From Wiki:
Yes, but keep in mind that Russia was only one of the fifteen countries making up the USSR (though admittedly the dominant one). Only six of these countries were entirely in Europe; the rest of them were either entirely in Asia or straddled the continents.
Good point.
With that font, as well as the font on Wiktionary as linked to by matt_mcl, the phi looks more like (but not exactly like) a psi to me.
(I was thinking metapsor???)
I would write a small phi with the circle closed and the vertical line extending both above and below- like a large phi except smaller, slanted, and the vertical extending below the line rather than based on the line like the large phi.
Looking up psi on Wiki, to see how they compare in the same font, I can can easily distinguish two different letters, but I would never have guessed the phi on its own.
Is this because I studied Classical Greek and not Modern Greek, or is my Classical Greek handwriting just plain sloppy?
Nor mine. Especially since Norway isn’t in the EU.
Most Americans couldn’t name which countries are in the EU.
That’s the way it’s appears in mathematics – the lower case is kind of like a smaller version of the upper case. But it’s not the usual form in actual Greek script.
What fonts are used depends largely on the system you’re using to view the web pages in question. There’s no guarantee that the font you see here or on Wiktionary is the same as the one I see. Web page authors can specify a list of one or more preferred fonts, though if you don’t happen to have those fonts installed (or if the author didn’t specify a preference), your web browser will select another one according to its preferences and to what’s available on your system. And which fonts are available varies considerably from system to system.
How similar (or dissimilar) are modern Greek and ancient Greek? Could Socrates or whoever show up in modern Athens and be understood?
They are about as similar as old English and modern English. Here’s the Lord’s Prayer in old English.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
Socrates would be about as understandable as that.
This site lists some of the differences between classical and modern Greek:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html
That said, there are a lot more people studying ancient Greek in Athens than there are studying old English in New York City (for example). Some study it for religious reasons (to read the old Bible) and others for historical or scholarly reasons. There would probably be some pronunciation difficulties, but I think your mysteriously appearing Socrates would be able to find someone to converse with.
Is the liturgy in the Greek Orthodox church conducted in Biblical Greek or modern Greek?
However, the population of the non-European SSRs was less than that of the European SSRs, so while you’re correct, the point is essentially moot; Darth Panda’s quote works roughly for the USSR’s population as a whole.
I very much doubt that most EU citizens could, either! 
(There are 27 of them now, after all…)
Koiné itself being noticeably different from Classical, seems you end up with at least three versions of “Greek” for major readings.
You don’t even need to download a font pack, any decently-made font will include the Greek alphabet. The easiest way may be to have a dual-language keyboard (tell your keyboard that it can be either your-favorite-latin-alphabet-layout or Greek, and set alt+shift to swap between both). I’ve done that when I needed to have a US keyboard layout (bad software coding) but would be writing in Spanish.
I would really like to know who is this “they” who is “regretting” the EU’s linguistic policies, yabob. If the EU had picked one official language from the start it would have been French; that would have been a PITA once English happened to replace French as the international lingua franca.
I don’t think that there’s any way that Germany would have accepted French as the sole official language, just for starters. And if you have both French and German, then Spain and Italy will want their languages too. So, in realistic politics, you have to have at least 4 languages. (This would be before the UK was in the Common Market, of course.)
<nitpick>The UK joined what’s now the EU before Spain did.</nitpick>
You’re right, it did. :smack: Just shows how much European history I know.
I was making an admittedly snide comment about them regretting the decision to allow Greece into the club in the first place, considering their debt ridden economy and the financial meltdown, not anything to do with official languages. If they hadn’t, the alphabet issue wouldn’t have come up, either.
Most Europeans couldn’t, either, now that there are 27 of them.
Actually, most decently made fonts are restricted to a single script. The art of crafting beautiful and useful letter forms varies between Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Armenian, and other scripts, and requires a good knowledge of how they’re used in their respective languages. Most (say) Georgian font designers wouldn’t presume to know the intricacies of Latin ligatures, kerning, etc. This is one of the reasons that many web browsers allow the user to configure which fonts are used on a per-script basis.
That said, there have been attempts to make so-called “Unicode” fonts which contain a glyph for every character in Unicode. These fonts aren’t suited to general-purpose typography, but are rather a convenience for those without access to a large family of international fonts, or for computer programmers who work with multiscript text and need their displays to be fairly consistent. Because Unicode doesn’t actually specify the shape of the glyph at any particular code point, and because the shape of some of them can vary from language to language, there is no way these fonts can be used to write every given language.