Letter to the Editor
Comment on Elements of The So Called “Greek Myths”.
I admit I have not read all of this diatribe – it’s much too long. I’ll confine my comments to two linguistic points, both of which are utter nonsense. I read no further than this. You largely destroyed your own argument.
“”Phile” is the 3 person of the Singular grammatical form and it means nothing else than “friend”.”
It is not a verb. It is simply the vocative form of a masculine noun.
“Etymologists and linguists believe that New “Greek” Language is not naturally developed, but is mostly an artificial language. No other language in Europe has this handicap, only New Greek Language and Esperanto!”
Modern Greek was obviously heavily exposed to foreign influences, mainly Turkish, after 1453 and till around 1821, and later by French and other western European languages, as are most languages, including English. (Have you ever read any of Beowulf and then Chaucer?) This was a totally natural development and not something artificially imposed. Are you perhaps referring to the 19th century struggle between the language reformers’ dhimotiki and the conservatives’ katharevousa, which lasted until a few decades ago? That might be partially construed as ‘artificial’. And other European languages have indeed undergone reform, contrary to your statement – to name a few: Irish Gaelic (Caighdean Oifigiuil), Nynorsk, Serbian (Vuk Karadzic), Estonian, Icelandic, German (Martin Luther), Romanian:
And non-ethnic Esperanto is not an artificial, but a constructed, language – 99.8% of its roots come from ethnic languages, and were not simply invented out of the blue. This is not a handicap, but an advantage. Only linguistic purists and archconservative traditionalists could possibly feel that language reform and language planning are handicaps.
Amike salutas via