|WikiProject Writing systems||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Greece||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Pronunciation in Ancient Greek
I would like to point out that Ionic (and Doric) σσ (which is regular in the Koine, as well) corresponds to Attic (and Boeotian) ττ, which seems to go back to *[ts] via an intermediate *[θθ] (this sound change has a neat parallel in the Finnish dialects). Interestingly, *[st] in some Greek dialects seems to have merged with *[θθ] and is spelled σσ or ττ respectively (which can be paralleled with developments in Celtic where *[st] becomes [θθ] or [ss], except in Celtiberian). It is tempting to think that the voiced equivalents of *[ts] and *[st] developped in a parallel fashion: First, *[dz] became *[ðð], and *[zd] merged with this sound in various dialects. Then, it became *[zz] in Ionic (but it does not seem to have become [dd] in Attic - on the other hand, perhaps Attic ττ was really a spelling for [θθ] - or even [ts], as suggested in Ancient Greek phonology - anyway, and ζ was likewise a spelling for [ðð] - or even [dz] - in Attic). Then we would have [zz] in the Koine just as we have [ss], and this is (besides the retention of original *[st]) in fact what we find. (Modern Standard Greek, predictably, simplifies the geminates.) This kind of reasoning (paralleling the voiced sounds with the voiceless ones) is not new if one looks at the arguments in favour of [zd] and against. Therefore I think it would be worthwhile to examine if the assumption that *[zd] and *[dz] developped in a manner (largely) parallel to *[st] and *[ts] explains all the facts. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Is it citable? (cf. WP:NOR and WP:RS) --macrakis (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't think so, I'm afraid. I just wanted to throw it out somewhere. That said, I've always been reluctant to accept the [zd] reading for its eccentricity, but the argument with Bulgarian is a very good one I have to admit now. In fact, even Proto-Slavic */dʲ/ has turned into /ʒd/ in Bulgarian, that would be an even more accurate parallel. (It's also curious that the best parallel is found in a geographically neighbouring language.) Although I have to say it still mystifies me how that works phonetically. But I'm now more ready (than I used to be) to consider the [zd] solution, as well. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, that was me. I got logged out in the meanwhile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to ad my two cents. The entire debate seems to reflect the English problems of ascian (ask) / axian (aks) and tascian (task, "to require") / taxian (taks, "to require").
It is generally accepted by linguists that the easier to pronounce variant, while more common in the language as a whole, comes later. The harder to pronounce variant would have arisen as a newer word -- relative to the language -- for a newly discussed phenomenon. Over time the majority of people have an easier time with a different pronunciation, so it changes. Thus, ask -> aks, task -> tax, and -dz- -> -zd-. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Biased with unverified (and/or) inaccurate (and/or) irrelevant facts
...Are how I would describe this article. It's biased towards the zd pronunciation with weasel-words such as "most handbooks", contains no footnotes (i.e. I have no idea where to search for the facts in the books in the reference list, even if such facts are contained within them) and mentions authors who lived 500 years after the classical time or have been filtered down to us through Alexandrian scholars. Servus Triviae (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A person identifying as a zoophile told me that this symbol, Zeta, has been used by zoophiles as a way of identifying themselves to others. Should this be part of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC) EDIT: They're citing this page. http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoophilia 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Sonority of affricates/cluster
In the first argument in favor of a historical value of [zd] for zeta, it mentions that [dz] is more likely because [zd] would violate the sonority hierarchy. However, the sonority hierarchy is only really relative to the position of a cluster in the syllable, so while [zd] might be bad (depending on a language's minimal sonority distance) in the onset because the sequence proceeds from greater to lesser sonority (then followed by a vowel, presumably, which would have the greatest sonority), this is expected in the coda.
- I see your point, but bear in mind that ζ (just like most other consonants in Greek) basically only ever occurs in the syllable onset. Greek had very strict rules about restricting syllable codas; apart from -s, -n, -r and some few clusters (-ks, -ps) no consonants could appear in absolute word-final position, and I can't think of many others apart from -l- that could appear in word-internal syllable codas either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)