Comments by "PAPAZA TAKLA ATTIRAN İMAM" (@papazataklaattiranimam) on "Knowledgia"
channel.
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
The three Islamic empires of the early modern period – the Mughal, the Safavid, and the Ottoman – shared a common Turko-Mongolian heritage. In all three the ruling dynasty was Islamic, the economic system was agrarian, and the military forces were paid in grants of land revenue. Despite these similarities, however, significant differences remained. And, to fully appreciate the individual temporal systems, a brief description of the political, economic, religious, and cultural conditions in each state is necessary. Within the confines of a single chapter, however, it is not possible to review all of the literature and settle all of the controversies. As a result, the brief overview that follows depends, for the most part, on the most recent general histories and surveys.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/time-in-early-modern-islam/safavid-mughal-and-ottoman-empires/9D55F0A0262017473EC8A9A7ED86C508/core-reader
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Cypriot Greek has often been referred to as a dialect of Greek (Contossopoulos, 2000); a variety that is linguistically proximal to Standard Modern Greek (Grohmann and Kambanaros, 2016 Grohmann et al. 2016), which is the official language in the environment our participants acquire language. Although the official language in education and other formal settings is indeed Standard Modern Greek, research has shown the boundaries between the two varieties, Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek, and their distribution across different registers is not straightforward (Grohmann and Leivada, 2012, Tsiplakou et al. 2016). At times mixing is attested without code-switching being in place, while no official characterization has been provided for any of these terms in this specific context. The question arising in this context is whether the attested variants emerging in mixed speech repertoires are functionally equivalent for an individual speaker.
The concept of "competing grammars goes back to Krich 11989, 1991), who proposed that speakers project multiple grammars to deal with ambiguous input This concept has been explicitly connected to the relation between Standard and Cypriot Greek (Papadopo et al. 2014; plaka 2014; Grohman et al 2017)
The two varieties have differences in all levels of linguistic analysis and often monolingual speakers of Standard Modern Greek judge Cypriot Greek as unintelligible. At the same time, Greek Cypriot speakers do not always provide reliable judgments of their own speech since these are often clouded by sociolinguistic attitudes toward using the non-standard variety. Cypriot Greek lacks official codification and its status as a different language/variety is often denied by Greek Cypriots who may downplay the differences between Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek and describe the latter as just an accent (Arvaniti, 2010). As the discussion of the different variants will make clear in the next section, the two varieties have differences across levels of linguistic analysis and these differences vastly exceed the sphere of phonetics or phonology.
All speakers of Cypriot Greek have exposure to Standard Modern Greek through education and other mediums and in this way, they are competent to different degrees in both varieties. We employ the term 'bilectal' (Rowe and Grohmann, 2013, 2014) to refer to the participants of this study, although it is not entirely clear that the varieties they are exposed to are Standard Modern Greek and Cypriot Greek or that they are only two varieties, under the assumption that a continuum is in place. For instance, the term 'Cypriot Standard Greek' (Arvaniti, 2010) has been proposed to refer to an emerging variety that may count as the standard in the context of Cyprus. This would be a sociolinguistically 'high' variety (Ferguson, 1959) that is used in formal settings, although its degree of proximity with Standard Modern Greek is difficult to determine with precision because great fluidity is attested across different settings and geographical areas. At the school environment, for example, one notices the existence of three different varieties: Cypriot Greek, as the home variety that is used when students interact with each other, Standard Modern Greek, as the language of the teaching material, and another standard-like variety that incorporates elements from both varieties, and is present in the repertoire of both the students and the instructors (Sophocleous and Wilks. 2010; Hadjioannou et al., 2011; Leivada et al.. 2017).
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Studies in both Greece and Cyprus are included in this chapter. Standard Greek is the language spoken throughout Greece at home, with minor dialectic variation, and the sole language of administration and education. In contrast, in Cyprus the home language is Cypriot Greek, a dialect with no standardized or written form, but the language of administration and education is very similar to standard Greek, in a situation of diglossia (Hadjioannou, Tsiplakou & Kappler, 2011). There are differences between standard and Cypriot Greek in most linguistic domains, and the two dialects are not entirely mutually intelligible (see discussion and references in Arvaniti, 2006, 2010). Although many phonological awareness tasks may be largely equivalent when used in Greece and Cyprus, it might be kept in mind that Cypriot children are taught and tested in a nonnative linguistic system.
Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2017). Learning to Read Arabic. In L. Verhoeven & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to Read across Languages and Writing Systems (pp. 183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cypriot Greek, which has a certain amount of regional variation, is markedly different from Standard Greek not only for historical reasons but also because of geographical isolation, different settlement patterns, and extensive contact with typologically distinct languages. The syntax of Cypriot Greek is almost identical with that of Standard Greek, but there are differences in morphol ogy and considerable differences in lexicon and phonology (Papapavlou 1994). The main phonological differences include the presence in Cypriot of palato-alveolar affri cates, and of geminate consonants, includ ing in word-initial position (Newton 1972). Although the differences in syntax, mor phology and phonology are not enormous, the Cypriot dialect and Standard Greek are not particularly readily intelligible (Papa pavlou 1994), probably mostly because the lexicon of Cypriot has significantly more. lexical items of non-Greek origin (Chat zioyannou 1936).
Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. and Trudgill, P., n.d. Sociolinguistics/ Soziolinguistik. Volume 3. p.1886.
16
-
15
-
15
-
The writer uses the ambiguous term “Hellene,” which generally means “pagan” in Byzantine Greek. Plethon and his followers used the term almost to the exclusion of all others when referring to their own countrymen.
Nagy., 2003. Modern Greek Literature. Taylor & Francis, p.30.
" In its final centuries , the Byzantine Empire was also called " Romania . " Remnants of this Roman heritage are still evident in such terms as " Rum " and " Rumeli .
Georgius, Philippides, M. and Macarius, 1980. The fall of the Byzantine empire. Amherst, MA: Univ. of Massachusetts Pr., p.2.
Given Gennadios ' strong religious and traditional orientation , one would expect him to adhere carefully to the traditional Byzantine nomenclature wherein Hellene signified pagan and Rhomaios Byzantine .
Ćurčić, S. and Mouriki, D., 2019. The Twilight of Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.9.
And there is also evidence that the word 'Hellene' now meant 'pagan', and Justinian did conduct persecutions of Hellenes.
Scott, R., n.d. Byzantine chronicles and the sixth century.
The Byzantine Empire was officially called the Empire of the Romans, not the Greeks, Hellenes, or whatever. And if we proceed from the northern theory of the formation of the state, then we could not know about the Hellenic Greeks, Venetian-Venets in any way due to the lack of direct contacts. At that time, the word “Hellene” among the Romans meant a pagan and a traitor.
Attila Kagan of the Huns from the kind of Velsung Kindle Edition by Соловьев Сергей Юрьевич (Author)
The ancient Hellenes were conquered by the Romans . Emperor Justinian destroyed the last vestiges of Hellenic civilisation , and state Christianity created a new civilisation on the ruins of the old .
Koliopoulos, G. and Veremēs, T., 2007. Greece: the modern sequel. London: Hurst & Company, p.242.
Hellenes as they were called, were persecuted by the enforcement of these general rules; Justinian endeavored, above all things, to deprive them of education, and he had the University of Athens closed in 529; at the same time ordering wholesale conversations.
The Cambridge Medieval History volumes 1-5 by John Bagnell Bury, Paul Dalen (Goodreads Author) (Editor)
And there is also evidence that the word 'Hellene' now meant 'pagan', and Justinian did conduct persecutions of Hellenes. The world of Classics in the sixth century was not entirely rosy.
Scott, R., n.d. Byzantine chronicles and the sixth century
It is believed that there was some kind of trade route, but the object of exchange is not clear. The Baltic States could offer amber, but the path along the Elbe and then the Danube is better and safer than the path "From the Varangians to the Greeks" invented by idle historians. First, where did the Greeks come from? The Byzantine Empire was officially called the Empire of the Romans, not the Greeks, Hellenes, or whatever. And if we proceed from the northern theory of the formation of the state, then the Veneti Veneti could not know about the Greek-Hellenes, due to the lack of direct contacts. At that time, the word "Hellene" among the Romans meant a pagan and a traitor. And the term Varangian, unknown even among the Scandinavians, at least in Saxon Grammar it does not occur, from the word at all. The way from Wagry sounds more reasonable, and where? If we translate the term "Hellene" as a pagan, then we get that the way from Wagri to the east was the way of pagan pilgrims.
Russia the formation of the state in the 9th century Veneds and the severjans (northerners), part of the Huns, which became the basis of a new community Kindle Edition by Solovyov Sergey (Author)
Although the Breviarum has some major flaws, including a lacuna for nearly the entire reign of Constans II (r. 641-668), it is nonetheless one of the most important sources for his tory from the reign of Phocas through Constantine V-in no small part due to the fame of its author rather than the work's intrinsic merit.79 Nikephoros' use of names in this text is somewhat idiosyncratic. This short history does not have much on language-the sole mention of Latin names it 'Itaλ@v qwvn.80 He never refers to Greek, but 'Hellene' is invari ably a pejorative term, used in the sense of meaning 'pagan. On the other hand, he regularly glosses 'Christians' as meaning 'Romans' in a cultural and even political sense. Like other Greek-writing authors of this period, Nikephoros displays a high degree of laxity of precision in his terminology.
In spite of the relatively relaxed attitudes adopted by contemporaries with respect to linguistic labels, it is clear that the later medieval and mod ern colloquial usage of the signifier Roman' for the Greek language is unprecedented in the early middle ages. Where the 'Roman tongue" is mentioned in the sources, it is always Latin which is signified-and this is consistent from Procopius in the sixth century through Constantine VII in the tenth.
WHALIN, D., 2022. ROMAN IDENTITY FROM THE ARAB CONQUESTS TO THE TRIUMPH OF ORTHODOXY. [S.l.]: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, p.31.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
From this point of view, a large part of the 19 Cypriot historiography did not manage to achieve the substantial for the historian, to use a phrase by Eric Hobsbawm, overcoming of passions and political identities, 20⁰ identities that were of course created at the end or even after the Ottoman period. That is to say, that the national political identity of the Greek and the Turk, the national political ensembles of Greeks and Turks, realities of the post-Ottoman period in Cyprus are projected on the past of the 16th century.
Thus, in 1571 Cyprus was conquered by the Ottomans and for the next three hundred and more years was a part of the Ottoman territory. The Greek Cypriot historiography uses for this transition and generally the entire Ottoman period the term Turkish rule a term that lends a national Turkish identity to Ottomans. A big part of traditional historiography refers to a Turkish state,²¹ mentioning a Turkish government, while correspondingly the conquered are included in another national identity, the Greek, which - and perhaps this is more important - at the time history is written, is in conflict with the Turkish.
Already from the end of the 19th century, Greek Cypriot historiography states that during the Turkish rule "the spirit of the inhabitants fell to a pitiful point and poverty and misery and extreme ignorance, and depression of the national morale covered the island".23 The Orthodox on the island are defined by traditional historiography as a political group since "in the vizier's orders the participant in the defence of Famagusta Greek was a term that was generalised for all Greeks on the island". In relation to the population on the island the Turkish rule mentions that "after the occupation of Cyprus by the Turks the census that took place for tax pur poses revealed that the native Cypriot Greeks aged [...] in this population 20.000 30.000 Turks were added".25 It is also established that "the Turkish occupation brought to Cyprus many radical changes. The Turks supported the Greek population on the island in order not to give the opportunity to the peoples of Europe to be interested in the Cypriots […]”.26
And as it began with a national conflict that is how italso ends, since it is mentioned that “while the Turkish conquerors suppressed andpersecuted the Greeks on the island […]”.27
The existence therefore of a politicalnational group is considered given and every analysis of the Ottoman period func-tions in a way to bring to the forefront or reinforce the existence, even under difficultconditions, of such a group. This expressed the stereotyped view that the Cypriots“managed under the protection of the Church to maintain their religion, language,and national conscience as Greeks”.28
Even when relations are examined on differentlevels, even when they refer to the 17th
century, these are characterised as relationsof the “Greeks and the Turks of Cyprus”.29
In the Turkish Cypriot historiography, the same perception is more or less fol-lowed; history is written under the same terms, the national terms but with one sub-stantial difference: The “Turks on the island” 30
are usually referred to as acomplimentary term of the word Ottomans and are placed on the side of the goodoften contrary to the “Greeks, Greek Cypriots” who are on the opposite side. Thesettlement of the “Turks”on the island is interpreted as something that broughtabout positive results for the entire island 31 and the local Ottoman administration isgenerally whitewashed. In short, Turkish Cypriot historiography also accepts theexistence of national groups. The Church of Cyprus expresses again the Greeks of Cyprus and its activities are mainly targeted against the Turks of Cyprus, 32
whilewithout hesitation the actions of the Prelates of 1600 in Cyprus are combined andidentified with the Akritas plan of the period after the independence. 33
The Prelatesare considered to express not only spiritually but also nationally the Orthodox of Cyprus while institutionally the Church of Cyprus is perceived as warring towardsthe local Turkish administration. 34
The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot histo-riographies are identified when they project the present on the past, a past howeverthat is perceived and interpreted from a very different national point of view.
Michael, M., Kappler, M. and Gavriel, E., 2009. Ottoman Cyprus: A Collection of Studies on History and Culture Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp.14,15.
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12