Sattler Talks - Dr Christophe Rico - The Polis Method for Teaching Ancient Languages 

Rico is asked about the pronunciation of Koine Greek at 54:50. He says, “OK, so there is a lot of debate for that. You have basically three different pronunciations that are used. One is the Modern Greek pronunciation [MGP]. I think that we cannot adopt it for the very good reason that “ἡμεῖς” is pronounced in Modern Greek “imis”, so “us”, and “ὑμεῖς” “you” is pronounced “imis”. So you have a text of St Paul where it is saying ‘“you” and “us” and so on and because “you” and “us”’, I mean if you pronounce it through MGP you don’t understand what he’s talking about anymore. Is it “you”? Is it “us”? We don’t know. So, I don’t think we can communicate if we adopt MGP. … I mean I can understand that the Greek Church use it as a liturgical language because then it is read, but to communicate it is not possible up to the point that today in MG you have different words to say “us” and “you”. In a few seconds, he unfairly dismisses the use of Modern Greek pronunciation by using the one example of “we / you” i.e. “ἡμεῖς / ὑμεῖς” sounding the same. Many of the reasons / excuses put forward against the use of MGP for Koine Greek such as “ἡμεῖς / ὑμεῖς” sounding the same, and the phenomenon of “itacism” can be levelled at English or French. For example, in Modern English “you” is used for singular and plural, and what’s worse compared to Greek, is the verb remains the same. “You go” is the same for singular or plural whereas in Greek the verb would show a difference between singular and plural. Why is there no confusion? Context is all important and if context is insufficient, we can always ask the person speaking to us, “Do you mean ‘you’ singular or ‘you’ plural? As for “itacism”, note the different ways the “ee” sound (IPA phonetic symbol /iː/) can be made in English: e; ea; ee; ei; ie; i; ey; ay; eo as shown in the following words: even; heat; degree; receive; believe; machine; key; quay; people. Many languages have homophones and homonyms eg in English we have the homophones: pause, paws, pores, pours, and these homonyms with different meanings but same spelling: bat, kind, bank. In French we have the homophones: poids, pois, poix. In addition, third person singular and plural sound the same eg il parle ; ils parlent even though they are spelt differently. Should I insist that all French people are wrong and that they must learn to pronounce them differently or should I accept that is the nature of the language and its rules are different from mine? It's apparent they can still communicate with each other despite the homophones. Excuses are given to perpetuate the artificial Erasmian pronunciation. Even if we adopt the EP, when spoken at normal speed “ἡμεῖς / ὑμεῖς” sound almost the same and they can still be confused and require clarification. On a positive note, Rico’s Erasmian pronunciation is closer to Greek than the way most Americans pronounce it.

Dear Hadoramu, I commend you for your insightful comments (below), specifically with regard to how readily Erasmian advocates dismiss what they refer to as the "modern" Greek pronunciation of Κοινή [kini] "Koine" and Ancient Greek. First, "modern" Greek is a misnomer, for there is nothing modern about the historical phonemic sounds of mainstream Greek spoken today. Greek phonemic sounds are as historical as the 24 Greek alphabet letters used today. It is sad that students of Greek are shortchanged when they are told that they can choose this or that Greek pronunciation for this or that reason, as though language learning were but a menu of choices, with the instructor actually choosing a pronunciation method for them-in the Erasmian case, the (mis)pronunciation of a every single letter for the sake of facility. Now imagine teaching English to a group of students in China by suggesting that they pronounce every single letter in English for the sake of facility, while reassuring them that were actually learning English! Enough said... -PZ

Part 1: Ἀπόκρισις πρὸς τὸν γραμματέα τοῦ Bible Text. Λέγεις, “Modern Greek pronunciation of Koine … doesn't work for spoken communication. … If a koine text was being read out loud in a church, there would be no way for the listener to know if the author of the text was writing "us" or "you". This is impractical. A language cannot practically function with this ambiguity.” You are judging another language by the standards of your own mother tongue. In addition, you do not appreciate the difficulties non-English-speakers have when trying to learn English. You write, “The difference between "you(s)" and you(p)" in English is minor. The difference between "we" and "you" is major.” These are your biased judgments. English lost the “thou / thee / thy / thine” a few centuries ago. Many foreigners are baffled that they can’t distinguish between you(s) and you(p). Even English-speakers have difficulties. Native English-speakers have been adding “extras” for clarification eg y’all, you lot, you guys, yous / youse. Just to confuse matters further, there is the generic, impersonal, or indefinite “you”. For foreigners, it is a major problem. Please show some sympathy for the foreigner learning English. Greeks managed for centuries (even after itacism and before the change of the pronouns) to understand each other without the aid of Erasmian pronunciation. When ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς are used as nominative pronouns and are the subject of verbs there is never any confusion. A Greek verb implies who the speaker is by its personal ending, e.g., -ω, -εις, -ει, -ομεν, -ετε, -ουσιν. In fact, a sentence can function without the use of a pronoun as the subject. Context is always key to comprehension. When Jesus was speaking to those who opposed him, he told them, ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ, καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν (John 8:44). In the context, it is clear that ὑμεῖς and ὑμῶν mean “you” and “your” respectively. When the Lord taught us to pray, Πάτερ ἡμῶν, it is obvious ἡμῶν means “our”. Tὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον. It is clear that it is “our bread” and “give us”. After all, we also say, “ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν…” You state, “If "we" and "you" were truly ambiguous in Paul's letters, then we would expect the language to have additional contextual markers to allow for clarification. But I don't see that in the text.” The text is something written and therefore the spelling and not the sound will give the meaning. No “additional contextual markers” are necessary “for clarification” in written text. One can see if the word begins with an η or an υ. It is true that occasionally there is ambiguity when speaking and further clarification is needed. This may be given by the speaker or the listener may ask a question. In the UK, there is a political party called the “Conservative Party”. Sometimes, you would hear a person say, “I’m a conservative with a small ‘c’” or “I’m a Conservative with a capital ‘C’” thus distinguishing between the political party and the adjective meaning “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.” Similarly, if necessary Greeks can distinguish between ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν by providing further information. Nowadays, when Greeks speak or read aloud Koine or Katharevousa Greek, you sometimes hear them say, “ἡμῶν με [with] ήτα” or they might say, “ὑμῶν με [with] ύψιλον.” Something similar would have been said in the past. However, such clarification is obviously unnecessary in written texts.