GREEK PRONUNCIATION: SCHEME OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

In October 1908 the Classical Association adopted a number of recommendations made by its Greek Pronunciation Committee, and has since published them for the use of teachers and others. They are put forward “not as constituting a complete scientific scheme, but as approximations which, for teaching purposes, may be regarded as practicable, and at the same time as a great advance on the present usage, both for clearness in teaching and for actual likeness to the ancient sounds.” The period (the early fourth century B.C.) to which they are intended mainly to apply is one whose literature Dionysius studied rather than that in which he lived (cp. pages 43-46 above). But his scattered hints are of great moment in the whole inquiry; and if they are read with care and with reference to their bearing, not only on disputed points, but on points which (largely through the evidence they furnish) are undisputed, it will be seen how much we owe to them when making any attempt to reconstruct the pronunciation of the classical period. The principal passages of Dionysius’ text which throw light upon the question of Greek pronunciation and accentuation will be found on pages 126-130, 136-150, 218-224, 230 above. The following are the suggestions made by the Classical Association:—

Vowels

? and a, ? and ?, e and ?, ? and ? may be pronounced as the corresponding vowels in Latin, i.e.

?, as a in father,
a, as a in aha.
?, as ee in feed.
?, as i in Fr. piquet, nearly as Eng. i in fit.
e, as e in fret.
?, as o in not.
? (long e), as e in Lat. meta, Eng. a in mate.
? (long o), as o in Lat. Roma, Eng. home.

The pronunciation recommended for ? and ? is dictated by practical considerations. But in any school where the pupils have been accustomed to distinguish the sounds of French È and É, the Committee feels that the open sound (of È in il mÈne), which is historically correct for ?, may well be adopted. In the same way there is no doubt that the pronunciation of ? in the fifth century B.C. was the open sound of oa in Eng. broad, not that of the ordinary English o. But since the precise degree of openness varied at different epochs, the Committee, though preferring the open pronunciation, sees no sufficient reason for excluding the obviously convenient practice of sounding ? just as Latin o. For both Greek and Latin the diphthongal character of the English vowels in mate and home, i.e. the slight i sound in mate and the slight u sound in home, own, is incorrect. But the discrepancy is not one which any but fairly advanced students need be asked to notice, unless indeed they happen to be already familiar with the pure vowel sounds of modern Welsh or Italian.

? as French u in du pain.
? as French u in rue or Germ. Ü in grÜn.

In recommending this sound for the Greek ?, the Committee is partly guided by the fact that its correct production is now widely and successfully taught in English schools in early stages of instruction in French and German. But in any school where the sound is strange to the pupils at the stage at which Greek is begun, if it is felt that the effort to acquire the sound would involve a serious hindrance to progress, the Committee can only suggest that, for the time, the ? should be pronounced as Latin u (short as oo in Eng. took, long as oo in Eng. loose), though this obscures the distinction between words like ??? and ????.

Diphthongs

a? = a + ? nearly as ai in Isaiah (broadly pronounced), Fr. Émail.

?? = ? + ? as Eng. oi in oil.

?? = ? + ? as Fr. ui in lui.

In ?, ?, ? the first vowel was long, and the second only faintly heard.

e?. The precise sound of e? is difficult to determine, but in Attic Greek it was never confused with ? till a late period, and to maintain the distinction clearly it is perhaps best for English students to pronounce it as Eng. eye, though in fact it must have been nearer to Fr. Ée in passÉe, Eng. ey in grey. The Greek ??fe??? is Latin Alpheus.

a? = au, as Germ. au in Haus, nearly as Eng. ow in gown.

e? = eu, nearly as Eng. ew in few, u in tune.

?? as Eng. oo in moon, Fr. ou in roue.

Consonants

p, , t, d, ?, and ? as p, b, t, d, k, and g respectively in Latin; except that ? (before ?, ?, and ?) is used to denote the nasal sound heard in Eng. ankle, anger.

?, ?, , ? as Lat. r, l, m, n.

s, ? always as Lat. s (Eng. s in mouse), except before , ? and , where the sound was as in Eng. has been, has gone, has made: e.g. ?sest??, f?s?a???, ?s??.

? as Eng. x in wax, and ? as Eng. ps in lapse.

? as Eng. dz in adze, ds in treads on.

Aspirates

The Committee has carefully considered the pronunciation of the aspirated consonants in Greek. It is certain that the primitive pronunciation of ?, ?, f was as k.h, t.h, p.h, that is as k, t, p followed by a strong breath, and the Committee is not prepared to deny that this pronunciation lasted down into the classical period. Further, there is no doubt that the adoption of this pronunciation makes much in Greek accidence that is otherwise obscure perfectly comprehensible. If fa??? be pronounced pha???, it is readily understood why the reduplicated perfect is peph??a; but if it be pronounced fa???, the perfect, pronounced pef??a, is anomalous. The relation of ?f?st?? and the like to ?st??, of f???d?? to ?d??, of ???? to t???a becomes intelligible when it is seen that ?, f, and ? contain a real h-sound. This advantage seems to be one of the reasons why it has been adopted in practice by a certain number of English teachers.

In the course of time the pronunciation of the aspirates changed by degrees to that of fricatives, which is now current in most districts of Greece, f becoming f, ? pronounced as th, in English thin, and ? acquiring the sound of the German ch.[208]

If the later sounds are accepted, no change in the common pronunciation of ? and f in England will be required, but it will remain desirable to distinguish between the sounds of ? and ?, which are at present confused: ???? and ????, ?a??? and ?a??? being now pronounced alike. This may be done by giving ? the sound of kh, or of German ch, as in auch. The Committee would, on the whole, recommend the latter alternative as being more familiar in German, Scotch, and Irish place-names.[209]

The Committee, though loath to do anything to discourage the primitive pronunciation of the aspirates, has not been able to satisfy itself that it would be easy to introduce this pronunciation into schools to which it is strange; and it is of opinion that it is not advisable to recommend anything at present that might increase the labour of the teacher or the student of Greek. It therefore abstains from recommending any change in the common pronunciation of the aspirates except in the case of ?.

Accentuation

There is no doubt that in the Classical period of Greek the accented syllables were marked by a higher pitch or note than the unaccented, and not by more stress, not, that is, with a stronger current of breath and more muscular effort. Therefore, unless the student is capable of giving a musical value to the Greek signs of accent, it is doubtful whether he should attempt to represent them in pronunciation; for in many cases we should make our pronunciation more, not less remote from that of the Greeks themselves if we gave to their accented syllables the same stress as we do to the accented syllables in English; for example, in paroxytone dactyls (?e???????) when the penult is stressed, the quantity of the long antepenult is apt to be shortened and its metrical value destroyed.[210] But where there is no conflict between accent and quantity (??a???), something may be said for stressing moderately the accented syllable, and so distinguishing e.g. ?a??? and ?????, ???? and d???, ta?t? and ta?ta.[211]