My personal linguist thoughts on the 'zeta question' would be that [zd] might be the more common realisation in Attic, but the ""actual"" pronunciation was a combination of [zd] and [dz] depending on how the word was generated (ie, whether it was from PIE *dy -> PH *dz, or from a case like /-as/ + /de/ -> /-azde/), and grammarians were picking simply what they viewed as the most 'typical' pronunciation. The ζ for ζά in Ψάπφω would, for example, reflect Lesbian /dia/ -> /dja/ -> affricate /dza/, with Koine writers representing this as their own similar [z:]. It is unlikely phonologically that [zd] would assimilate its stop to [z:], but very likely that an affricate [dz] would turn into geminate [z:], so for example, /dzeus/ -> /z:eus/ and then speakers generalised [z:] to [zd] to generate [z:] everywhere. Different dialects would probably have different levels of survival or use of each, with possibly more conservative dialects like Doric likely preserving the 'original' values longer than others, which is why 2nd century grammarians would then comment Doric speakers still have [zd]. Notably, Symi and areas with Griko are formerly Doric-speaking areas, which may be why there is affricate [dz], as the more conservative Doric [dz] became general as Koine forms were adopted rather than [z:]. Why these would all be written as ζ, is probably that early Greeks simply put anything with a [z] sound in it as ζ, and then this became the standard. Attic wasn't even spelled with what we think of as 'Attic' spelling in the modern day until around the turn of the 5th century, after all. Personally I prefer [dz] in general as my dialect doesn't have [z] natively and the affricate is easier to pronounce. *addition - Mandarin has aspirate th, kh, ph, but no h, although it also has [x], serves similar purpose. You are correct that any language that allows aspiration also has to allow a [h] or [x] type sound due to how languages' sound systems work.
Regarding the “Slavic /ʒda/” - that’s actually the one thing that makes me consider the possibility of broader /dz/ → /zd/ metathesis in (some) (sub-)dialects of Greek. But note that the change of Proto-Slavic djV, tjV to žd, št is *specific* in Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian (interestingly enough, the Slavic dialects most closest to Byzantium). Every single other Slavic language (including Macedonian!) has one of: /dʒ ~ ʒ, tʃ/ (east, south), /dz ~ z, ts/ (west), /dʑ, tɕ/ (south) without metathesis. EDIT: Russian has some instances of žd, eg. рождённый, рождение - but they are Church Slavonisms, local native development was /dž/ → /ž/; cf. Russian межа, or Ukrainian роджений.
I imagine a /zd/ triggered slight affrication on the d, leading to /zdz/, which /dz/ from /dj/ merged with, and then different dialects diverged to a general /zd/ or /dz/. Or the palatalisation from /dj/ spread to /jdj/, as often happens, making /ʒdʒ/ > /zd/ in most dialects.
given the existence of dialectical z: and the proximity in quality of native dental dz and retracted z, i think it not very likely that this sound would mechanically alter in any more than individual flubbing. so dz would more frequently directly allophonize through substitution to either the long counterpart of voiced s or more likely the already known dialectical z:, individual phonetic enviromets and individual words would be pronounced as one or the other sound without intermediary by each individual
if some of tt~ss rendered as s't, then you can imagine an intervocalic ambisylibic z'z~d̚'dz, and in comparison to a voiced s, to compensate an intervocallic z'dz~z'd with zd reguralizing because zdz being difficult to pronounce within one syllable and for zd distinction compared to z: and a gradually weakening dz
Focus only at one region and one time period to begin with. So I personally would chose the classical period and only conduct my research with ahtenian writers, to keep it as simple and clear as it can get. Than I would stack probabilities and chose the pronunciation with the highest probabality. If possible, choosing several writers who lived at the very same time in Athens. This could be Xenophon and Platon for example. I would start the journey here. Just yesterday I've finished translating Xenophon's Anabasis, it's a great book I can recommend to all.
That’s a perfectly reasonable approach. I’m general, having gone back and forth many times on this subject, I find there to be significant pedagogical value in virtually any of these various choices.
2:09 Greek here, and to my knowledge this is incorrect. The word τσάντα (bag), for instance, is pronounced ['ts̠ɐ(n)da]. It's probably less retracted when coming after or before /t/, as the /t/ is purely alveolar, but it's still nowhere near as fronted as the /s/ sound in languages like English, Italian, German, etc.
@@polyMATHYplus If I may, perhaps the reason it sounds non-retracted to you in the affricate is because you (and Raph) tend to _slightly_ over-retract the Greek /s/ to the point where it sounds a tad too close to a post-alveolar.
22:50 there are in fact languages with /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ and not /h/. Look at Mandarin for example, which has /x/ but no /h/. Also possibly English dialects with h-dropping if you want to count those.
It would be helpful for those of us with not so good ears, if you wrote the IPA symbols of what you are saying while you are explaining it. Just to check that we are on the same page and following properly. Thank you for your videos.
Heh you’re right indeed; I do that on the main channel regularly. This is more like the conversations I have with my linguist friends. But it goes to show how these sounds can change, if they’re heard differently. Thanks for watching.
Good questions! I usually make pitch distinctions for emphasis, but that’s not phonemic. As for my caught vowel, my native accents actually has it as a slight diphthong, which is common for many Americans, so by trying to smooth it out it may end up sounding long. Great observation!
I'm wondering if, when some ancient grammarians said that σ+δ was different from ζ, they were just referring that sd was not zd (unvoiced vs voiced), but not that zd wasn't ζ. So ζ=zd is plausible even if they suggested that was not its sound, because maybe our interpretation of those grammarians is not as accurate as we think.
Well, having looked at this for a long time, I’d say they’re very clear about the sound starting or ending with a stop, as opposed to a sibilant. See the quote from Velius Longus in the main channel video. But I like how you’re thinking!
When I watch erasmian pronunciation in all their national varieties - as Benjamin says - I can't understand what people are saying in 85% of the cases. I need to make sure I'm reading the subs or the text, as it just seems as another language to me. I think if someone is coherently educated with good pronunciation from the start (and I mean, as you always say, with correct vowel length, reasonable quality of sounds) those problems shouldn't exist as much, as those picky idiosyncrasys would be much more forgivable. Seriously, erasmian pronunciation is such a bad excuse - a excuse for not pronuncing properly the language one's supposedly employs a good amount of years learning. Its also strange to think that people make a considerable effort to learn modern greek pronunciation with all its peculiar sounds, and not make the same with reconstructed one. Maybe it comes down simply to bad teaching - I watched some lessons of a university professor here in Brazil, and he openly dismissed pronunciation as a important subject. This makes a tough thing even thougher, as morphological constructions becomes boiled down to just arbitrary rules to be memorized - how can those people internalize such things? Much more serious: How can he internalize a classic work in such a way? I thought we were in this adventure for the classics and what they can do for us. If you're not changing yourself in the process of reading those works, but only observing linguistic elements, you're failing on the major purpose of a classical education, and skiping such a elementary aspect of the whole language as pronunciation is a way to that.
My personal linguist thoughts on the 'zeta question' would be that [zd] might be the more common realisation in Attic, but the ""actual"" pronunciation was a combination of [zd] and [dz] depending on how the word was generated (ie, whether it was from PIE *dy -> PH *dz, or from a case like /-as/ + /de/ -> /-azde/), and grammarians were picking simply what they viewed as the most 'typical' pronunciation. The ζ for ζά in Ψάπφω would, for example, reflect Lesbian /dia/ -> /dja/ -> affricate /dza/, with Koine writers representing this as their own similar [z:]. It is unlikely phonologically that [zd] would assimilate its stop to [z:], but very likely that an affricate [dz] would turn into geminate [z:], so for example, /dzeus/ -> /z:eus/ and then speakers generalised [z:] to [zd] to generate [z:] everywhere. Different dialects would probably have different levels of survival or use of each, with possibly more conservative dialects like Doric likely preserving the 'original' values longer than others, which is why 2nd century grammarians would then comment Doric speakers still have [zd]. Notably, Symi and areas with Griko are formerly Doric-speaking areas, which may be why there is affricate [dz], as the more conservative Doric [dz] became general as Koine forms were adopted rather than [z:].
Why these would all be written as ζ, is probably that early Greeks simply put anything with a [z] sound in it as ζ, and then this became the standard. Attic wasn't even spelled with what we think of as 'Attic' spelling in the modern day until around the turn of the 5th century, after all.
Personally I prefer [dz] in general as my dialect doesn't have [z] natively and the affricate is easier to pronounce.
*addition - Mandarin has aspirate th, kh, ph, but no h, although it also has [x], serves similar purpose. You are correct that any language that allows aspiration also has to allow a [h] or [x] type sound due to how languages' sound systems work.
😂 The title of this is hilarious but the content wonderful as always.
I’m very glad you like it, Jason!
I wish you would do these deep dives on super small details of Italian. Its my personal fav. Thank you!
Great idea
Regarding the “Slavic /ʒda/” - that’s actually the one thing that makes me consider the possibility of broader /dz/ → /zd/ metathesis in (some) (sub-)dialects of Greek. But note that the change of Proto-Slavic djV, tjV to žd, št is *specific* in Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian (interestingly enough, the Slavic dialects most closest to Byzantium).
Every single other Slavic language (including Macedonian!) has one of: /dʒ ~ ʒ, tʃ/ (east, south), /dz ~ z, ts/ (west), /dʑ, tɕ/ (south) without metathesis.
EDIT: Russian has some instances of žd, eg. рождённый, рождение - but they are Church Slavonisms, local native development was /dž/ → /ž/; cf. Russian межа, or Ukrainian роджений.
I imagine a /zd/ triggered slight affrication on the d, leading to /zdz/, which /dz/ from /dj/ merged with, and then different dialects diverged to a general /zd/ or /dz/.
Or the palatalisation from /dj/ spread to /jdj/, as often happens, making /ʒdʒ/ > /zd/ in most dialects.
Appreciate the title👆🏼
A worthy adventure exploring the theatre.
6:48 ἰδού! μετάθεσις
given the existence of dialectical z: and the proximity in quality of native dental dz and retracted z, i think it not very likely that this sound would mechanically alter in any more than individual flubbing. so dz would more frequently directly allophonize through substitution to either the long counterpart of voiced s or more likely the already known dialectical z:, individual phonetic enviromets and individual words would be pronounced as one or the other sound without intermediary by each individual
if some of tt~ss rendered as s't, then you can imagine an intervocalic ambisylibic z'z~d̚'dz, and in comparison to a voiced s, to compensate an intervocallic z'dz~z'd with zd reguralizing because zdz being difficult to pronounce within one syllable and for zd distinction compared to z: and a gradually weakening dz
Focus only at one region and one time period to begin with.
So I personally would chose the classical period and only conduct my research with ahtenian writers, to keep it as simple and clear as it can get.
Than I would stack probabilities and chose the pronunciation with the highest probabality. If possible, choosing several writers who lived at the very same time in Athens. This could be Xenophon and Platon for example. I would start the journey here.
Just yesterday I've finished translating Xenophon's Anabasis, it's a great book I can recommend to all.
That’s a perfectly reasonable approach. I’m general, having gone back and forth many times on this subject, I find there to be significant pedagogical value in virtually any of these various choices.
Amazing content, as always!
2:09 Greek here, and to my knowledge this is incorrect. The word τσάντα (bag), for instance, is pronounced ['ts̠ɐ(n)da]. It's probably less retracted when coming after or before /t/, as the /t/ is purely alveolar, but it's still nowhere near as fronted as the /s/ sound in languages like English, Italian, German, etc.
This is very helpful! Ευχαριστώ πολύ για το σχόλιο
@@polyMATHYplus If I may, perhaps the reason it sounds non-retracted to you in the affricate is because you (and Raph) tend to _slightly_ over-retract the Greek /s/ to the point where it sounds a tad too close to a post-alveolar.
22:50 there are in fact languages with /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ and not /h/. Look at Mandarin for example, which has /x/ but no /h/. Also possibly English dialects with h-dropping if you want to count those.
That’s fair! Chinese is interesting. It’s like to see it in a language or truly isolated dialect with voiced stops as well.
Doesn't "h" in Mandarin pinyin (ex. 和) count as /h/?
@@MatthewJo-u8m No, that's just how it's orthographically represented in Pinyin. Phonetically it is a [x] sound most of the time.
@@ori5315 Oh, that's interesting.
It would be helpful for those of us with not so good ears, if you wrote the IPA symbols of what you are saying while you are explaining it. Just to check that we are on the same page and following properly. Thank you for your videos.
Heh you’re right indeed; I do that on the main channel regularly. This is more like the conversations I have with my linguist friends. But it goes to show how these sounds can change, if they’re heard differently. Thanks for watching.
is your caught vowel longer than your cot vowel, is there a difference in pitch?
Good questions! I usually make pitch distinctions for emphasis, but that’s not phonemic. As for my caught vowel, my native accents actually has it as a slight diphthong, which is common for many Americans, so by trying to smooth it out it may end up sounding long. Great observation!
Just please don’t create a “Polymathy Z” channel 😟
Not to worry
I'm wondering if, when some ancient grammarians said that σ+δ was different from ζ, they were just referring that sd was not zd (unvoiced vs voiced), but not that zd wasn't ζ. So ζ=zd is plausible even if they suggested that was not its sound, because maybe our interpretation of those grammarians is not as accurate as we think.
Well, having looked at this for a long time, I’d say they’re very clear about the sound starting or ending with a stop, as opposed to a sibilant. See the quote from Velius Longus in the main channel video. But I like how you’re thinking!
Just talk. At this point anything you you're interested in seems worth being intrested in.
That’s very kind
What about B and V ?
th-cam.com/video/hovf-UK-toQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9Q3RjNiWe_luzB5j
When I watch erasmian pronunciation in all their national varieties - as Benjamin says - I can't understand what people are saying in 85% of the cases. I need to make sure I'm reading the subs or the text, as it just seems as another language to me. I think if someone is coherently educated with good pronunciation from the start (and I mean, as you always say, with correct vowel length, reasonable quality of sounds) those problems shouldn't exist as much, as those picky idiosyncrasys would be much more forgivable. Seriously, erasmian pronunciation is such a bad excuse - a excuse for not pronuncing properly the language one's supposedly employs a good amount of years learning. Its also strange to think that people make a considerable effort to learn modern greek pronunciation with all its peculiar sounds, and not make the same with reconstructed one. Maybe it comes down simply to bad teaching - I watched some lessons of a university professor here in Brazil, and he openly dismissed pronunciation as a important subject. This makes a tough thing even thougher, as morphological constructions becomes boiled down to just arbitrary rules to be memorized - how can those people internalize such things? Much more serious: How can he internalize a classic work in such a way? I thought we were in this adventure for the classics and what they can do for us. If you're not changing yourself in the process of reading those works, but only observing linguistic elements, you're failing on the major purpose of a classical education, and skiping such a elementary aspect of the whole language as pronunciation is a way to that.