The Resurrection of Cappadocian (Asia Minor Greek)
- ️https://ugent.academia.edu/MarkJanse
AI-generated Abstract
This paper explores the historical and linguistic legacy of Cappadocian, a Greek dialect influenced by numerous cultures and languages, notably Turkish. It traces the origins of the language from its Hittite roots through various invasions and cultural shifts, particularly focusing on the Hellenization process initiated during the Roman era, leading to a unique linguistic landscape shaped by bilingualism and code-mixing among the Cappadocians. The decline of the Cappadocian language, notably in the diaspora, highlights the cultural and linguistic assimilation experienced by the community, reflecting broader historical narratives of displacement and identity.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
CAPPADOCIANS, ARMENIANS and GREEKS IN BYZANTINE EASTERN ASIA MINOR: AN ETHNOLINGUISTIC APPROACH
In the 4th century BC, before the conquests of Alexander the Great, Asia Minor was a multiracial area inhabited by several peoples with different ethnolinguistic origins. The Lydians, Carians, Lycians and the natives of Pamphylia and Cilicia were of Luwian origins. The Lycaonians, the Pisidians and the Phrygians belonged to the Phrygian ethnic group. The regions of Ionia, Aeolis, Doris, Troas and the coasts of Pamphylia and Cilicia were populated by Greeks, descended from the Mycenaean and Archaic Hellenic colonization and the Hellenization of the natives. The Mysians and the Doliones were Proto-Thracian populations, while the neighboring Bithynians were a Thracian proper tribe. The Cappadocians of Cappadocia proper and the Western Pontos (see below) and the neighboring Armenians were speaking several "hybrid" Phrygian, Iranian, Luwian, Hurro-Urartian
Understanding diachronic change in Cappadocian Greek: the dialectological perspective
2013
This article challenges the widely held view that a series of pervasive diachronic innovations in Cappadocian Greek owe their development to language contact with Turkish. Placing particular emphasis on its genealogical relationships with the other dialects of Asia Minor, the claim is that language change in Cappadocian is best understood when considered within a larger dialectological context. Examining the limited use of the definite article as a case in point and in comparison with parallel developments attested in Pontic and Silliot Greek, it is shown in detail that the surface similarity of the outcomes of Cappadocian innovations to their Turkish structural equivalents represents the final stages in long series of language-internal developments whose origins predate the intensification of Cappadocian–Turkish contact. The article thus offers an alternative to contact-oriented approaches and calls for a revision of accepted views on the language-internal and -external dynamics that shaped Cappadocian into its modern form.
The Hellenistic Kingdom of Cappadocia
O. Tekin (ed.), Hellenistik ve Roma Dönemlerinde Anadolu. Krallar, İmparatorlar, Kent Devletleri / Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia. Kings, Emperors, City States (Istanbul 2019) 118 – 133., 2019
This contribution provides a short overview of the Hellenistic history of the kingdom of Cappadocia in its wider Anatolian setting.
Did Jesus Speak Greek? The Emerging Evidence of Greek Dominance in First-Century Palestine
Did Jesus speak Greek? An affirmative answer to the question will not doubt challenge traditional presuppositions. The question relates directly to the historical preservation of Jesus' words and theology.Traditionally, the authenticity of Jesus' teaching has been linked to the recovery of the original Aramaic that presumably underlies the Gospels. The Aramaic Hypothesis infers that the Gospels represent theological expansions, religious propaganda, or blant distortions of Jesus' teachings. Consequently, uncovering the original Aramaic of Jesus teachings will separate the historical Jesus from the mythical personality. I contend that the Aramaic Hypothesis is inadequate as an exclusive criterion of historical Jesus studies and does not aptly take into consideration the multilingual culture of first-century Palestine. Evidence from archaeological, literary, and biblical data demonstrates Greek linguistic dominance in Roman Palestine during the first century CE. Such preponderance of evidence leads not only to the conclusion that Jesus and his disciples spoke Greek but also to the recognition that the Greek New Testament generally and the Gospel of Matthew in particular were original compositions and not translations of underlying Aramaic sources. The excerpt is provided by permission of Wipf and Stock publishing.