zeta pronounce

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:08 pm

ThomasGR wrote: Letter are used only as a signs for some sounds, but signs never can reveal the real sound. It's like trying to speak English using only the alphabet, but never hear an English speaking it. How will one in this case render the difference between "S" and "SH" to a different alphabet and to a foreigner? It is impossible!!!!!
If 500 years from now people notice that 'impossible' was often misspelled as 'imposhible', they would have a good indication that the double S probably was pronounced as sh.
We can see that in the misspelling of tough as touff or tuff.
We also have a good indication from the spelling that tough was probably pronounced differently in the past than it is now.
ThomasGR wrote:
All that thing about "zeta" brings only one arguement that is valid. It ("z") was similar to "delta", as pronounce in modern English, like in "this". (th). Foreigners often will substitute "th" with "z". Both in the English langauge and modern Greek. That makes it a valid arguement for both that "zeta" was "z" (not! dz! or zd!)
I think that William's argument that at least Zeta was a double consonant, is hard to argue with.
It was not however just pronounced like an English 'z'. It was definitely either 'dz' or 'zd' since in scanning poetry it is pronounced as a double consonant.

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:21 pm

Then, how did the English spoke "tough" in the past?
Did they speak "t"+"o'+"u"+"g"+"h"?

About the vowel diphthongs, one may say that the last vowel was over-stressed and longer, to the point that the "barbarians" heared almost only the last owel, which prevailed and than today they speak only this, eg. "eI"--> "I".

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:58 pm

Bert wrote: If 500 years from now people notice that 'impossible' was often misspelled as 'imposhible', they would have a good indication that the double S probably was pronounced as sh.
Eh... what? Imposhible? :? It's not pronounced like that here but with an s :P . But it shows how pronounciation changes, but the words retain their original spelling from when they were pronounced differently. The fact that there are two letters for 'th' in modern Greek shows that originally these two letters were pronounced differently, but that over time they took on the same sound.
phpbb

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:01 pm

ThomasGR wrote:Then, how did the English spoke "tough" in the past?
Did they speak "t"+"o'+"u"+"g"+"h"?

About the vowel diphthongs, one may say that the last vowel was over-stressed and longer, to the point that the "barbarians" heared almost only the last owel, which prevailed and than today they speak only this, eg. "eI"--> "I".
Maybe they pronounced it like we pronounce thought?

That's what studying phonetics of words is all about, to understand what it might have been pronounced like before and why that changed :D .
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:58 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
Bert wrote: If 500 years from now people notice that 'impossible' was often misspelled as 'imposhible', they would have a good indication that the double S probably was pronounced as sh.
Eh... what? Imposhible? :? It's not pronounced like that here but with an s :P .
I should rephrase my statement as a proper -contrary to fact conditional sentence-:If 500 years from now people were to notice that 'impossible' was often misspelled as 'imposhible', they would have a good indication that the double S probably was pronounced as sh.

In other words, they are not going to notice that because impossible is not often misspelled as imposhible. :)

However, tough is misspelled as touff or tuff.
I quess by trying to make a point, I caused confusion.

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:23 pm

:lol: well you've got to take into account that I'm quite stupid...
phpbb

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:30 pm

annis wrote:
benissimus wrote:I was going to make a new post but I found this old one. I see that there is conflict about how zeta is pronounced, but how about what letters make it up: do the combination d-s and s-d both create zeta? This came to my attention because in most cases zeta seems to come when an s is added to a stem with an existing t, th, or d, creating d-s or a similar sound
Really?! Where are you seeing this? In the usual course of dental + s in Greek phonotactics I expect the dental to become another s, or to evanesce away entirely.

Zeta is usually from s-d (as you saw) or the result of historical linguistic developments of gy and dy .

Since I last replied to this thread I have changed my mind, and I now favor the zd and only zd interpretation for zeta.
For example, the word [face=SPIonic]e#zomai[/face], root "sed-", I assumed an S had been added between the stem and the personal endings (for some reason...). This is the only example I can think of at the moment (I am a newbie as you know)... perhaps there is another explanation for this word?
ThomasGR wrote:All these debates about pronunciation of Greek letters, I find very ridiculous.
The truth is only one, we will never find out how they did speak. NEVER.
Letter are used only as a signs for some sounds, but signs never can reveal the real sound. It's like trying to speak English using only the alphabet, but never hear an English speaking it. How will one in this case render the difference between "S" and "SH" to a different alphabet and to a foreigner? It is impossible!!!!!

All that thing about "zeta" brings only one arguement that is valid. It ("z") was similar to "delta", as pronounce in modern English, like in "this". (th). Foreigners often will substitute "th" with "z". Both in the English langauge and modern Greek. That makes it a valid arguement for both that "zeta" was "z" (not! dz! or zd!) and that "delta" was "th" as in "this".

But, does it matter how they spoke? Not at all!
So better stick to modern Greek pronunciation, you'll probably are nearer to truth than all those frankenstein-articulations that some academicians use!

Otherwise, I will ask you to pronounce "zd" or "dz" as one sound!
It is impossible to do it, except if you split it in two sounds, like speaking "z" and then followed by "d" (or vice versa for "dz").
This was a question about which letters make up zeta, not how it sounded. Nonetheless, I find your dismissal of the entire field of historical linguistics to be radical and I will not be taking your advice ;). I have found many merits to that study and to suggest that whatever pronunciation you choose at random will be more accurate than a scientifically reconstructed one sounds quite crazy to me. [face=SPIonic]xai=re[/face]
Last edited by benissimus on Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood
Contact:

Post by 1%homeless » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:35 pm

Then, how did the English spoke "tough" in the past?
In Old English it was spelt: toh. If I remember correctly, the h in that position represent the "ch" sound in German, like "noch".
Maybe they pronounced it like we pronounce thought?
In Old English: gethoht, thoht. So you're pretty much right on that. :)

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:48 pm

1%homeless wrote:
Then, how did the English spoke "tough" in the past?
In Old English it was spelt: toh. If I remember correctly, the h in that position represent the "ch" sound in German, like "noch".
Maybe they pronounced it like we pronounce thought?
In Old English: gethoht, thoht. So you're pretty much right on that. :)
I am not a linguist but I am going to hazard a guess.
If tough used to be spelled toh and pronounced with the ch sound of "noch", then my guess is that the spelling changed from ch to gh to correspond to the pronunciation.

User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood
Contact:

Post by 1%homeless » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:38 pm

I am not a linguist but I am going to hazard a guess.
If tough used to be spelled toh and pronounced with the ch sound of "noch", then my guess is that the spelling changed from ch to gh to correspond to the pronunciation.
You mean h to gh right? Well, your guess is as good as mine because I'm not a Germanic linguist either. I haven't delved into Middle English very much. The evolution of the ch sound is one of softening to complete disappearance. Another possiblity is that it's just just another variation in spelling. There are tons of dialects in England.

Post Reply