do you keep invoking the idealistic concept of a single tradition. Noone ever said that revived languages have anything to do with any ideal kind of "tradition" and naturalness, in the traditional (pun intended) sense of these words. Generally, the Hellenic family, like all language-families, has no singular static tradition, since some of its languages and dialects have died out while others have been revived; some have been written in a phonemic alphabet, while others in a syllabic or an orthographic one; many of its words had various different meanings from century to century; all of them had several pronunciations from stage to stage. In order for this confusion (choosing over countless practices and traditions, that is) to be avoided in a wiki generically called Ancient Greek (a term which in principle includes Reconstructed Proto-Greek, Mycenean Greek, all ancient Greek dialects, and even early Byzantine Greek), the consensus was to stick to the Attic form of the language endowed with occasional inputs from its contemporary dialects, or Koine, or Kath.. (Unless they are incoherent or ambiguous.) Omnipaedista 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Let me just add to my last sentence that if a new contributor doesn't feel comfortable with the current linguistic style used here, they is free to declare their self a(n exclusive) user of Koine or Doric Macedonian or Pamphylian or Homeric or any other kind of grc, and the style of their contributions shall remain intact.
Omnipaedista 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just discovered that a remotely similar discussion concerning the letter ƿ is currently taking place on Wicipǣdia. --Omnipaedista 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned about the extent of digamma's use in the articles of the ancient greek test. As most of us may know, digamma wasn't used in the period of the classic antiquity. Digamma was already lost since 403 b.C. As lots of philologists suggested me, digamma must not be used in modern texts in the ancient greek language. Anyway, I shall keep writting the letter in words already mentioned by others with digamma, eg. Νωρϝηγία, Λιθϝανία etc, until we take a formal decision. --Aldameldo 13:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But we can still avoid the use of an obsolete and lost letter. It's like the ressurection of digamma! If the Ancent Greek Wikipedia aims to immitate the classic attic greek, it cannot have a letter that wasn't even used by the attics! I think that the use of digamma itself is anachronistic!! We can use instead the beta letter! I don't think beta won't express the v value of digamma whose pronounciation, as we know, was a weak v (vau). I suggest therefore the abolishment of digamma and its replacement by beta. And something else. We are not free to write the way we want to. In the article about Russia, which was written by me, beta of the word Σοβιετικὴ Ἔνωσις was edited to Σοϝιετικὴ. Just think about it in order to have a common policy concerning the obsolete letters.
--Aldameldo 18:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, note that this project is still in an experimental phase. This means that policies and consensūs change very fast and relatively easily. Btw, I changed Σοβιετική not in order to "correct" it, but in order to "mark" this word as slightly problematic (considering that this katharevousian transcription is not in full compliance with Attic-Ionic phonetics). However, the (current) lack of a more "thought-through" policy (neither the all-β suggestion nor the all-ϝ one qualify as functional policies) oughtn't hamper you from continuing contributing to this project (renaming some articles or changing their orthographical conventions can easily be done after we reach a consensus, but writing articles from scratch is the hard part of creating an encyclopedia, since very few users can achieve it). I just want to make this remark: grc (the ISO-code of the project) refers to all kinds of Greek dialects from 750 BCE to 330 CE. For example, the grammar that most of us have employed here is Attic or/and Ionic, the phonetics are Attic-Ionic, the syntax is either Attic or/and Koine, the lexixon is a mix of Attic, Koine and Katharevousa, and the writing system is the one Alexandrine Grammarians were using in their time for transcribing texts in Attic, Ionic and Aeolic. So, in a wiki that contains several anachronisms from its very beginning (and I'm mainly referring to the lexicon and syntax part), it's a little bit inconsistent to use anachronicity as the sole argument against the use of an obsolete letter. A (short-lived?) experiment that we could conduct is to have two versions of each "controversial" article (one employing digamma and other archaisms, and one without obsolete letters --written in a more Koine-like style) and then see how it goes. And of course more discussion is needed on this non-trivial issue. --Omnipaedista 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Digamma was not used in the classical form of Attic greek. If we introduce a word with a digamma here, then many other words would have to have a digamma, such as ἐπεξFεργαστέων etc. Plutarch translitterated Latin v either as β (Vetori - Βέτερι, Helvetios - Ἐλβηττίους) or ου (Valerii - Οὐαλερίου), see Καίσαρ. AndreasJS 16:47, 15 Οκτωβρίου 2008 (UTC)

I am completely against the use of Digamma for the reasons given by Aldaldo above. This letter would be acceptable if we used the pre-403-BC orthography, but if we use the current orthography with eta, omega, breathings etc. (something that did not exist at the time of Pericles) then we could include digamma. You classicists, could you find us some loanwords adopted during the classical era that contained the [w] sound in the original language? The Septuagint has וַשְׁתִּי = Αστιν (Esther 1,9), the [w] sound is simply omitted as is in the case in the 403BC orthograhy. "For some time, word-initial /w-/ remained foreign to Greek phonology, and was dropped in loanwords, compare the name of Italy (Italia from Oscan Viteliu *Ϝιτελιυ) or of the Veneti (Greek Ἐνετοί - Enetoi). " (from w:Digamma#Classical Greek. AndreasJS 14:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

An informal/temporary answer is given here. A formal/extensive one is in due and will be given as soon as I discuss with the rest of the main contributors of this wiki about the changes that have to be made. --Omnipaedista 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Noone disagrees on the fact that this was indeed the way that the sound /w/ was transcribed in the Koine period of Greek and onwards. In Attic Greek this sound was transcribed mostly by <μ> or <ο>. So, a good solution here would be to adopt Koine Greek for the interface and quickly solve the problem. In wp/grc the situation is a bit more complicated. Wikipedias are in principle allowed to endorse more than one dialects. So, Cml and I had the conviction that there should exist in this project articles in Ionic, Aeolic, and Doric Greek: in these dialects, for example, Ϝέργον makes perfect sense. Let me show you an example of a nonProtoGreek-originated sound /w/ being transcribed as Ϝ in pre-Attic Ancient Greek: Εἰς Ἄρτεμιν Ὀρθίαν (the word is Ϝανδάνην). In most other occurrences of digamma in Ancient texts (such as here: Ὕμνοι καὶ Ἐπιθαλάμια: Κύπρι καὶ Νηρηΐδες) the words that contain this sound are usually derived from Proto-Greek. But, the case of Fανδάνη (appearing in Alkman's text) is different; it's pre-Greek, it was borrowed in pre-Attic Greek with the /w/ sound intact, and finally survived in Classical Greek as Μανδάνη. The same applies to the pre-Attic ϝέδιμνος as well; the word (see Beekes's paper) is pre-Greek (root *wedimn-); the word survived in Attic Greek as μέδιμνος. So, if this practice existed in pre-Attic Greek loanwords, we could legitimately revive it in modern times. The problem began when we started overusing the digamma; it even appeared in articles written in Koine or Attic Greek which was an obvious anachronism. In order to avoid the mess caused by having several incompatible dialects appearing in the same text, I proposed (see also your talk-page) to keep Attic/Koine as the default language but also have versions of some articles written in other dialects (different grammar, syntax, phonology). This will marginalize the anachronisms (I am planning to post a table of corrections of all the anachronisms that have appeared so far in the 'pedia). Sadly, most grc-wikipedians have been on a general wikibreak for the past month and the discussion here has stagnated. Now, there is just one anachronistic occurrence of digamma with which I am bit more tolerant: the prefix Wiki as Ϝίκι. For the record, I remark that this was the original proposal about the transcription of wiki by User:LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 3 years ago; plus, the first user to transcribe wiki into grc in his username was wikt:el's Dutch-speaking User:Ϝικιβάρβαρος (3 years ago, as well). Later on, User:Lefcant discarded this proposal and for the sake of consistency promoted the term οὐίκι; his proposal gained immediate consensus and for the next 2 years nobody challenged it. That is until Cml and I tried to create a logo for wp/grc and redesign its main-page: the capitalization ΟΥΪΚΙΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ seemed (at least to us) very counterintuitive as an image; furthermore, and on more general grounds, we thought that it is a wiki that is supposed to encompass (and even revive) all grc dialects, but the transcription of /w/ by <οὐ>/<β> just doesn't make sense in non-Attic dialects or even in the early Attic dialect (in these dialects <οὐ> ambiguously corresponds either to /oː/ or /ou/). So (and now I'm asking everyone's opinion) how about keeping just this (the transcription of the word 'wiki') anachronism? --Omnipaedista 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of Late Koine phonology[edit | edit source]

After having a private communication (via e-mails) with the new member of our community User:ZaDiak, we decided that the best way not to disallow users to feel comfortable with the language of the project and in order to avoid the wild anachronisms, we should establish a(n informal) policy according to which Literary Koine Greek will be the default language of this 'pedia. Plus, since two other well-established (former?) members of the community (Aldameldo, AndreasJS) seem to agree with this, I think that we have reached a clear consensus based on the majority. Since there are not any subtle phonological matters that make the transcriptions of foreign names problematic any more, we can finally be based mostly on the Traditional Greek forms of these names. According to these new standards, the digamma has been abolished, and the project has been renamed for the second time: the name Βικιπαιδεία also complies with the name of the grc Wikisource: Βικιθήκη. As it was stated above, the project has been in an experimental phase for a long time, but now that we have a common policy, many problems have been resolved really quickly. Now we should focus on improving the quality of the articles. As for the general perspective of the project, I have been thinking of applying for a new ISO code for the language we are going to use from now on: Literary Koine. This language may be used only as a secondary one, and is attested only in writings, but it is living and thriving, and that should be all that matters. --Omnipaedista 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreed in the change of the digamma and its replacement. I also noticed the change of the policies in which I am totally supportive since I think it will attract more contributors. Also the request for Literary Koine in SIL that we plan, will give us a living status and we will finally be able to make a request that could get final approval. The request as Omnipaedista said will be for a secondary language, that is attested only in writings, but is living. This request will have been completed and sent in the next few weeks. --ZaDiak 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to SIL[edit | edit source]

Heads up: the form has been sent to SIL (Registration Authority of ISO 639-3) about a month ago by ZaDiak and me, and we are now waiting for the procedure of reviewing it [review of the form by SIL's review committee, that is] to commence. The form is a request for the recognition Ecclesiastical (Λογία) Greek as an independent form of the Greek language that should acquire a separate code other than grc or ell. If it does get recognized, Ecclesiastical Greek will become (to be exact though, after the latest modifications, it has already become) the main language of our project (since it is the sole form of "Neoclassical" Greek which both retains Koine Greek's original structure and possesses --often with the help of Katharevousa-- a vocabulary for modern concepts, but which also has a multicentennial written tradition, unlike revived Attic Greek), and a new request to Metawiki (based on the new code) will be made. --Omnipaedista 02:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This suits only modern Greeks, Classical Attic is the international standard. Good luck, but you should rename the wikipedia from "Ancient Greek" to something else: the first possibilities that come to mind are "Late Koine Greek Wikipedia" or just "Katharevousa Wikipedia" (some grammar changes will be necessary in the latter case, of course). "Literary Koine" is a cunning ploy to combine the two (to both keep the ancient part, sort of, *and* count as a living language), but I don't think anyone will buy it. -- 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: the criticism above has already been addressed here. --Omnipaedista 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adoption of a conservative koine phonology[edit | edit source]

Ut iam alibi commemoravi, singulariter momentum habere arbitror, quemadmodum Graeci verba in aetate Alexandrianae dicionis appellaverint; perdifficillimum est has phoneticas vicissitudines diligentissime determinare, unde puto nobis duarum, videlicet Attici Alexandrianique temporum mediocritatem esse quaerendam. nobis enim nec antiqua neque mediaeva sunt idola consequenda; nunc duas vias pronuntiandi inspectare oportet, cum quod Romani barbarique a magistris didicerunt ("learned pronunciation") tumve quod Graeci pronuntiare eo tempore conseueverunt. ego revera primam praefero, quum illa lingua omnia monumenta illius aevi confecta essent, quapropter hanc vocum structuram muneri suo aptam fore censeo:

problematical consonants[edit | edit source]

β = w (bilabial v), not b, not labiodental v
φ = p(h)
χ = k(h), not the aspiration h/German ch
θ = t(h), not the English "think"
γ = g (γγ, γκ... = ng, nk), not [ɣ]

problematical vowels/diphtongs[edit | edit source]

α, ε, ι, η, ο, υ, ω = ă/ā, ĕ, ī/ĭ, ē, ŏ, y/ȳ, ō
αι, ει, οι, υι, ει = ai, ĕi, ōi, yi, ēi
αυ, ευ = au (αὐτοκρατία = autokratia), ĕu = (Εὐρώπη = Eurōpē)/ (between vowels) aw = Δαυίδ = Dawid, ĕw = Ἐυά = Ewa
ου = u

--Martinus Poeta Juvenis 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Objection about the name "ancient greek"[edit | edit source]

First of all, congratulations for your work but I have some objections. I don't think that in classical age people in greece named themselves "greeks" but "ἑλληνας". So I believe that even the domain grc.wikipedia is wrong. I know that world "greeks" today describes us (today Greeks) but this isn't correct. Look for example the Deutsch wikipedia [[3]]and Alemanian wikipedia [[4]]. We used to name them as Germans but it is wrong.

The power of ancient Hellenic language is international, so many people from all over the world will visit this page. Wikipedia gives us a chance to rehabilitate the true or to perpetuate the wrong situations. --Stravon 12:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Stravon! Well, to be exact Ἕλλην was the name Ancient Greeks used for themselves (whenever it was actually employed). To be honest, we have had complaints in the past for the "ancient" part (by GerardM who disfavors the use of Katharevousa in 'pedia's articles on contemporary subjects), but this is the first time someone complains about the "Greek" part. The answer in simple. One must discern between ἐνδώνυμον (also known as αὐτώνυμον) from ἐξώνυμον. English Wikipedia's articles, Ancient Greek Wikipedia's talk-pages, Metawiki, and Translatewiki always use the common English name for each language, whenever there is a formal text or a list that contains info about Wikimedia wikiprojects. The common English names of World's languages are exonyms that (quite naturally) almost never coincide with the way each people calls its own language. What Ancient Greeks simply called "Ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος (or γλῶττα or γλῶσσα)" is called Ancient Greek in English. And this is pretty much all one can say on the matter. :-) --Omnipaedista 02:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ουικιπαιδεια not ϝικιπαιδεια[edit | edit source]

do not make the same mistake user Geraki did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

That's not a practical argument, or even an argument at all. That's a statement along the lines of "I don't like it". First of all, it wasn't Geraki who came up with it, and second it is generally not considered a mistake. Check out the following links if you will: Geraki's talk-page, Agora, wp-el's discussion on policy, public forum on the matter. Βίκι was chosen because it is the most natural for the Greek language. In grc/wp the language we've been using so far is either Attic or Late Koine (despite the fact that initially there was no contraint in using alternative dialects as well). In Attic Greek, the consonant /w/ was indeed transcribed by β [because in Attic there was no digamma and because ου was pronounced either as a long vowel /o/ or as long vowel /u/ and it could't qualify for this transcription]. And the same was true in Late Koine -- since, in that stage, β (which had the value of either /β/ or /v/) was the closest sound to /w/ (all these matters are explained in the penultimate thread). The vowel combination of "ουι" is virtually non-extant even in transcriptions of: Roman names into Koine, and English names into Katharevousa. This is why wp-grc's name changed from Οὐϊκιπαιδεία to Βικιπαιδεία. Also, since the Ancient Greek Wikisource is embedded in the el Wikisource under the name Βικιπηγή, it is silly to have two different versions for the term "wiki": Ουΐκι for the grc 'pedia and Βίκι for the grc 'source. Last remark: in grc, using diaeresis like this "ΟΥΪΚΙΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ/Οὐϊκιπαιδεία/Οὐΐκι" is obligatory; thus, having to use one extra letter and three (!) extra diacritics (ψιλή, διαιρετικά, ὀξεία) every time one has to say "wiki" is pointless, cumbersome, and counterintuitive. --Omnipaedista 02:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

translate the name or leave it as it is.

Translating the word 'wiki' (namely, substituting it by a word which is not a transcription of 'wiki') is prohibited. Leaving it as it is literally means "let it be 'Wikipedia', as in English". Either way, your point makes no sense at all. You also seem to have not read the links above. This discussion about the most native-sounding transcription ('ουι' vs. 'βι') has already been done to death on Greek Wikipedia and there are no plans to revive it here, unless someone can come up with a counterargument that has never been heard before. --Omnipaedista 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Οὐαλερία Οὐαλέριος Οὐάλης Οὔαρος Οὐάῤῥων Οὐατίνιος Οὐεργιλία Οὐεργίλιος Οὐεσπασίανος Οὐηΐοι Οὐίνδιξ Οὐιτέλλιος Οὗννος Οὐολουμνία Οὐολοῦσκος The Woodhouse dictionary always says in these cases "ou". Martinus Poeta Juvenis 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikiquote[edit | edit source]

On August 16, ZaDiak and I made a request to Metawiki for an Ancient Greek Wikiquote project. The request has brought about some discussion on the conditions under which such a project would be allowed. It should be noted that this request doesn't resemble that older request for a grc Wikisource project made by User:Nema Fakei: the el Ws (which hosts numerous grc texts) is thriving and splitting it apart would make little sense; on the contrary, the el Wq is not doing well and the few grc wikiquotes it has are in very bad shape. But the main argument is this: it is well established that Ancient Greek is of interest not only to people who speak modern Greek, and it is also known that a Wikiquote needs to have annotations on the quotes besides the quotes themselves; this means that a grc Wq with modern Greek annotations is practically useless for someone who is interested in grc quotes but does not speak modern Greek! Everyone (reading this post and) willing to help us is invited to do so here; currently there is lack of a sufficient number of regular contributors to the test-project and more articles are needed. --Omnipaedista 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Three phonologies[edit | edit source]

After discuss among Omnipaedista, ZaDiak and I, we decided to accept three phonologies in this projects: Aeolic, Attic and late Koine (ecclesiastic). All the articles will have versions of these phonologies. We hope that settle the existent controversy. Crazymadlover.

Making the use of the diacritics optional[edit | edit source]

How do you feel about it? I also think that word order should be no major subject now. If you want to keep track of such articles we could create templates similar to the latinitas formulae in the la WP. An other proposition would be the creating of lists and glossaries who are easier to contribute to. Chris1981 05:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about omitting the diacritic marks. It would be too radical a choice. Unless everyone believes that it hampers somehow the development of the project. As far as word order is concerned, it has never been a major issue. I admit I favor the classical word order SOV but that's just a personal choice. I agree that a latinitas-like template would be useful (we could name it βαθμὸς ὀρθοεπείας "grade of orthoepy" or smth). Regarding glossaries, we have created a couple of them, but they are hard to use as they stand now. --Omnipaedista 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

+ paginae XXI ad vicipaediam veterograecam[edit | edit source]

salvetote. apud hanc vicipaediam viginti unus paginas creavi, scilicet paene res omnium Europae urbium. --Μαρτίνος ὁ Ποιητὴς ὁ Νέος 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Polytonic template[edit | edit source]

In this Ancient Greek Wikipedia, some pages use the Polytonic template to display the polytonic greek text more clearly, but some pages don't. To see the difference:
Without template: Oἱ Ἕλληνες οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐνόμιζον τὸν Δία εἶναί τε τῶν θεῶν τύραννον καὶ τῆς Ἥρας γαμέτην.
With template: Oἱ Ἕλληνες οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἐνόμιζον τὸν Δία εἶναί τε τῶν θεῶν τύραννον καὶ τῆς Ἥρας γαμέτην.
Some browsers don't render pages without the template, so I think every page should use it and we have to edit the pages which don't use the template. It can be used in headings, paragraphs and so on. What do you think, should we use it in all pages or not? HSax 15:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Xaire, HSax. My English is pretty bad, but I answer. The using of Polytonic templates is very difficult, because if you see the edition forme of eg. Wp/grc/Ἑλληνικὴ γλῶττα), you can see, it's necessary to use in all titles and in all "parts" of the page. But I like this template, because I can better see the accents and spirits. Martinus Poeta Juvenis 11:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

quantum paginarum numerum agamus necessest, ut Vicipaedia Graeca imperfecta perfecta fiet?[edit | edit source]

? Martinus Poeta Juvenis 19:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the problem is not the number of the articles, but the Wikimedia Policy that forbids the creation of news wikipedias in ancient languages. See also this. --Omnipaedista 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I understand. And say, what we can make? Martinus Poeta Juvenis 15:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The only chance would be the approval of the community proposal for changing the policy. See also the discussions at Gmane mail-to-news archive (where the topic has been discussed ad nauseam during the last three years). --Omnipaedista 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Forma invitationis[edit | edit source]

χαῖρε, ὦ ἄγνοστε χρηστά. — Θέλεις χρήστῃ προσήκειν, ἁλετής; τῇδε εἰσερκέσται.

Salvete, vos amabo, ut nunc quid usoribus ignotis creavi, emendetis et corrigatis. Martinus Poeta Juvenis 14:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

May I help you with a bot?[edit | edit source]

I am a bot runner (automaton?). Sometimes I am able to understand ancient greek (I studied Latin and Italian, i know more or less how to traslitterate), but I don't know really ancient greek. Anyway, I think this is a really important language, therefore may I help you with my bot? spell-check? mass-adding pages?--Nickanc 17:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Name for the project[edit | edit source]

I am starting a new heading, as it raises issues connected with at least three of the above topics.

  1. How do we translate "Wikipedia"? Οὑικιπαιδέια, Fικιπαιδέια, Βικιπαιδέια or Ἰκιπαιδέια? I am against digamma, for the reasons argued above (it is anachronistic and inconsistent with the Alexandrian/Byzantine font we use). Βικιπαιδέια risks confusion with the Modern Greek project. Ἰκιπαιδέια would be correct if there really had been a word "Fικιπαιδέια" in proto-Greek. Οὑικιπαιδέια seems the best all round, as it is in accordance with the Hellenistic Greek convention for transliterating Latin. (Yes I know that by the fourth century Greeks used beta for this purpose. But that is because v in Latin had changed from "w" to "v". "Wikipedia" is not subject to this change, so Οὑ remains correct.)
  2. How should we describe the language, to avoid confusion with the modern Greek project? "Ancient Greek" is wrong, as no ancient Greek considered himself to be "ancient". "Greek" risks confusion for obvious reasons. What about "Attic"? (Eventually we can start Doric, Ionic and Aeolic versions!) --Sirmylesnagopaleentheda (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Plurimi inter se diu habebant disputationes, quo nomine muneris huius proiciendi appellaremus. Maxime paenitendum arbitror rectam transcribendi rationem nos eligere nondum potuisse, neque iam puto fore ut hic nodus unquam exsolvatur. Nunc autem conabor defixius explicare.

  1. Romani quamquam tum sua nomina 'v' continentia interdum 'ου' vocabulis transcripserant, attamen β locum istius diphtongi magis magisque obtinuit. Denique postea hoc more Graecos omnino dedicisse idque etiam antea alteri pariter adhibuisse non ambigitur. Atqui inter nos constat, quantum possimus, dissipatam transcribendi methodum evitare. Huc quoque accedit, ut nomina etiam essent talia, quae quidem diphtongis revocare nequeamus, eg. Ὀκταουιανός et similia, quae nullibi adhuc Graecis libris conscripta sunt. Ideo usus repudiatur.
  2. Quod ad alteram rei partem pertinet, Vicipaediam nuncupamus 'Hellenicam', ergo Ἑλληνικήν. Hodierni enim linguam non Ἑλληνικήν, sed Ἑλληνικάν appellant. --Μαρτῖνος ὁ Νέος (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Para 1 confuses two quite different questions. One is how to transcribe Latin v. Over time, that letter changed from a "w" to a "v" sound, so beta came into use. The other is how to transcribe English w. There there is no ambiguity and 'ου' is the only possibility. And surely in this project we are considering how to transcribe English "Wikipedia" rather than Latin "Vicipaedia" (which itself, anachronistically, presupposes a "w" pronunciation)?-- 11:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In modern greek there is no consensus in how to transliterate W, but it is common as «Γου» not «Ου». --C messier (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Haec graeca moderna lingua non est, sed classica. The best would be Fικιπαίδεια, by force of Wikipedia tradition, pronunced and perhaps alternatively written as Ἰκιπαίδεια; this is probably the way Periclean Age Attics would render its pronunciation, just in the way they did with every other w from any dialect. ῾Ιδέα εμὴ καταποιεῖν εστὶν τοὺς λόγους ἐν ταῖς πρωτοελληνικαῖς μορφαῖς ἀυτῶν: by these protohellenic forms we derivate an natural greek dialectal rendering. LucasSACastro (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Tonoi & pneumada (τόνοι και πνεύματα)[edit | edit source]

I find very difficult to contribute when I cannot write eg. ῶ because it is not provided in special characters. I think that it would be a great help if these characters are provided ready by special characters. --C messier (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

NUMBEROFARTICLES[edit | edit source]

Hi, a user asked/proposed on the Community Portal (permalink) to use a bot to add all articles of Wp/grc to the Category:Wp/grc, so that the counting in Template:Wp/grc/NUMBEROFARTICLES can be done automatically via the number of articles in the category (compare [5]). Are there objections to this? --MF-W {a, b} 23:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares. It's sad. --Tamara Ustinova (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
for me it's ok in the past I went on with manual and automatic so if there was a problem I already new the real number of pages.--Helveticus montanus (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This can be very usefull. --Μαρτῖνος ὁ Νέος (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. My bot added about 700 pages to the category. [6] The template has been adjusted. --MF-W {a, b} 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's much better now! --Nungalpiriggal (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this happening?[edit | edit source]

I'm not sure if this page is still active - the last edits were in May - and that goes for the entire project as well. I'm a newcomer to this, but I do share your interest in the Classical world and would be very willing to participate in this project. I do notice that edits are still being performed on the Wp/grc articles, but is it leading up to anything? As far as I can see, Wikipedia has rejected any attempts to create Ϝικιπαιδεία (or whatever you want to call it); so, is this Incubator project destined to forever remain an Incubator project? Is a wiki in progress? --Poimenlaon (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This problem you proposed is very difficult. The reason is the change of the language policy (dead language can't be Wikipedias) why GRC Wikipedia isn't still in progress. If the project had started before this change, it would also be possible to be a Wikipedia. When I started my work in the Incubator, Wikipedia had just in 2010 300 articles, which we could grow with the help of anonymous users to 1000. But I think there won't be changes. There are only anonymous users who create this wiki.
Omnipaedista (who kept the adminship to this day) and the others, who were very important people to create the Wikipedia, have finished to work here yet. E.g. I sent him a message about the unification of Wikipedia translitteration rules, but he/she didn't react to it. From 2010 autumn to 2013 spring I toke over the administrator task, I corrected pages. A user changed the complete Wikipedia translitteration arbitrarly, kicking up many discussions about it. This year I tried to recruit any others to help with this project, but I received only words. I thought it's unnecessary struggle whith it. --Μαρτῖνος ὁ Νέος (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
dear Martinus I would help with great pleasure, had I a better knowledge of the language. Besides do you believe therefore there's no possibility to obtain a policy change?--Helveticus montanus (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
But surely if we are able to breed some sort of revival for the project and then submit it again with enough popular support, would it not then be accepted? Throughout history, changes have been made for the better with popular support! Helveticus montanus here is eager to work on the project, as am I. Any lingual mistakes could be corrected in edits, I'm sure.--Poimenlaon (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If there were multiple users/pages, then the number might increase. At least it can be said that our Wikipedia is now in a very big mess. It would be useful to determine the normative spelling and dialect.--Μαρτῖνος ὁ Νέος (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There are many active WP projects for living languages that have no users, or virtually none.
They have these same issues of what dialect to use, with no one to discuss it.
So, fine. You're working in a vacuum.
In a case like that, you start making unilateral decisions.
There isn't really any other recourse.
Varlaam (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, just in case this is to suddenly undergo some great revival (which I understand is probably a daft hope), I shall say that I am personally an advocate of Οὐκιπαιδεία, although I am happy with the system we have at the moment on the front page, where the user is able to choose which they want to use, and I think, like most people, that the dialect should be 5th century (BC, obviously) Attic, probably in an extremely prosaic style, like Platonic and Aristotelian works without the poetic touches or Thucydides' but without the difficult grammar. Therefore, for spelling, I suggest -ρα, -ία (and thus -ρας and -ίας etc.).--Poimenlaon (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, what is this Wiki's seeming obsession with the Catholic Church?--Poimenlaon (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
it's not an obsession. Could you find me please an other list of 266 men I can do without having to change continually all the sentences. If you can prepare me a template, I can also and I will do all the President of the United States, thank you-- 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be most happy to do so! I beg your pardon however, for is there a special method for creating templates or do you merely mean to write a sentence translating to 'x was the President of the United States of America from y-z'?--Poimenlaon (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for both your answer and your offer. I merely mean to have an example to use for all the Presidents x (born in the .....; dead in the ... ) was a politician and the President of the Unted States from ......until...-- 07:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
x, γέγονε date ἐν place καὶ ἀπέθανε date ἐν place, ord.num. Προστάτης τῶν Ἡνωμενῶν Πολιτειῶν τῆς Ἀμερικῆς ἦν ἀπὸ date πρὸς date. - How's that?--Poimenlaon (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: rules for the translitteration of foreign names[edit | edit source]

Regarding to the past of the Hellenic Wikipedia's habits I rounded up the rules of the translitteration. If anyone has any objections, he can share them.

Transliteration of h and adoption of archaic heta[edit | edit source]


When the word begins with 'h' and follows a vowel, it'll be aspirated. Helvētia -> Ἑλβηττία. When it doesn't begin with 'h' and follows a vowel, a reverse aspiration sign should be written. Ioannes -> Ἰωάννης. In other cases you should not use the aspiration, eg. Buddhism can be translitterated Βουδδἱσμος. It is a question, if we should adopt the archaic heta (Ͱ), or follow the habit of Modern Greek: the use of χ.

Translation of first name[edit | edit source]

If its about names, then translate the first name into ancient Greek. Eg. John to Ἰωάννης, James to Ἰάκωβος. Latin names can be received, and the length and the stress are identical also in Greek: Marī´nus to Μαρῖνος, Martī´nus to Μαρτῖνος.

Translitteration of /v/ (use of β, ου, ϝ)[edit | edit source]

It was about that a lot of discussion. In the modern Greek /v/ is transcribed with β, which has the pronounciation /b/ in the Attic age. Problem: is it worth to use a letter with 2 pronounciations? The other possibility is to use ου, which the Greek used to transcribe the Roman v /w/. Problem: this is a vowel-diphtong, not a consonant. Eg. Soviet can't be transcribed Σοουιετ. The last possibility is the revitalization of digamma.

Please explain your opinions. --Μαρτῖνος ὁ Νέος (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As regards the issue with soviet and other Russian transliterations generally, I think it makes sense to use β (as in σοβιετική), simply due to the fact that the Cyrillic letter equating to Latin v is в, which derives from beta and looks more like it anyway - for lack of a better argument; as you pointed out, Σοουιετ clearly doesn't work.
In other cases, I think that we should judge on a case by case basis, based on how appropriate it seems for each transliteration. Obviously we should use ancient transliterations whenever possible, so Οὐαλέριος rather than Βαλέριος, and thus for descendants of those names.--Poimenlaon (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration and historical names are always problematic, one just has to take a look at modern language attempts such as Korean and Chinese (where Korean, for example, has eu as in son, eo for 'o' in operate and o for 'o' as in open) to see how difficult it is to balance the needs of 1-to-1 sound character transcription, sound correspondence and the history of how the language was first transmitted to foreigners. The recent standardization in 2000 had no end of griping which still continues today. Pretty much the best that we can hope to accomplish is a system that provides an approximate correspondence of sounds, doesn't obscure the origin too much, and is aware of Greek etymologies when they are obvious such as medical terms or scientific terms. (For instance τον ξυλόφωνον is probably superior to τον ζίλοφωνον even though that would be a better phonetic transcription.) During the 19th century there were several lexicons created that contained both proper name transliterations and classically based compounds. One famously used by Wilson for his Ancient Greek translation of Harry Potter. (However, I wouldn't suggest his rather fanciful method of rendering proper names into Ancient Greek which was to rather freely 'translate' them rather than transliterate.) In any case, I would strongly advise against using any of the archaic local variants as their precise phonetic value is still a matter of legitimate debate, several have an old form (without a lower case) and a modern form used to indicate numbers, are not well supported in the polytonic font sets most people have installed for their Web browser, and are impossible type using the standard polytonic keyboard mapping. Vrrm (talk)

Sed decetne me in lingua Latina fari, si possum?--Poimenlaon (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We can place in edit box dialog all letters from: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/grc/Ἑλληνικός_αλφάβητος 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Language settings[edit | edit source]

How do I contribute to the translation of English messages to Greek?

On translatewiki:. --MF-W {a, b} 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki settings[edit | edit source]

Is possible to use Wikidata here, instead of interwikis? 10:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Ϝικι coinages[edit | edit source]

Reading through some of the stub articles to be improved, I've found loads of non-ancient vocabulary invented presumably by the creator of the article for their own purposes without any definitions. I know there is the page of 'Λόγιοι Ἑλληνικοὶ ὅροι περὶ συγχρόνων ἐννοιῶν', which is extremely useful, but not all of the vocabulary coined in specific articles seems to have been put on here. For instance, I would be grateful if anyone could tell me what 'αἱ νοηματοδοτοῦσαι' are (some type of theory possibly? but then why couldn't νοήματα with an adjective be used?), from the Πολιτισμός page; I am probably guilty of this myself, but it's difficult to know to what extent things should be defined as referring to specific historical events or organizations while the Wiki is too small to create a page for the term (e.g. τὸ Κοινὸν, 'International [Workingmen's Association]', which is probably completely foreign to anyone who doesn't have a working knowledge of the labour movement, thus preventing them from editing articles associated with the concept). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?--Poimenlaon (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek could perhaps be added[edit | edit source]

Ancient Greek is missing from this page:
More than 100 languages are now listed.
I am not in favour of an important language like this one being assigned to the Incubator ghetto.
Editors should know it is here.
Thank you, Varlaam (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ancient Greek 4[edit | edit source]

Hi there, can everyone that is in favour of having the grc incubator turn to a grc wiki please participate in the process of making it happen so? Please note that the main argument used by the language approval committee for having the previous 3 submissions rejected was that grc is a dead language not being used by natural speakers (no matter of the importance of the language, volume of available material, number of people who can contribute, etc etc), so the argument I have personally made is that there are natural speakers who are none other than the various Greek orthodox churches and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (bible Greek = hellenistike koine), quite similarly to Latin in the Vatican. Hope it works this time around. Gts-tg (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be usefull for the cause, one of this days, to collect and distill all arguments in favor (given in all 4 requests) and all arguments against (followed by their well documented refutation, and also from all previous requests) and order them based on their significance for future reference and for a final communal statement before the committee. A good core is the statement by Gts-tg. Emphasis should be given to the Eccumenical Patriarchate and Mount Athos Ah3kal (talk)
I agree, a solidified communal statement will be more efficient than any individual statement as Ah3kal mentions, and further demonstrates the existence of a living community. From what I see there are 2 stages in making the grc wiki happen, eligibility stage, and approval stage. The eligibility stage is by far the most important as the incubator wiki is already covered with regards to having a translated interface, content, and a basic amount of traffic (although the more editors the better). In the meantime, it is also quite interesting and important to look at the discussion and rationale of the committee back in 2008 when the last rejection occured, it's available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160130010936/http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/27515 Gts-tg (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah3kal I updated my points in the request to the best of my ability, I don't think it can get any better than this. In my view, the strongest points are three, 1) Orthodox church and especially Patriarchate and Mnt Athos, 2) Language been taught in Universities, as well as primary/secondary education in some countries, 3) Can describe modern concepts and has modern uses (arguments bundled together). The Rumeyka native speakers in Turkey maybe not carry as much of an impact yet it still demonstrates that there are some kind of native speakers close to the ancient language. Gts-tg (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Gts-tg It's better either to bring a copy here so anyone can edit it (because as a signed statement there nobody should edit it except you), or refine your statements using what everybody else told (with or without credit, doesn't matter). E.g. along with Harry Potter you may add Asterix, or add Mt. Athos in the fisrt statement. It is essential, besides individual arguments, to have all arguments in one place. Whether this will be your statement or something else, is a secondary concern. Ah3kal (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah3kal the above mention was solely about my own edit not the collective text, but good idea on bringing the text here. Placed it at Wp/grc/Ϝικιπαιδεία:Ἀγορά/Κοινή_δήλωσις feel free to edit as needed. Also pinging User:Giorno2 and User:Cuzkatzimhut Gts-tg (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I reckon this is redudant by now, however I'll be waiting for the langcom to decide on the proposal before thinking about deleting the page. Gts-tg (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit | edit source]

I've created at set of featured articles at Wp/grc/Ἐξαίρετοι_ἐγγραφαί/Εὐρετήριον which is accessible from the main page link (Περαιτέρω ἐξαίρετοι ἐγγραφαί) as well. Obviously this is only for the incubator's needs and featured articles should be determined through a well defined community process. However for the time being anybody should free to add or remove entries. Gts-tg (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Language use / Γλώσσης χρεία[edit | edit source]

Perhaps we should switch to be using ancient Greek as much as possible when discussing and only be switching to English (or any other language like modern Greek or German) only when necessary, I think we need to establish the comms in the language of the wiki. Ἐγώ ὁμιλήσων εἴς την Κοινή ἐν τῷ ἔπειτα. Gts-tg (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Συζήτησις περὶ τῆς καταλήξεως τῆς σελίδος.[edit | edit source]

Χαίρετε. Διέτριβον δὴ ἐν τῇ βικιπαιδείᾳ ἔναγχος καὶ ἀνευρὼν πολλὰ -περὶ ὧν ἠγνόουν- προσέτυχον τῇ παρούσῃ σελίδι. Βουλόμενος διορθῶσαι -καθ’ ὅσον παρείκει- συνῆκα πολλὰ τὰ ἀγνοήματα εἶναι. Νεκροὺς ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα λέγειν συνδέσμους, μονοτονικὰ κείμενα ἢ λέξεις ἔν τισι μέρεσι τοῦ κειμένου καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ ὅμοια τούτοις. Διόπερ δέομαι ὑμῶν (τῶν ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ χρηστῶν) διορθῶσαι ὡς τάχιστα τὰ ἀνωτέρω ἀγνοήματα συντεταγμένως καὶ οὐχὶ ὡς ἐγὼ ἐπειράθην φύρδην καὶ ἄτεχνως πρᾶξαι, ἢ πρὸ τούτου καινὰ γράφειν. Τέλος τοίνυν -εὖ γὰρ οἶδα οὐδαμῶς ῥᾴδιον ἴσως ἂν ὑμῖν ἔσεσθαι- πρακτέον ὅμως ἡμῖν χρήσασθαι τῇ Ἀττικῇ διαλέκτῳ καὶ οὐχὶ τῇ Κοινῇ (ἔστω μοναχοῦ ἐν τοῖς πονήμασιν). Ὁρᾶτε δὴ καὶ τῇδε, ὡς προσωφελήσων τις τῇ βικιπαιδείᾳ εἰδὼς μόνον τὴν Κοινὴν ἐμπλήσει αὐτὴν (ἄκων γε) ἀγνοημάτων, οἷον ἰδίᾳ παρὰ τοῖς Ἀττικοῖς αἱ πολλαὶ ἐν χρήσει περιφράσεις σημαίνουσαι ἄλλα πράγματα, συντάξεις αἳ προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου γεγόνασιν ἁπλούστεραι, ἤγουν διάφοροι, πράγματα παρέχουσιν ἡμῖν (ἐμοὶ μὲν μάλα!).

Σὺν τῷ χρόνῳ (εἴπερ βουλομένοις ὑμῖν ἐστι τῇ βικιπαιδείᾳ) βουλοίμην ἂν ἔγωγε βοηθῆσαι τῷ ἔργῳ μεθερμηνεύων τοὔμπαλιν διὰ τῶν ὀλίγων ὧν οἶδα, ὅτι ὑπὸ ὀλίγου χρόνου πολλοῦ δέω νῦν (ἀκούετε στρατιωτικὰ κελεύσματα...). Χάριν ἔχω ὑμῖν καὶ ἐλπίζω μείζονα γενέσθαι τὴν παροῦσαν σελίδα ὅταν ἔλθω γράψων. Εἰ μή, βελτίων ἂν εἴη ἐᾶσαι ἡμᾶς τὴν διάλεκτον χαίρειν δίχα τούτου τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος ἄνευ σολοικισμῶν καὶ γλωσσικῶν σφαλμάτων εἰ φανοῦμεν ἀποτετυχηκότες. Odoiporos (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Χαῖρε Odoiporos! Please excuse my use of English but it's much faster for me at the time being to get back in touch with you as such. You are right that there is plenty of room for improvement and work in lots of areas, but that's what we are working on with the little resources we have. I will start dedicating much more time in the wiki from October onwards, and doing things properly along with shaping up some policy about use of dialect (i.e. Attic and/or Koine as you've mentioned). It's excellent to see you have a strong grasp of the language, and you are willing to contribute considerably so. For the time being, you can help by voting at the Request for new languages/Ancient Greek 4, and help bring this project to fruition. Ἀσπάζομαι καί χαῖρε πολλά, good to have you here. Gts-tg (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ἥδομαι ἀναγινώσκων ταῦτα. Σκόπει μέντοι καὶ τόδε. Οἱ πλεῖστοι μὲν οὖν τῶν πειρωμένων γράψαι τι ἐπιλανθάνονται οὐ δῆτα ὑπ’ ἀγνοίας ἀλλ’ ἢ ὑπ’ ὀλίγων γραμματικῶν τε καὶ συντακτικῶν φαινομένων οἷς μάλιστα χρῶνται, οἷον τῶν ἐγκλιτικῶν πέρι, τὸ ἀπομερίζειν τὴν προστακτικὴν ἀπρμφ τῆς εὐκτικῆς (πρᾶξαι ἀπαρ ἀορ/προστ μ.φ. πράξαι εὐκτ.) καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα. Πρὸς τούτοις ὅρα Σταματάκου Γραμμ. τῆς ἀρχαίας ἑλλ. Γλώσσης σελ.277. Δεῖ ἔτι ἄρα ἡμᾶς προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐν σελίδι 299,3 γεγραμμένοις, ὡς οὐχ ἧττον ἑόρακα ἁμαρτάνοντες. Εἰκός τοι ὑποληπτέον ταῦτα εἰ μὲν ἐγὼ γενοίμην οὗ νῦν σὺ εἶ ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν διαχειριστῶν, ἅτε ἧττον ἔνδηλα πολλοῖς. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ διατριβῆς γενομένης (οὐ μέντοι ἔστιν ἄλλοθεν ταῦτα εὑρεῖν) ἐπὶ ταύτην τὴν σελίδα, πάνυ ἂν εὔχρηστος εἴη. Τὸ μὲν ἄρα, ὡς εἶπας, πρῶτον τό τε ἐπεκδιδάσκειν τὰ ἐπιτήδεια καὶ διορθῶσαι τὰ σφάλματα κἄπειτα τὰ νέα πονήματα. Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἷός τ’ ἔσομαι βοηθεῖν τὸ πρῶτον ὡς ἔγραψα ἕως ἂν αὖ πάλιν τὸ Θέρος ἔλθῃ. Εἰς αὖθις τοίνυν. Odoiporos (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why you use F instead of the Greek β?[edit | edit source]

Hello everybody! I have Ghotuo origins (i have created the Ghotuo test wikipedia here), but i also know English and, as i live in Greece, very good Greek. I have nearly no idea about the ancient greek; however, i know that both the ancient and the current Greek alphabets never used the letter F, which you use to write Wikipedia as Fικιπαίδια. Maybe i'm wrong, but, whouldn't be better to use the original β, as Βικιπαίδια? Best regards, GhotuoIncubator (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the digamma was supposed to be a brief experiment. Some of us were carried away with the experiment, which was a terrible mistake. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)