What was the sibilant in θάλασσα?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












The word θάλασσα thálassa "sea" is spelled in various different ways, with different letters replacing the sigmas: some dialects had a tau, for example, while others had a theta.



Do we know (through loans and cognates, for example, or transcriptions into other languages) what underlying sound these various letters were representing?










share|improve this question

















  • 2




    It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
    – TKR
    5 hours ago














up vote
4
down vote

favorite












The word θάλασσα thálassa "sea" is spelled in various different ways, with different letters replacing the sigmas: some dialects had a tau, for example, while others had a theta.



Do we know (through loans and cognates, for example, or transcriptions into other languages) what underlying sound these various letters were representing?










share|improve this question

















  • 2




    It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
    – TKR
    5 hours ago












up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











The word θάλασσα thálassa "sea" is spelled in various different ways, with different letters replacing the sigmas: some dialects had a tau, for example, while others had a theta.



Do we know (through loans and cognates, for example, or transcriptions into other languages) what underlying sound these various letters were representing?










share|improve this question













The word θάλασσα thálassa "sea" is spelled in various different ways, with different letters replacing the sigmas: some dialects had a tau, for example, while others had a theta.



Do we know (through loans and cognates, for example, or transcriptions into other languages) what underlying sound these various letters were representing?







greek pronunciation alphabet phonology






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 7 hours ago









Draconis

13.1k11653




13.1k11653







  • 2




    It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
    – TKR
    5 hours ago












  • 2




    It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
    – TKR
    5 hours ago







2




2




It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
– TKR
5 hours ago




It's not just this word -- Attic ττ : other dialects σσ is a regular pattern. (In this word there is Cretan θαλαθθα too -- I don't know if Cretan has θθ in other such words.)
– TKR
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote













There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:




These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of
Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to
write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that
the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical
development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from
the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in
antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate
sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling
outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it
survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is
perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier
affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that
the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than
they appear to. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.58)




Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.




[I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary
items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had
undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly
borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:
enter image description here both of which reveal the
dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original
voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the
example in (6): enter image description here Allen (1958)
explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a
generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex
is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the
change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such
as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by
native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the
exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests
that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in
literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all
its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.
(Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and its
Speakers
, pg.19)




Additional information:



Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:




But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to
influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,
most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic
features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for
the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in
tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of
Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was
used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was
felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most
of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as
a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false
Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic
ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this
shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.11)







share|improve this answer






















  • Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
    – TKR
    4 hours ago










  • @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
    – Expedito Bipes
    4 hours ago










  • (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
    – TKR
    4 hours ago

















up vote
2
down vote













We can only speculate about the exact nature of the "foreign phoneme" but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).



As Stephen Colvin (Colvin 2007) writes, "the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed" (p. 26).



Bubenik 2017 offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:




*tj > *t'j > *t's'j



*kj > *k'j > *t's'j (in his notation).




The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.



This cluster, Bubenik writes, "could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts> ss (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:



  1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw > ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss > s;

  2. Aeolic and West: all of those > ss;

  3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j > tt.

He speculates that tt "could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian" (p. 648).



Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).



cf. "geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō > eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō > kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō" (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013).






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "644"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7502%2fwhat-was-the-sibilant-in-%25ce%25b8%25ce%25ac%25ce%25bb%25ce%25b1%25cf%2583%25cf%2583%25ce%25b1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    down vote













    There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:




    These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of
    Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to
    write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that
    the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical
    development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from
    the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in
    antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate
    sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling
    outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it
    survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is
    perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier
    affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that
    the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than
    they appear to. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.58)




    Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.




    [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary
    items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had
    undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly
    borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:
    enter image description here both of which reveal the
    dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original
    voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the
    example in (6): enter image description here Allen (1958)
    explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a
    generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex
    is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the
    change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such
    as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by
    native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the
    exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests
    that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in
    literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all
    its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.
    (Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and its
    Speakers
    , pg.19)




    Additional information:



    Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:




    But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to
    influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,
    most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic
    features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for
    the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in
    tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of
    Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was
    used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was
    felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most
    of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as
    a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false
    Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic
    ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this
    shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.11)







    share|improve this answer






















    • Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
      – TKR
      4 hours ago










    • @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
      – Expedito Bipes
      4 hours ago










    • (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
      – TKR
      4 hours ago














    up vote
    6
    down vote













    There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:




    These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of
    Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to
    write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that
    the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical
    development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from
    the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in
    antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate
    sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling
    outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it
    survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is
    perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier
    affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that
    the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than
    they appear to. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.58)




    Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.




    [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary
    items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had
    undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly
    borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:
    enter image description here both of which reveal the
    dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original
    voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the
    example in (6): enter image description here Allen (1958)
    explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a
    generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex
    is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the
    change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such
    as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by
    native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the
    exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests
    that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in
    literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all
    its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.
    (Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and its
    Speakers
    , pg.19)




    Additional information:



    Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:




    But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to
    influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,
    most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic
    features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for
    the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in
    tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of
    Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was
    used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was
    felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most
    of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as
    a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false
    Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic
    ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this
    shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.11)







    share|improve this answer






















    • Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
      – TKR
      4 hours ago










    • @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
      – Expedito Bipes
      4 hours ago










    • (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
      – TKR
      4 hours ago












    up vote
    6
    down vote










    up vote
    6
    down vote









    There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:




    These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of
    Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to
    write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that
    the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical
    development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from
    the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in
    antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate
    sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling
    outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it
    survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is
    perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier
    affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that
    the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than
    they appear to. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.58)




    Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.




    [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary
    items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had
    undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly
    borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:
    enter image description here both of which reveal the
    dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original
    voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the
    example in (6): enter image description here Allen (1958)
    explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a
    generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex
    is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the
    change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such
    as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by
    native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the
    exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests
    that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in
    literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all
    its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.
    (Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and its
    Speakers
    , pg.19)




    Additional information:



    Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:




    But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to
    influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,
    most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic
    features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for
    the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in
    tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of
    Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was
    used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was
    felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most
    of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as
    a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false
    Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic
    ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this
    shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.11)







    share|improve this answer














    There have been various theories about the phonetic value of ττ and σσ, but it`s often held that they were pronounced as might be expected, i.e. as [tt] and [ss]. The philologist Sidney Allen argues as follows:




    These facts have led some scholars to suppose that both the ττ of
    Attic and the σσ of other dialects represent different attempts to
    write such an affricate without the use of a special symbol; and that
    the pronunciation as a double plosive or fricative is a post-classical
    development, based in part at least on the spelling. But apart from
    the improbability of spelling influence on colloquial speech in
    antiquity, it is scarcely credible that the existence of an affricate
    sound would not have been revealed in any inscriptional spelling
    outside those mentioned above (e.g. as τσ), nor the tradition of it
    survive in the account of any grammarian. On the other hand it is
    perfectly feasible for both [tt] and [ss] to develop from an earlier
    affricate, and there seems therefore no need whatever to assume that
    the ττ of Attic or the σσ of other dialects mean anything more than
    they appear to. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.58)




    Geoffrey Horrocks also attributes the values [tt] and [ss] to ττ and σσ.




    [I]t was noted that many of the adopted place names and vocabulary
    items borrowed from the pre-Greek languages of the Aegean basin had
    undergone dialectally diagnostic sound changes. The almost certainly
    borrowed word for ‘sea’ , for example, has the following forms:
    enter image description here both of which reveal the
    dialectally standard products of the palatalization of an original
    voiceless dental or velar by a following semi - vowel. 3 Consider the
    example in (6): enter image description here Allen (1958)
    explains this divergent dialectal development on the assumption of a
    generalized heavy palatalization of /t/ in Boeotian: the Attic reflex
    is then probably due to close contact with Boeotian at the time of the
    change (on which see further below). But the fact that loanwords such
    as that in (5) undergo developments identical to those undergone by
    native vocabulary (even though we cannot, of course, discover the
    exact form in which such words were first borrowed) strongly suggests
    that the division of Greek into the historical dialects attested in
    literature and alphabetic inscriptions had only taken place after all
    its future speakers had become established in the Aegean area.
    (Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek, A History of the Language and its
    Speakers
    , pg.19)




    Additional information:



    Although your question doesn't deal with the following, I thought you might be interested:




    But, like many literary languages, literary Attic was subject to
    influences from outside the restricted area of the spoken dialect,
    most particularly from Ionic. And one of the most characteristic
    features of this influence is the substitution of forms with σσ for
    the ττ of 'pure' Attic as exemplified by the inscriptions. In fact in
    tragedy, and in prose works up to and including Thucydides, the ττ of
    Attic is almost entirely avoided. Even though normal Attic grammar was
    used, and Attic phonology generally adopted, it seems that the ττ was
    felt as something of a provincialism by contrast with the σσ of most
    of the rest of the Greek-speaking world—all the more to be avoided as
    a characteristic of the speech of the 'συοβοιωτοί'; and even false
    Ionicisms (notably ἡσσᾶσθαι as against Attic ἡττᾶσθαι and Ionic
    ἑσσοῦσθαι) were liable to be perpetrated in avoidance of this
    shibboleth. (Sidney Allen, Vox Graeca, A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek, pg.11)








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 4 hours ago

























    answered 5 hours ago









    Expedito Bipes

    1,4481310




    1,4481310











    • Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
      – TKR
      4 hours ago










    • @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
      – Expedito Bipes
      4 hours ago










    • (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
      – TKR
      4 hours ago
















    • Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
      – TKR
      4 hours ago










    • @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
      – Expedito Bipes
      4 hours ago










    • (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
      – TKR
      4 hours ago















    Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
    – TKR
    4 hours ago




    Evidence that there was a velar in the "sea" word is the form δαλαγχα cited by Hesychius (thought to be Macedonian because of the initial d-).
    – TKR
    4 hours ago












    @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
    – Expedito Bipes
    4 hours ago




    @TKR. Yeah, I was under no illusion that there's unanimous agreement on this matter. Thanks for the input!
    – Expedito Bipes
    4 hours ago












    (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
    – TKR
    4 hours ago




    (Just to be clear, that doesn't contradict anything in your answer, but actually reinforces the *kj > tt/ss theory.)
    – TKR
    4 hours ago










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    We can only speculate about the exact nature of the "foreign phoneme" but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).



    As Stephen Colvin (Colvin 2007) writes, "the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed" (p. 26).



    Bubenik 2017 offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:




    *tj > *t'j > *t's'j



    *kj > *k'j > *t's'j (in his notation).




    The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.



    This cluster, Bubenik writes, "could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts> ss (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:



    1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw > ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss > s;

    2. Aeolic and West: all of those > ss;

    3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j > tt.

    He speculates that tt "could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian" (p. 648).



    Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).



    cf. "geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō > eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō > kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō" (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013).






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      We can only speculate about the exact nature of the "foreign phoneme" but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).



      As Stephen Colvin (Colvin 2007) writes, "the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed" (p. 26).



      Bubenik 2017 offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:




      *tj > *t'j > *t's'j



      *kj > *k'j > *t's'j (in his notation).




      The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.



      This cluster, Bubenik writes, "could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts> ss (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:



      1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw > ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss > s;

      2. Aeolic and West: all of those > ss;

      3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j > tt.

      He speculates that tt "could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian" (p. 648).



      Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).



      cf. "geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō > eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō > kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō" (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013).






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        We can only speculate about the exact nature of the "foreign phoneme" but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).



        As Stephen Colvin (Colvin 2007) writes, "the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed" (p. 26).



        Bubenik 2017 offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:




        *tj > *t'j > *t's'j



        *kj > *k'j > *t's'j (in his notation).




        The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.



        This cluster, Bubenik writes, "could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts> ss (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:



        1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw > ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss > s;

        2. Aeolic and West: all of those > ss;

        3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j > tt.

        He speculates that tt "could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian" (p. 648).



        Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).



        cf. "geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō > eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō > kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō" (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013).






        share|improve this answer














        We can only speculate about the exact nature of the "foreign phoneme" but everyone agrees that θάλασσα is Pre-Greek (i.e. not IE), one of the reasons being that there were no geminates in neither in the PIE nor in Pre-Greek (Beekes, Brixhe etc.).



        As Stephen Colvin (Colvin 2007) writes, "the prehistory of these clusters [i.e. obstruent +y, Alex B.] is complex and much disputed" (p. 26).



        Bubenik 2017 offers a very clear and a rather compelling account of how this might have happened. He writes that dental and velar palatalization, with subsequent affrication, happened in Proto-Greek:




        *tj > *t'j > *t's'j



        *kj > *k'j > *t's'j (in his notation).




        The palatal glide was later lost, the palatal affricate was depalatalized and merged with Proto-Greek *ts.



        This cluster, Bubenik writes, "could be subject to progressive assimilation ts > tt (in Boeotian, Attic and Central Cretan) or to regressive assimilation ts> ss (in other dialects)' (p. 647). Thus, he classifies all the dialects into the following groups:



        1. Arcado-Cretan and Ionic: PG *k(h)j, tw > ss; PG *t(h)j, *ts and *ss > s;

        2. Aeolic and West: all of those > ss;

        3. Attica, Euboea, and Boeotia: PG *k(h)j, *tw, and partly **t(h)j > tt.

        He speculates that tt "could have belonged to the Aeolic basilect, surviving in Boeotian (and extended to [Western?] Attic), but eliminated partially in Thessalian and wholly in Lesbian" (p. 648).



        Also, it seems that almost everyone believes the underlying consonant to be a palatalized velar, e.g. *-χyᾰ (Lejeune 1972, §98d) or *kʲᾰ (Beekes, kya in his notation); cf. Macedonian (?) θαλάγχα(ν).



        cf. "geminate tt in Attic is a reflex of part of the palatalization isogloss shared with Boeotian and Euboean, corresponding to the geminate ss of Ionic and other dialects: cf. lexical forms like thálatta ‘sea’, glôtta ‘tongue’ vs. Ion. thálassa, glôssa, or verbal formations like *eret-jō > eréttō ‘I row’ (cf. erétēs ‘rower’), *kāruk-jō > kērúttō ‘I announce’ vs. Ion. eréssō, kērússō" (Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, “Phonology (Survey)”, in: Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, 2013).







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 4 hours ago









        Alex B.

        7,54411327




        7,54411327



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7502%2fwhat-was-the-sibilant-in-%25ce%25b8%25ce%25ac%25ce%25bb%25ce%25b1%25cf%2583%25cf%2583%25ce%25b1%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay