Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

Which raises the question where the boundary runs between a ligature and a letter in itself. For instance, German ß once was a ligature of sz (hence ß), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

Isn't it still referred to by the name Eszett though?

[Richard W]

Yes. In Bengali, it's pronounced kkh. In this poem, বক্ষে "in my breast" (breast.locative) and লক্ষ "lakh".

The Devanagari equivalent is क्ष. E.g. क्षेत्र. In Hindi, this would sound like kshetra "area/field/arena". Bengali has the same word ক্ষেত্র, which sounds more like khetro. Technically, it's kkhetro, but I don't detect a geminate initial consonant.

The cluster is:

Bengali: ক্ষ = ক্ + ষ
Devanagari: क्ष = क् + ष

But those are conjuncts, right? They’re not considered single letters on a par with English ⟨x⟩ or Greek ⟨ψ⟩ and ⟨ξ⟩ — they’re orthographic ligatures of two monoconsonantal letters.

Right. Indic alphabets always use conjuncts for multiple consonants, even if the conjuncts don't look much like their putative components.

The four obvious cases where Unicode has been persuaded to make a separate encoding for the 'x' letter are:

1) U+0F69 TIBETAN LETTER KSSA
I can only assume this was because of other scripts, because it looks a pretty obvious conjunct to me.

2) U+11A32 ZANABAZAR SQUARE LETTER KSSA
A script with only a limited number of conjunct-type forms.

3) U+11A83 SOYOMBO LETTER KSSA
A form where the graphic association with the letter SSA is not at all clear, and therefore the letter is felt as a unit.

4) U+11D2E MASARAM GONDI LETTER KSSA
One of three conjuncts KSSA, JNYA and TRA) where the feeling as indivisible wholes predominates over the notion of graphic composition.

In the Devanagari and Bengali scripts, the conjuncts are opaque and many don't feel them as graphic compositions rather than single units. The J.NYA conjunct is another. It doesn't help that the pronunciation is often not an obvious composition of the elements either.

While the TAMIL conjunct K.SSA is visibly a graphic combination, it is also the only cluster standardly written as a conjunct. (There is a ligature SH.RII, but as far as I can tell SH.R does not normally (or indeed ever?) ligate on its own or with other vowels. There have been calls for the SH.RII ligature to be encoded separately.)

Note that non-Indic languages do not always use conjuncts for consonant clusters in their Indic scripts, and indeed they may be avoided in Indic scripts usually used for non-Indic languages, e.g. Sanskrit in Tamil script.

[bradrn]

Interesting, thanks!

[Travis B.]

Note that non-Indic languages do not always use conjuncts for consonant clusters in their Indic scripts, and indeed they may be avoided in Indic scripts usually used for non-Indic languages, e.g. Sanskrit in Tamil script.

It is interesting that you call Tamil 'non-Indic' here, because I am used to the usage of 'Indic' to refer to all languages indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and what you call 'Indic' being referred as Indo-Aryan.

[WeepingElf]

Which raises the question where the boundary runs between a ligature and a letter in itself. For instance, German ß once was a ligature of sz (hence ß), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

Isn't it still referred to by the name Eszett though?

It is.

[WeepingElf]

Note that non-Indic languages do not always use conjuncts for consonant clusters in their Indic scripts, and indeed they may be avoided in Indic scripts usually used for non-Indic languages, e.g. Sanskrit in Tamil script.

It is interesting that you call Tamil 'non-Indic' here, because I am used to the usage of 'Indic' to refer to all languages indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and what you call 'Indic' being referred as Indo-Aryan.

'Indic', as it is usually used in linguistics, is a synonym for 'Indo-Aryan', coined to get rid of the loaded term 'Aryan', so Dravidian languages are not Indic, the same way Etruscan, despite being spoken in ancient Italy, is not an Italic language. (But the scripts used to write Dravidian languages are Indic scripts, the same way the Etruscan alphabet is an Italic alphabet. One must not confuse language families and script families, as is often done in the popular press.)

[rotting bones]

It is interesting that you call Tamil 'non-Indic' here, because I am used to the usage of 'Indic' to refer to all languages indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and what you call 'Indic' being referred as Indo-Aryan.

Tamils have been frustrating all attempts at subcontinental unity for the last 2000 years. Their script doesn't work like other Indian scripts either.

In the Devanagari and Bengali scripts, the conjuncts are opaque and many don't feel them as graphic compositions rather than single units. The J.NYA conjunct is another. It doesn't help that the pronunciation is often not an obvious composition of the elements either.

Traditionally, most of them were opaque. Many have been simplified in recent spelling revisions. Some remain opaque. One of the worst offenders is:

হ্ম = হ (h) + ম (m)

What the utter... It looks vaguely like ক (k).* Hma isn't even a syllable in Bengali IIRC. This conjunct is used to write the name of the god Brahma, the caste Brahman (Brahmin) and the religion Brahmo. It's always pronounced mbh: Brɔmbha, Brambhon, Brambho.

*This letter looked like a + in Brahmi.

[Travis B.]

Note that non-Indic languages do not always use conjuncts for consonant clusters in their Indic scripts, and indeed they may be avoided in Indic scripts usually used for non-Indic languages, e.g. Sanskrit in Tamil script.

It is interesting that you call Tamil 'non-Indic' here, because I am used to the usage of 'Indic' to refer to all languages indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and what you call 'Indic' being referred as Indo-Aryan.

'Indic', as it is usually used in linguistics, is a synonym for 'Indo-Aryan', coined to get rid of the loaded term 'Aryan', so Dravidian languages are not Indic, the same way Etruscan, despite being spoken in ancient Italy, is not an Italic language. (But the scripts used to write Dravidian languages are Indic scripts, the same way the Etruscan alphabet is an Italic alphabet. One must not confuse language families and script families, as is often done in the popular press.)

I am reading in places both usages of 'Indic' and personally prefer 'Indo-Aryan' when speaking about languages because it is less ambiguous -- just because the Nazis abused the term 'Aryan' does not mean we should not use 'Indo-Aryan'.

[WeepingElf]

It is interesting that you call Tamil 'non-Indic' here, because I am used to the usage of 'Indic' to refer to all languages indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and what you call 'Indic' being referred as Indo-Aryan.

'Indic', as it is usually used in linguistics, is a synonym for 'Indo-Aryan', coined to get rid of the loaded term 'Aryan', so Dravidian languages are not Indic, the same way Etruscan, despite being spoken in ancient Italy, is not an Italic language. (But the scripts used to write Dravidian languages are Indic scripts, the same way the Etruscan alphabet is an Italic alphabet. One must not confuse language families and script families, as is often done in the popular press.)

I am reading in places both usages of 'Indic' and personally prefer 'Indo-Aryan' when speaking about languages because it is less ambiguous -- just because the Nazis abused the term 'Aryan' does not mean we should not use 'Indo-Aryan'.

Fair. It also translates badly into German - indisch just means 'Indian'. Probably, the same problem exists in other languages as well. For that reason, it is probably to avoid it. One idea I had for an alternative designation for Indo-Aryan is 'Hindustanian'. What do you think?

[Travis B.]

'Indic', as it is usually used in linguistics, is a synonym for 'Indo-Aryan', coined to get rid of the loaded term 'Aryan', so Dravidian languages are not Indic, the same way Etruscan, despite being spoken in ancient Italy, is not an Italic language. (But the scripts used to write Dravidian languages are Indic scripts, the same way the Etruscan alphabet is an Italic alphabet. One must not confuse language families and script families, as is often done in the popular press.)

I am reading in places both usages of 'Indic' and personally prefer 'Indo-Aryan' when speaking about languages because it is less ambiguous -- just because the Nazis abused the term 'Aryan' does not mean we should not use 'Indo-Aryan'.

Fair. It also translates badly into German - indisch just means 'Indian'. Probably, the same problem exists in other languages as well. For that reason, it is probably to avoid it. One idea I had for an alternative designation for Indo-Aryan is 'Hindustanian'. What do you think?

The problem with 'Hindustanian' is that at least in English 'Hindustani' already has a specific meaning, that is, a collective designator for Hindi/Urdu varieties.

[WeepingElf]

I am reading in places both usages of 'Indic' and personally prefer 'Indo-Aryan' when speaking about languages because it is less ambiguous -- just because the Nazis abused the term 'Aryan' does not mean we should not use 'Indo-Aryan'.

Fair. It also translates badly into German - indisch just means 'Indian'. Probably, the same problem exists in other languages as well. For that reason, it is probably to avoid it. One idea I had for an alternative designation for Indo-Aryan is 'Hindustanian'. What do you think?

The problem with 'Hindustanian' is that at least in English 'Hindustani' already has a specific meaning, that is, a collective designator for Hindi/Urdu varieties.

Yes, I am aware of this, which is the reason why I am not all that happy with that idea. So better stick to 'Indo-Aryan', the abuse of 'Aryan' by the Nazis and other racists notwithstanding. After all, we know that the Indo-Iranian speakers did identify themselves as 'Aryans', so it is legitimate to refer to Indo-Iranian languages as 'Aryan languages'.

[bradrn]

I’m Jewish and find ‘Indo–Aryan’ inoffensive.

[rotting bones]

In India (or at least Bengal), Arya (Bengali: Ardʒo) means noble, gentlemanly or upper caste. E.g. The Buddha's "noble" eightfold path is the Aryan eightfold path. The term is not really associated with language. The traditional belief was that all languages in the world are descended from Sanskrit. This is still propagated by the fundies who control the government.

My understanding is that Persians regarded some of the peoples who traditionally spoke non-Iranian languages (such as East Semitic) as Iran too. (It's been years. I could be wrong.) Meanwhile, some speakers of "Iranian languages" were regarded as Turan, not Iran. This might have been related to Zoroastrianism's classification of various lands and peoples as good and not so good or just a political view of whether countries were allies or traditional enemies.

Then again, bad actors in Western societies often use facts like these to disguise their Nazi dog whistles.* My suggestion is to avoid controversial terms in formal scientific writings. In other situations, look at the context. Err towards tolerance of casual speech, but shut down any hint of Nazism.

* They are often unaware of the details. E.g. Aryan has never meant European, Western, Christian or "white" in any traditional context. Traditionally, Europeans were called some variation of "Frank" across the world. In Bengali, it was Phiringi. Even the Byzantine Greeks did the same for Catholics. (Speculation: They might have popularized it first.)

[Richard W]

The problem with 'Hindustanian' is that at least in English 'Hindustani' already has a specific meaning, that is, a collective designator for Hindi/Urdu varieties.

Evidence? While the meaning of Hindustani can be restricted to the Indo-Aryan dialect continuum (which includes Bengali), it seems that it can also just mean 'Indian'. Also, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include aberrant languages like Sinhalese (or the Romani languages), and I think it is also time-bound.

[Richard W]

I am reading in places both usages of 'Indic' and personally prefer 'Indo-Aryan' when speaking about languages because it is less ambiguous -- just because the Nazis abused the term 'Aryan' does not mean we should not use 'Indo-Aryan'.

Indic is snappier.

[Richard W]

In the Devanagari and Bengali scripts, the conjuncts are opaque and many don't feel them as graphic compositions rather than single units. The J.NYA conjunct is another. It doesn't help that the pronunciation is often not an obvious composition of the elements either.

Traditionally, most of them were opaque. Many have been simplified in recent spelling revisions. Some remain opaque. One of the worst offenders is:
হ্ম = হ (h) + ম (m)
What the utter... It looks vaguely like ক (k). Hma isn't even a syllable in Bengali IIRC. This conjunct is used to write the name of the god Brahma, the caste Brahman (Brahmin) and the religion Brahmo. It's always pronounced mbh: Brɔmbha, Brambhon, Brambho.

It's not uncommon for the subscript elements to be somewhat idiosyncratic. A lot of them have to be learned separately. I wonder if this conjunct has resisted being realigned with the stand-alone form of MA because the analysis as HA + MA is not exactly compelling. At least the first component looks like HA.

[Richard W]

Sorry, forgot about psi and ksi. Nonetheless it does feel weird to have a letter for /zd/ but not /st/.

Does it make sens for [zd] to have been the realisation of a single phoneme in Greek while [st] was the realisation of a sequence of phonemes?

[rotting bones]

Evidence? While the meaning of Hindustani can be restricted to the Indo-Aryan dialect continuum (which includes Bengali), it seems that it can also just mean 'Indian'. Also, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include aberrant languages like Sinhalese (or the Romani languages), and I think it is also time-bound.

Bengalis have insisted they aren't Hindustani in the past. I don't know what they're like under BJP. The situation is surreal and unprecedented.

While Hindustani speakers have used Hindustan to mean India, Bengalis usually prefer Bharot (Bharat).

It's not uncommon for the subscript elements to be somewhat idiosyncratic. A lot of them have to be learned separately. I wonder if this conjunct has resisted being realigned with the stand-alone form of MA because the analysis as HA + MA is not exactly compelling. At least the first component looks like HA.

My impression is that Hindu scholars across India (except Tamil Nadu) have a kind of schematic where they slot in correspondences relative to Sanskrit. Their number one priority in spelling is to preserve the correct pronunciation of Sanskrit in every script. The shapes of the letters can change (it's basically a matter of handwriting anyway), but the structure of the script cannot. The alternative would be barbarism, the end of civilization, the thin end of the wedge, etc. It's a situation somewhat parallel to the use of Classical Chinese by scholars speaking all dialects.

[alice]

Every linguist should have a copy of W. Sidney Allen's Vox Graeca, which discusses this.

1. The ancient grammarians said so.
2. zd combinations are written ζ: e.g. Ἀθήνας δε > Ἀθήναζε
3. Nasals are lost before σ, and they're lost before ζ too.
4. Some ζ go back to IE, e.g. ὄζος < *h₃ósdos.
5. ζ is used for Iranian /zd/, e.g. Ὠρομαζης for Ahuramazda.
6. Some texts do write σδ for ζ.

It never made much sense to me, though, that Greek would have a letter for such a specific combination but not other combinations of sigma and another consonant.

You're not alone. I thought that perhaps zeta used to represent /ts/ in symmetry with psi and xi, and indeed used it as such in a Greek orthography for one of my conlangs.

[Man in Space]

Polish with c cz ć/ci vs. dz drz/dż dź/dzi…