Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[zompist]

I thought we had a "random non-cognates" or "natlangs that just aren't trying" thread but I'm too lazy to find it. Just ran into this on Wiktionary, on the page for 酸, Mandarin suān;

"From Proto-Sino-Tibetan *səwr (“sour; be acid”) (STEDT, under *suːr ⪤ *swaːr)."

[jal]

I thought we had a "random non-cognates"

We have a "random opposites" thread, maybe you're confusing it with that?


JAL

[Travis B.]

What is the evidence that Ancient Greek ζ was σδ [zd] and not δσ [dz]? I have read that it is suspected by many to have been the former, even though the latter hypothesis more closely parallels ξ and ψ?

[zompist]

What is the evidence that Ancient Greek ζ was σδ [zd] and not δσ [dz]? I have read that it is suspected by many to have been the former, even though the latter hypothesis more closely parallels ξ and ψ?

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.

[Travis B.]

What is the evidence that Ancient Greek ζ was σδ [zd] and not δσ [dz]? I have read that it is suspected by many to have been the former, even though the latter hypothesis more closely parallels ξ and ψ?

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.

Thanks!

[malloc]

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.

[bradrn]

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.

They have combinations for κσ and πσ too…

[zompist]

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.

Um, look a little closer at the Greek alphabet.

[malloc]

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.

Um, look a little closer at the Greek alphabet.

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

[zompist]

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.

Um, look a little closer at the Greek alphabet.

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

Would it be weird to have an alphabet that has a letter for only one cluster, [ks]?

[malloc]

Would it be weird to have an alphabet that has a letter for only one cluster, [ks]?

Yes but English is notorious for its illogical spelling. I won't dispute the expert consensus but it still annoys me to unreasonable degree in its glaring asymmetry.

[Richard W]

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

Would it be weird to have an alphabet that has a letter for only one cluster, [ks]?

Cross-linguistically, it also turns up in a number of Indic alphabets, and sometimes Unicode has actually encoded it as such. It's something that merits explanation. Letters for /st/ do turn up, e.g. in English runes and in Kharoshthi. English /st/ and <st> often behave like a single consonant.

[bradrn]

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

Would it be weird to have an alphabet that has a letter for only one cluster, [ks]?

Cross-linguistically, it also turns up in a number of Indic alphabets

Oh?

[rotting bones]

Would it be weird to have an alphabet that has a letter for only one cluster, [ks]?

Cross-linguistically, it also turns up in a number of Indic alphabets

Oh?

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

[bradrn]

Cross-linguistically, it also turns up in a number of Indic alphabets

Oh?

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.

[rotting bones]

Oh?

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.

[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 &szlig;), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

[bradrn]

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 &szlig;), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

Well, the uppercase is still usually ⟨SS⟩, right? Uppercase ⟨ẞ⟩ is a fairly recent invention. (And the Swiss write it as ⟨ss⟩ everywhere.)

[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 &szlig;), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

Well, the uppercase is still usually ⟨SS⟩, right? Uppercase ⟨ẞ⟩ is a fairly recent invention. (And the Swiss write it as ⟨ss⟩ everywhere.)

Yes. But this is widely considered a makeshift digraph, used when the "real letter" isn't available, like ae oe ue for ä ö ü.

[bradrn]

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 &szlig;), but few Germans now perceive it that way.

Well, the uppercase is still usually ⟨SS⟩, right? Uppercase ⟨ẞ⟩ is a fairly recent invention. (And the Swiss write it as ⟨ss⟩ everywhere.)

Yes. But this is widely considered a makeshift digraph, used when the "real letter" isn't available, like ae oe ue for ä ö ü.

Huh, interesting.