Page 277 of 295
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Wed May 13, 2026 12:09 am
by 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)."
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Wed May 13, 2026 2:07 am
by jal
zompist wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2026 12:09 amI thought we had a "random non-cognates"
We have a "
random opposites" thread, maybe you're confusing it with that?
JAL
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 1:18 pm
by 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?
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 2:54 pm
by zompist
Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 1:18 pm
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:06 pm
by Travis B.
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 2:54 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 1:18 pm
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!
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:30 pm
by malloc
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 2:54 pmEvery 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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:31 pm
by bradrn
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:30 pm
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 2:54 pmEvery 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…
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:34 pm
by zompist
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:30 pm
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:42 pm
by malloc
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:34 pm
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:30 pm
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/.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:49 pm
by zompist
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:42 pm
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:34 pm
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:30 pm
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]?
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2026 11:43 pm
by malloc
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:49 pmWould 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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:42 am
by Richard W
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:49 pm
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:42 pm
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:51 am
by bradrn
Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:42 am
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:49 pm
malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:42 pm
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?
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:14 am
by rotting bones
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:51 am
Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:42 am
zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:49 pm
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
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:16 am
by bradrn
rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:14 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:51 am
Richard W wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:42 am
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:22 am
by rotting bones
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:16 am
rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:14 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 5:51 am
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:28 am
by 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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:31 am
by bradrn
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:28 am
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.
Well, the uppercase is still usually ⟨SS⟩, right? Uppercase ⟨ẞ⟩ is a fairly recent invention. (And the Swiss write it as ⟨ss⟩ everywhere.)
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:50 am
by WeepingElf
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:31 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:28 am
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.
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.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2026 9:36 am
by bradrn
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:50 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:31 am
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 8:28 am
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.
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.