The declension of masculine nouns in the nominative plural is marked by an equal peculiarity. Thus ὁ δεσπολης, (a title now applied only to the dignitaries of the church,) which, according to the old rules, would make ὁι δεσπολαι, produces the sonorous appellation of ὁι δεσπολάδες, and the genitive, in conformity to this example, is lengthened out into τῶν δεσπολάδων.* Most foreign names, whether of persons or things, when adopted by the Greeks, are made to undergo the same corrupt regulations. Indeed, in this respect they are not more despotic than their forefathers, or the modern Gauls, whose arts of torture on this head are as remarkable as their other ingenious qualities. Of this we cannot give a better example than those which are contained in the following extracts from a Greek newspaper, published at Vienna, under the title of ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΣ ΤΗΛΕΓΡΑΦΟΣ, The Grecian Telegraph.' · Ἰδοὺ ὁ λόγος, ὁποῦ ἔγινε τῇ 7 Ιαν. ἐν ὀνόματι τῆς βασιλικῆς γαληνότητος τοῦ Πρίγγιπος- Ῥεγέντου, ὅτε ἠνεώχθη το παρλαμέντον ἀπὸ τοὺς ἐπιτρόπους, τοὺς λόρδες Κάμδεν καὶ Βεστμορελάνδ, τὸν Λόρδ Ἐλδὼν τον ἀρχιγραμματέα, καὶ τὸν ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Καντουαρίας. · "Ανδρες εὐγενεῖς καὶ Μιλόρδοι ! κ. τ. λ. • Τῇ 8 ̓Ιανουαριου. Χθὲς ἡνεώχθη το παρλᾶμεντον, ὅπου ὁ μὲν Λὸρδ Κοχράνης ὠνείδισε καλὰ πολλὰ τὸ φέρσιμον τῶν Μινίστρων, εἰς τὴν Ισπανίαν καὶ Σικελίαν, ὁ δὲ Βιλβρεάδιος (Whitbread, pronounced Vitvray-áthios) ἐλάλησε διὰ την ὑποψίαν τοῦ πολέμου μεταξὺ ̓Αγγλίας καὶ Αμερικῆς κ. τ. λ. ̓ · Δουβλίνον, τῇ 23 Δεκ. Σήμερον ἐσυνάχθησαν οι πρῶτοι τῶν Καθολίκων τῆς Ἰρλανδίας ἐἰς τὸ θέατρον κατὰ την Φισχαμπλεστράταν (Fish-Shamble street.') In considering the verbs, we shall be obliged to notice a much greater variety of barbarous innovations. The use of the dual number is exploded. All the nice distinctions so laboriously arranged by the ancient grammarians, the delicate shades of first and second future, the paulo post futurum, first and second aorist, the participles, &c. &c. are entirely obliterated. The present tense and the first aorist, with a very slight variation, alone stand erect, like single columns, amid the general ruin. It is in the substitute adopted for the future, and the preterperfect and preterpluperfect tenses that the change is most deplorable, and in it we see a very near approach to the idioms of modern Europe by the adoption of the verbs θέλω and ἔχω, as auxiliaries. Take the regular verb γράφω for example. In the present tense indicative the only difference is in the third person plural, where γράφεν is put for γράφουσι. The several modes of expressing a past action are, 1. "Έγραψα, which varies from the old aoristus primus only in * We now speak of the language as used by the vulgar. In the address quoted in a former part of this article, the ancient usage dι μυσαι is preserved. FF2 the the penultimate of the second person plural; ἐγράψειλε, standing for ἐγράψατε. 2. Ἔχω γράφει or γράψει, I have written. 3. Ἔιχα γράφει or γράψει, I had written. In these last cases the auxiliary verb alone is conjugated, the new invented participle of the principal verb retaining, unchanged, its barbarous form throughout. The future and conditional are formed nearly upon the same imperfect model, by means of the verb θέλω.-Thus, θελω { γράφω or γράφει } used indifferently, according to each per son's taste, expresses, I shall or will write:-ἤθελα γράφω οι γράφει, &c. I would or should write. But in common conversation or careless writing, da, a particle unknown to the ancients, is used, apparently for the sake of brevity, in the place of θέλω. In this case the principal verb iş conjugated. Thus, θα γράφω, I will write; θα γράφεν, they will write. The above is all that has survived of the indicative mood. The remaining moods, with the exception of the infinitive, of which there is no trace, are, as might be expected, still more defective. The following extract from Koray furnishes us with an example in point:-Μήτε τὰ παραδείγμαλα ταῦλα, μήτε ἡ ἀσθενής μου φωνή ἤθελαν εισθαι ἱκανὰ νὰ διεγείρωσιν ἐις μίμησιν τῶν καλῶν τὸ γένος, ἐὰν, &c. where ἤθελαν ἔισθαι takes the place of what, in the ancient language, would have been expressed by the present or future optative of the substantive verb ειμι ; and νὰ διεγείρωσιν (in the subjunctive) performs the part of the old infinitive διεγείρειν. In fact it is almost solely in this instance that the subjunctive is used, and we presume it is so in obedience to its governing particle và, which is evidently a corruption of ινα. The imperative has but one tense of which the second persons singular and plural are the same as formerly. The remaining persons are expressed by the corresponding ones of the present indicative preceded by the particle as, ex. -ας γράφουν for γραφέλωσαν. The potential is marked by a new auxiliary which is altogether of spurious and uncertain extraction, ἐμπορῶ οἱ ἐμπορῶμαι, and is an equivalent for δύναμαι. In its various inflections, such as ἐμπορῶσα, I could, it follows rules peculiar to itself. So also does the substantive verb ἐιμι, which is even still more irregular. Similar variations are observable in the passive voice. But as our object is rather to awaken curiosity than to satisfy it, we shall pass over many particulars worthy of mention elsewhere, and close this part of our subject with a few words on the colloquial peculiarities of the Romaïc tongue. These peculiarities are different, in different parts of the Turkish empire. empire. Almost every society has a set of corrupt phrases peculiar to itself. At one place the habits of civil and commercial intercourse with the masters of the country have introduced many Turkish words and expressions. At another the language has taken its complexion from the French or Italian interlopers settled in the neighbourhood. At a third, particularly in the Fanal at Constantinople, a greater acquaintance with the classical authors of antiquity has given to conversation a higher, and, perhaps, a more correct, tone. The diversity is most striking at Smyrna, in the Ionian islands, and in those of the Archipelago, where commerce and the vicinity of foreign nations facilitate the progress of corruption. In short, to use the comparison of Koray, the modern Greek, as it is found in the mouths of the vulgar, resembles the garment of Minerva patched with the rags of Irus. To seek it in the form most approaching to the ancient, we ought probably to repair to some of those sequestered spots in the mountainous regions of Greece, which from their remoteness and insignificancy have hitherto escaped the prying eye of the antiquary no less than the hand of the destroyer. This is an investigation to which we think the diligence and curiosity of our excursive countrymen might be profitably directed.* The translation of Goldoni would supply us with innumerable examples of the sort of barbarism to which we have just alluded; but we conceive that the relation of a few instances which have come under ourown immediate notice will answer the purpose still better. A young lady of Pera confiding to another her reasons for disliking one of her admirers, expressed herself in these words: Na χαρω το μαλια με, djanum, δεν ἐμπορω να τον sofriro; τετοιον mpondala δεν εἶδα πολε, καὶ να σε πω την αληθεια, έχει ταις gambes sραβες. It is needless to point out that this short sentence is indebted to no less than three foreign languages. The answer was worthy of it: * Not long ago we should have expressed our unqualified regret at the scanty information afforded us respecting the modern Greeks by those who have visited the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. From most of our travellers we have heard only a tale twice told, that they are degraded and oppressed; 'pulli viles nati infelicibus ovis ;' and the only care seems to be to retort upon them the title of barbarians, which their ancestors so liberally bestowed upon all other nations of the world. But latterly some instances of a better-directed zeal have appeared, and the inhabitants of Greece seem in a fair way of rising to something like a level with the inanimate relics that surround them. To Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Douglas, the country is indebted for many valuable facts, and many intelligent observations illustrative of their present state, and it may be hoped that the example of those gentlemen will not be long without followers. Much remains to be learnt: and in proportion as we are assured that the Greeks improve, and are likely still further to improve, we become anxious for means of watching their progress, and calculating the chances of their success. Αχ, κοκοναμε, τι με λες τι mortificatzione δια τον καϊμενον. τι sikleti όπε έχει να τραβαι οταν θα ἀκεει τα sentimenta σε. The following is in the style of the polite circles of Zante: O milordos όπε με erecomanderistekate ηλθον εδω σημερα; μα ευγαινωνίας απο το σπηλι, είχε την sbentoura va glistrai, και ecascarise καλω, καὶ εσπασε το braccio τε. The next examples are of a more favourable sort. A Greek boatman, meeting an old friend who, he thought, had died of the plague, exclaimed-Πόθεν ἔρχεσαί συ? δεν ἀπεθανες? Όχι, ὄχι, ἐγελασα τον χαρο, was the reply. It may here be observed that the negative particle δεν, evidently a corruption of ἐδεν, has usurped the place of 8 or 8x. A Greek of the Morea, pointing to the pearls and rubies which adorned the dress of a Pasha, infamous for his extortions, exclaimed-Ιδε τα δακρυα και το αιμα της Ελλαδος! Behold the tears and blood of Greece! A Cephaloniote sailor, upon being asked what sort of treatment he had experienced on board a Turkish ship of war, replied-0 Θεος δεν εμπορει να μετρησηταις ξυλιαίς οπο έφαγα. ' Heaven cannot number the cudgellings that I have swallowed.' Here the most prominent corruption is the application of 078, which, from a mere adverb of place, is exalted into a relative as universal in its acceptation as the Italian che, or our that. With respect to accent and pronunciation, we are at a loss for a fair standard by which to decide the claims of the modern Greeks to correctness. It is in vain to look for one in our imperfect means of ascertaining ancient usage; and to refer them to our own practice is at once to condemn them unheard. Our learned professors will say they must themselves be right because they are impartial; the Greeks will assert the contrary because the language is their own. We are disposed however to think that the former approach nearest to the truth on the side of accent, and the latter on that of pronunciation; and that Homer, were he to come to life, would be as much surprized at hearing his famous πολυφλοίσβοιο pronounced polooftoisboio by us, as at finding it called polifleesvio, by his unmusical descendants. The accentual marks remain exactly as they were, but they have survived to the destruction of metrical harmony; for, in reading poetry, the modern Greeks lay a most indiscriminate and unrelenting stress on every accentuated syllable; and in their own poetical compositions they have entirely abandoned the ancient metres, for rhyme and jingle. A very few words will suffice to point out the modern way of pronouncing the letters. a is always broad, as in glass. 기 η, ι, ει, οι, u, have all the same power, namely, that of our double e. αι is like ay in hay, may, &c. 8 is pronounced like oo in hoop. av, and ev, are, according to position, either af, ef, or av, ev. ẞis sounded like our v. The Roman b has no corresponding letter in the Romaïc alphabet, and is expressed by the awkward combination of μπ: for instance, Bob in modern Greek would be μπομπ; mpотр. y is a slight guttural; x may be represented by ch hard; & is th hard, as in that; our d is expressed by 1. The rest of w is confounded with o, and pronounced like ouro. the alphabet is pronounced in Greece as in England. From the language of the modern Greeks, and their recent attempts to improve it, our thoughts are involuntarily led to the contemplation of what must chiefly determine the success of those attempts their political condition, and the probability of amendment on that side. This is no new subject. For many years, much longer perhaps than the Greeks themselves have entertained any settled hope or thought of change, the principal governments of Europe have continually nursed, or viewed as practicable, the project of redeeming them from the dominion of the Turks. There is little doubt, that the Empress Catherine, when she gave the name of Constantine to the youngest of her grandsons, intended to designate him as the future emperor of Greece. Nor is it surprising that the splendid ambition of restoring to light and life and liberty, a country endeared to all but its oppressors, by such great and tender recollections, should have thrown a veil over its real motive-the lust of empire. To this enthusiasm we must in charity refer the various singular measures which have been adopted from time to time, as fair and honourable instruments of effecting so specious a purpose. Hitherto, the only power that has decidedly developed its design, far from improving the condition of the Greeks, or clearing the way for their emancipation, has left them after a bloody and disastrous struggle, with fresh difficulties to encounter, and increased sufferings to endure. The effects of an unsuccessful insurrection must ever be to render the oppressed more painfully alive to their subjection, and to exasperate the jealousy of the oppressors. In addition to these natural results both Turks and Greeks have retained an equal apprehension of Russian interference. The French, under their successive forms of government, republican and despotic, have been obliged to make their views in this quarter subordinate to the grand scheme of universal dominion. |