Talk:Athens
|
|
Does anyone know why the Rambot didn't make an article for Athens, Georgia? It's a pretty big town... Tuf-Kat
I've basically dumped the contents of Athenian democracy and Delian League into what was a shameful stub. -Smack 05:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
Splitting
Please consider moving much of this content to an Ancient Athens article since a modern city does exist. --Jiang 15:45, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think Smack's decision to copy the existing articles Athenian democracy and Delian League into this article was a mistake, which should be reversed. We don't turn stubs into articles by padding them with text from other articles. I agree with Jiang (gasp) that this article should deal with modern Athens only. Adam 16:24, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Its subway system is the Attiko Metro which runs from Piraeus to Kifissiá (Cephisia) of most of that line is outside, The red runs from Dáphni and plans to end at Peristéri (first opened in 1997), and the blue begins in Aigáleo (Aegaleus) and now ends NE near the Penteli area."
This paragraph doesn't make much sense. What does "of most of that line is outside" mean? What are the red and the blue? Please rewrite it in coherent English Adam 06:33, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Runs outside means probably runs overground (it does actually).
Sotiris 6 April 2005
There are many errors in the page, but I don't have time to correct them right now, and there are some that I don't know how to correct, so I'm just taking some quick notes of my thoughts here, so that we correct them later.
The Athens Metro system is called "Athens Metro", not Attiko Metro; the later is the name of one of the companies responsible for it. The information about the metro lines is incorrect, and anyway "Athens Metro" should be another article.
There is no "Athens Polytechnic"; it is called "National Technical University of Athens" (it's a very bad translation of its Greek name, but that's how it is officially named in English - see http://www.ntua.gr/).
PAOK is not a soccer team of Athens; it is of Thessaloniki. PAO was intended, which is more commonly called Panathinaikos (PAO means Panathinaikos Athletikos Omilos, that is, Panathenean Athlete Group). This is, I think, the only team of the Municipality of Athens. Now if we include the other teams, which are from other municipalities of greater Athens, we would have to include Olympiakos, which is of Pireus, and it needs careful phrasing, or Olympiakos fans may be offended if we write that Olympiakos is a soccer team of Athens, because they use to distinguish between Pireus and Athens and they have long-term rivalry with Panathinaikos.
I need to look this up, but I believe the Acropolis was first inhabited in Neolithic times. It was around 4500 BC last time I checked (ongoing archaeological investigation continously pushes that date back).
Athens has a long history and it's not easy to separate it into ancient Athens and modern Athens, as was suggested. There is Mycenean Athens (until the beginning of the dark age, around 1100 BC), Classical Athens (from end of the dark age, around 800 BC, to 529 BC, when the schools were closed), Byzantine Athens, up to 1458, Ottoman Athens, up to around 1830, and modern Athens. Distinct articles about specific periods of history would be nice, but I still think an outline (maybe more brief than the existing one) is necessary here.
Antonios Christofides, 10 Jan 2004
Thanks for that. The stuff about the soccer teams and the metro were included by a user who I think is Greek so I assumed they were correct. Now that I know they are not, I will delete them. They don't add much to the article anyway.
The Polytechnic appears as Polytekhnio on my 2002 map of Athens - that may not be its legal name but it seems to be the name it is still called by.
Adam 13:19, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about showing the Parthenon and the modern Athens pictures right next to each other in the opening. I know Athens is a modern city, but at the same time, the Parthenon is an internationally-recognized symbol of the city. WhisperToMe 01:54, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I love the Acropolis and the Parthenon, but they are such visual cliches that I am opposed to leading an article on modern Athens with them. They belong in the history section, unless and until someone creates a comprehensive Ancient Athens article. The Omonia photo is not very glamorous, but it gives a good idea of what modern Athens really looks like. Having said that, what I really wanted was a good photo of Syntagma Square, but I coulnd't find one. Adam 02:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I think that I can take photographs of Syntagma Square if you like. Drop me a note on my talk page and I will upload photo(s) soon. Which view do you think is better? The parliament? .'. Optim 04:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
Technically, the article is on both modern Athens and its past. Also, the city gets lots of tourist revenue on ancient Greek monuments, but I do agree that the past perception isn't what Athens is totally about.
I also headed the Paris article with the Eiffel Tower, the Rome article with the Colisseum, and et al. WhisperToMe 03:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What I did is that I didn't make the Parthenon the TOPMOST image, but I have it with a new segment of a caption that explains that the Parthenon is now part of the city's tourism industry. WhisperToMe 03:30, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK well I won't argue about it. I do think using the Colosseum for Rome and the Eiffel Tower for Paris shows a lack of imagination. Adam 03:49, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Anybody who wants me to take specific photos of Athens, just write a note on my talk page and if I have the time and the ability I will photograph the area you are interested in with a digital camera. .'. Optim 04:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
Surely the modern name of Piraeus is Piraiefs or Pireefs, not Pireas. Adam 05:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it's spelled, but it's not pronounced with an "ef" or "ev" sound. It's pronounced somewhat like "pee-reh-ahs". --Delirium 05:31, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Found the spelling: Πειραιάς. So "Peiraias" (letter-by-letter) or "Pireas" (phonetically), or possibly the mixed "Piraias", seem like reasonable transliterations. --Delirium 05:35, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Further research shows I am wrong. The ancient name was Peiraius, which if rendered as a modern Greek name would be Peiraiefs or phonetically Pireefs (just as Eleusis has become Elefsis). But the name has actually changed to Peiraias, as noted above, although the ancient name still appears on many modern maps. (as can be seen in the map below) Adam 05:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- From what I can tell after some further research, Πειραιάς is the name in the commonly-spoken Dimotiki tongue of modern Greek, while Πειραιεύς, the ancient Greek name, was apparently revived for a time as the official name in the Katharevousa tongue that was made official through the 1960s or so as part of the "cleansing" of the Greek language to make it a bit more like ancient Greek. So it was officially, in the modern Greek pronounciation, "Pireefs", but this name was, like Katharevousa in general, never widely used in daily speech, which continued to call it Pireas. And when the government eventually gave up on Katharevousa entirely, its official name reverted to Πειραιάς, which is what everyone already called it anyway. Or so I understand. --Delirium 07:37, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Katalavaino tora, efharisto poli. Adam 08:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As can be seen here:
Missing image
Ac.atticamap.jpg
image:ac.atticamap.jpg
Re this line: "National Technical University of Athens (Ethniko Metsovio Politechnio)." I hestitate to argue with Greeks about Greek words, but this is not an accurate translation. The word for university is panepistimio/n. Metsovo is a town in northern Greece after which this institution was named, because a group of wealthy 19th century benefactors came from that town. A more correct translation would be something like "National Metsovian Polytechnic." In other words, as I originally wrote, it is called the Polytechnic. I realise the institution calls itself the National Technical University of Athens at its English website (http://www.ntua.gr/en_index.htm) (presumably because the Metsovian business will puzzle ignorant foreigners), but its Greek website (http://www.ntua.gr/) calls it the EMP, and I think we should call it by its real name. Adam 09:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Adam, you asked be about the modern Greek name of Athens; I don't know if you read the answer (I answered in my talk page where the question was asked; I'm new here and I'm not sure I'm doing everything correctly), so I'm repeating it here:
Athinai is the ancient Greek name of the city; Athina is the modern Greek name. Athinai was also the name of the city in Katharevousa, an ugly mix of old and modern Greek that was the official language of Greece until 30 years ago (more on this in Greek language). Today everyone calls it and writes it Athina. The old name is still found in some old signs. It would thus be more accurate if the article, in its beginning, mentioned Athina rather than Athinai as the Greek name. It probably needs some disambiguation though, because non-Greek people may be not be aware of how different old Greek is from modern.
The same things are valid for Peiraias (pronounced Pi-re-a's), as was noted above.
Now: National Technical University of Athens. As you noted, and I had already noted, it's a very bad translation of the Greek name. The Greek name, Ethniko Metsovio Politechneio (EMP), stands for "National Metsovian Politechneio". It's not actually from Metsovo, it has been in Athens since it exists, but was named this way in order to honour some guys from Metsovo who donated large amounts early in its history.
I don't know how to translate "Politechneio"; I wouldn't translate it as "Polytechnic", because I think that this, in English, gives the impression of an advanced college or something, not a university. In Greek, the word "Politechneio" is now used for engineering universities. Thus, EMP is a university - you study engineering there, and it's the only place you can study it in Athens, since the University of Athens does not have a school of engineering. Other universities, such as Thessaloniki's, have schools of engineering, which are named something like "Politechniki scholi". It was probably fear of negative impressions of the word "Politechneio" that caused the bad English translation.
Now I happen to have studied there, to be working there, and to work with a professor who five or so years ago made a proposal towards the governing body of EMP, in which he explained that such fears are unfounded, because the name of Ecole Polytechnique de Grenoble does not seem to affect their prestige, and that the translation is contradictory and misleading. He proposed to change it into a simple transliteration, "Ethniko Metsovio Politechneio", in order to have the same acronym in Greek and in English, and promptly, before the Internet explosion (the name is in the URL) would make the change too difficult. Unfortunately, it appears that they dismissed or ignored the proposal, leaving us with a problem.
Maps, as you noted, are likely to mark the campus as "Politechneio" or similar. In addition, if you walk in Athens and ask someone "where is the Nat. Tec. Un. of Ath?", you are unlikely to get an answer - people don't know the English name. On the other hand, people who happen to be engineers and read papers are likely to know EMP by its English name, so they could be misled by "Politechnic".
I still don't like "Athens Polytechnic". How about "Polytechneio"?
Sorry about the lengthy gossip, I thought you'd be interested :-)
Anthony 13 Jan 2004
I think either "Polytechnic", as a translation, or Polytechneio, as a transliteration, are reasonable. I believe at least the major ones (Athens, Thessaloniki) fulfill somewhat the same roles as American polytechnic universities (like Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), so calling them a "university" isn't really far off the mark, despite them not being panepistimia. In the last 10 years or so the distinction is becoming mostly one of field (engineers go to the polytechneio and liberal arts people go to the panepistimio), not of level of education, but usage probably still remains mixed. --Delirium 22:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Efharisto for the clarification on Athinai / Athina - it's a long time since I studied Greek, and since I tried to learn both Ancient and Modern simultaneously, I tend to mix them up. I did know once that Athinai was a katharevousa form (the "ai" ending was actually a plural in Ancient Greek - "the Athenses," because it was originally a group of villages. Thebes is Thibai for the same reason). I will amend the first para to make the change clear.
On the Polytechnic - the reason I mentioned it in the first place was because of the 1973 massacre, which is still a hot issue for Greeks and is commemorated every year. In this context it is definitely "to Politekhnio" whatever its official name may be. I think if you asked an Athenian "what is that building?" they would say "the Polytechnic." The text needs to reflect that. Adam 00:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Adam: I really prefer a picture of the Athens of today than Athens of the past. I don't like the photograph of the Acropolis in the article about Athens. (Except for the reasons already given by Adam, there's a picture of the Acropolis in Acropolis, and another one in Acropolis, Athens).
I believe that the history of Athens should go to a separate article (this exists for London: History of London), and only a very brief paragraph and a link should remain here. This article should focus on modern Athens. The Acropolis is very untypical of modern Athens, and has little effect on the daily life of most Athenians.
But of course it's a highly personal preference. The Acropolis is indeed the symbol of the city, and it's understandable that one might want to put photographs of the symbol in the articles about cities. I personally dislike symbols, especially when they are misleading.
Anthony, 16 Jan 2004 (could someone point me to how to automatically add/paste my signature, if such a facility exists?)
- Type four tildes: ~~~~ Optim 17:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have no objection to the creation of a separate History of Athens article, in which we can have all the pictures of the Acropolis we like (I have dozens!). Adam 04:20, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Whatever you do with Athens, a photograph of Acropolis must remain. Optim 18:28, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) (!)
Acropolis
Well, I think most articles in Wikipedia have the convention to display the most well-known building of the city as the first photo in the page. Example: Paris, London, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Moscow. Currently Athens displays the Omonoia Square as the first photo, and the Parthenon of Acropolis is included later in the page. I personally don't have any strong preference regarding this issue, but I think the Parthenon would be more appropriate to be placed first. It is true that few Athenians care about the Parthenon today, IMO, and the "character" of the city has changed a lot from the past (now it is a fast-pacing city, while in the past it was a more peaceful and quiet place). I have also to say that Omonoia Square is not a very beautiful or safe place in Athens, IMO: It is full of drug-users, dangerous or suspicious persons, and not very far away from places of lower social-economic status (just some metres from Omonoia there are groups of ppl who sell illegally-imported cigarettes etc: Athinas Steet). In the past my college (which is private and follows British educational standards) was based in Omonoia and I disliked the place very much; when the college moved away I was very happy that I was not forced to see this noisy place each morning! :) Other students agreed with me, mostly those who had their homes outside the centre of Athens, like me (I live in the northern suburbs, a very quiet and peaceful place when compared to the downtown). I consider Syntagma Square much better than Omonoia, although it also has many drawbacks. Because this is the English Wikipedia I think we can assume that many readers of the Athens article may be possible tourists. I suppose that the tourists are more interested in Parthenon and Acropolis than in Omonoia. At least, Parthenon can still be considered beautiful. Of course a person who lives in the downtown may prefer to see noisy places and big buildings and may consider them as beautiful... But I think (hope) that there are still people who can recognise the beauty of Parthenon and other ancient buildings. I don't think the modern Athens can compete with the Ancient city. I really don't consider modern athens as a beautiful or well-organised city, and I am very sorry to say that. Most (all) foreign students that I know have the same idea with me. So I think it's better to show what is beautiful in a city, and not places like Omonoia which are considered as noisy etc by many people, especially those who have the chance/fortune to live in the peaceful and quiet suburban areas. Of course the Omonoia photo has its place in the Athens article, but it's not necessary to be at the top! Recently I took about 70 photos of Athens and I will upload the best of them soon (you may like to see the first ones in Bank of Greece and Ioannis Kapodistrias). I can take more photos of Parthenon and Acropolis, too (I will). So if you think the current acropolis photo is not beautiful enough, you will have more from me so that you will be able to choose another. So, for all these reasons, because in the other Wikipedia city articles we place the most famous bulding at the top, because Omonoia is not a very well-suited place to be shown to prospective tourists, and because Acropolis is still (I believe) the most famous feature of athens to tourists etc, I suggest to make the Acropolis the topmost photo of Athens, and place the Omonoia (and/or Syntagma, I will upload some Syntagma photos soon) below :) Hope you agree. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, .'. Optim 07:02, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.
I thought we had already had this discussion several times. Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure - it is an encyclopaedia. Omonia is much more representative of modern Athens than the Acropolis is, and that's why I deliberately put it at the head of the article. Why is it our job to give people photos they have seen a zillion times before? People use encyclopaedias to learn things. At this article they will learn what Athens really looks like. Adam 07:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- well I didn't mean to make it a tourist brochure... it's mainly about consistency with other city articles. Of course we need to show how Athens looks like in reality, and some of my photos shows this very clearly (I will start a "photos of athens" article soon). Optim 08:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's a little ambiguous, because the article is simply entitled Athens, not precisely modern Athens. Thus it of course should cover the entire history of Athens, from ancient times up to the present day. I'm not sure which portion should be given priority, as both are fairly important matters to document in an encyclopedia. On the one hand, modern Athens is more temporally relevant, but on the other hand, ancient Athens has generally more influence and importance in the English-speaking world than modern Athens does. --Delirium 08:40, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
The only solution to this is to split the article in two, which I will do soon. Adam 08:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, though I think some of the ancient stuff should stay in the "modern" article (albeit not at the very top), because it is a fairly important part of modern Athens's cultural identity. --Delirium 08:50, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
Splitting this between Athens and Ancient Athens is a bad idea, IMO. A great many links to this page are from ancient topics. This article should be about the whole history of Athens. If and when the history section of this page gets too long, then and only then would a History of Athens article be created. --mav 10:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The view of people working on this article (of which I don't thbk you are one) is that it is too unweildy as one article and ought logically be split. Kindly don't revert other people's work without knowing what is going on. Adam 10:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Then create a History of Athens article for the detailed history and add a summary here as is standard practice for ancient cities. Look at all the links to this page that are from ancient topics. Article linking must be based on common usage and common sense. Athens no more belongs to the modern city as it does to its very notable past. Thus have an article that introduces both and have standard daughter articles cover the detail of certain sections (such as the history if needed). --mav 10:19, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No response? Fine, I'll do what I proposed myself at Ancient Athens and then move that to History of Athens. Then I'll summarize some of the modern history here and move it over the detailed history article too. --mav
Do as you please, I'm sick of arguing with people today. So long as you solve the problem of people insisting on heading the article with a touristy photo of the goddam Acropolis (see above ad nauseam). Adam 10:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that but I think your particular solution is not a good one for other reasons. I in fact agree that the an overview photo of the city is far more important for the main Athens entry. So I like the current photo. --mav
- Whatever happens, the Acropolis must stay here, as it does bring in tons of tourist revenue and is recognized as a symbol of the city, even if the modern Greeks dont put significance on it. At the same time, on the History of Athens page, I replaced the color photo of the acropolis with a b/w photo to "show" the history. WhisperToMe 17:27, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and while we are at it, lets move the "Outline history" to the Ancient Athens article then move that to the "history of Athens article" - Then we can quickly summarize the history "news style" in the main Athens page. WhisperToMe 17:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- One more thing, I know that Greeks today aren't obsessed over the Acropolis and that it had more of a purpose back then. As this is the English speaking Wikipedia, most people seeing this are outside of Greece. I know that it sounds cliche, but the Parthenon is THE symbol of Athens to foriegners, and it is a big source of income to the city. You have to make the topmost image obvious... most people seeing the modern Athens at the top will go "Who cares about this?" - Its fine to have it somewhere.
Another thing, no matter what, the Acropolis MUST stay in this article. WhisperToMe 23:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As WhisperToMe says, the Parthenon of Acropolis must be included in the Athens article. See what the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles say: "The Parthenon is the most important symbol of Greek cultural heritage and according to the declaration of universal human and cultural rights the Greek State has a duty to preserve its cultural heritage in its totality, both for its citizens and for the international community." no foreigner would recognise Athens by Omonoia, but Acropolis is the standard world-wide symbol of our city. -- Optim 06:10, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This really is very tiresome. It is not an encyclopaedia's job to help Athens earn "tons of tourist revenue." It is our job to give readers new information. Everyone who can read knows what the Acropolis looks like, why give them yet another picture of it? Few readers know what the real Athens, home to 3 million people, looks like. It is our job to show them. Why is this so hard to grasp? Adam 08:08, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Of course we will show how modern Athens looks like. I will prepare on "images of athens" article which will include photos of Athens, both ancient and modern. But Acropolis has very important emotional and symbolic value and we cannot "kill" the past in the name of encyclopaedisation. :) Optim 09:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about this: a photograph of the Acropolis taken from a modern city street, showing it in context of modern buildings. I took some pictures like this last time I was there. To me, as a humble visitor, that's my impression of Athens: a modern city, but then all of sudden, out of nowhere, looms something Ancient that reminds you of the glorious eons of time over which the city has been inhabited. Just my two cents. -- Decumanus 08:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
good idea. Adam 09:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is a great idea! WhisperToMe 01:14, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I took some pictures with this attitude (ancient & modern buildings together), but not showing Parthenon; I didn't find a good place to take photographs of Parthenon yersterday, so I took this kind of ancient+modern pictures with another Acropolis temple. After some processing etc I will upload this week. Optim 06:19, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Have a look at Images of Athens and tell me your opinion. If you have photos of Athens which you can publish under GFDL, fell free to add them there. Optim 08:43, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well guys there are two possible views of Athens. Either as a native or as a tourist. As a tourist you will see the Acropolis. As a native you will see the modern city. None of the two groups will see Omonoia or will think of Omonoia as representative for Athens!! That is because tourists (if they are minimally rational) will never spend much time in Omonoia but visit the monuments instead.
Natives will of course go to places like Syntagma square, Kolonaki, Kifissia, Psirri etc. So choose one of the two views, but by no means not claim that a ghetto-like place like Omonoia with 90% junkies and illegal immigrants is real Athens...
History of Athens
I think that the big Parthenon pic should stay. It shows how long the Parthenon has been in the city. As a matter of fact, I think all modern-color pics of stuff still standing should be moved to the Athens page, with all of the b/w and historical photos at the history page. WhisperToMe 06:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't show us any such thing. The Parthenon is 2,500 years old. Why is a 19th century photo any more informative than a 21st century photo? If you have a photo from the 5th century BC, by all means post it. Adam 07:05, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, it is too big and its quality is too poor. So I made it into a thumbnail. This both looks better and takes up less space. Everybody happy with that? --mav 06:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think one photo of the Parthenon on this page should be sufficient, really. It is a major icon of both ancient and modern Athens (both to visitors and to many who live there), but Athens has enough stuff in it that there isn't really room for more than one picture of any one landmark in this article. Same way we only have one image of the White Tower of Thessaloniki in the Thessaloniki article. --Delirium 07:10, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Err, correction. Apparently we have zero pictures of the White Tower in the Thessaloniki article. That's an oversight, since it really is a major part of the city (it's the most notable landmark in the downtown commercial district). But that article is currently too short to really fit it. --Delirium 07:11, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delirium, we were talking about the History of Athens article in this thread, but the talk moved to Talk:History of Athens
New Parthenon pic
I consider this photo that Adam put up to be very beautiful. I think this should head the Athens article until my request to Optim can be filled out. WhisperToMe 16:09, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reason for moving Omonia down
<Vicious]> Oh <Vicious]> That of that Omonia Square <Vicious]> Yea, Adam Carr REALLY wants Omonia Square first <Head> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.parthenon2.jpg that's a bitmap, not a jpeg! <Hadal> Vicious]: then tell him to get a better picture of it. Something that isn't poorly scanned from a newspaper.
<Vicious]> Also, he objected to having the Parthenon first in the Athens article
<Vicious]> Look at Toronto, Paris, Tokyo, New York, Moscow, Sydney, etc
<Vicious]> The most recognizeable building is first in all of them
<Vicious]> So, should I go ahead and move the Parthenon pic up?
<Hadal> I would say so, at least until he gets an improved Omonia Square image.
<Vicious]> Ok
WhisperToMe 19:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Athinai" explanation
I think that it should be explained on the header that Athinai is plural for Athina, but it can be done in a more "compact" way.
- In Ancient Greek Athens was called Athinai (Αθήναι, plural for Athena),
As for the relevance, it helps us understand the "difference" between "Athina" and "Athinai". I would have asked, "What is Athinai? Is it some wierd alternate spelling of Athina?" - Now that I know, I think it should be in there. No, this isn't an article about Greek etymology, but that specific piece of info is needed for people to "get" why Athina and Athinai are different. WhisperToMe 03:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. You should leave the explaination what Athinai means in the top of the article. Else there can be the misconception that these are two different names of the city. In reality it is just a habit greeks had, to give big cities (polis) the name in plural as they were a collection of smaller ones. Athens for example was a city consisting of 10 borroughs (dimoi). Of course nowadays central Athens is viewed as one city and is called accordingly Athina using the singular form...
The ancient name of Athens, in Greek, was Ἀθήναι [pronounced: Athíne, not Athenai or Atheenai (Erasmian pronunciation)]. This name is the plural form of the goddess-protector’s name of the city, Athena [Ancient Greek: Ἀθηνά (Athiná)]. The city’s name changed in Αθήνα (pronounced: Athína) during the 70s, when Καθαρεύουσα [pronounced: Katharévusa (pure language)] was replaced by Δημοτική [pronounced: Dhimotikí (popular language)]. The term Athenian, in Ancient and Modern Greek, is Αθηναί-ος/-α [pronounced: Athinéos (Athenian man) / Athinéa (Athenian woman)]. The plural form of Athenian (Athenians) is Αθηναίοι (pronounced: Athinéi). These prove the relation between Ancient and Modern Greek.