Spanish vs. [ʃ]

[Christian Weisgerber]

Watching the Mexican TV miniseries _Belascoarán, PI_ on Netflix, I
noticed that foreign--well, English--[ʃ] is adopted as /tʃ/. As
in Cherlock Holmes. Makes sense, you say, Spanish doesn't have
/ʃ/, and /tʃ/ is the nearest thing.

Meanwhile, while watching shows from Spain I have noticed that
speakers there seem comfortable with [ʃ] in foreign loans. It makes
a certain amount of sense that /ʃ/ would be a marginal phoneme in
European Spanish, seeing that all other languages on the Iberian
peninsula have it and Spaniards keep encountering it in Portuguese/
Catalan/Basque/etc. names.

So, an actual regional difference? Or am I overinterpreting this?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Dingbat]

Xela, Guatemala and Punta Xicalangó, Mexico are city names
with [S] spelled as <X>.
<https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/spanish-letters-how-to-pronounce-x-or-la-equis>

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 21 May 2023 11:23:38 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:00:08?AM UTC+5:30, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> Watching the Mexican TV miniseries _Belascoarán, PI_ on Netflix, I

>> noticed that foreign--well, English--[?] is adopted as /t?/. As

>> in Cherlock Holmes. Makes sense, you say, Spanish doesn't have

>> /?/, and /t?/ is the nearest thing.

>>
>> Meanwhile, while watching shows from Spain I have noticed that

>> speakers there seem comfortable with [?] in foreign loans. It makes
>> a certain amount of sense that /?/ would be a marginal phoneme in

>> European Spanish, seeing that all other languages on the Iberian
>> peninsula have it and Spaniards keep encountering it in Portuguese/
>> Catalan/Basque/etc. names.
>>
>> So, an actual regional difference? Or am I overinterpreting this?
>>
>Xela, Guatemala and Punta Xicalangó, Mexico are city names
> with [S] spelled as <X>.
><https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/spanish-letters-how-to-pronounce-x-or-la-equis>

Yes, but those are based on an older form of Spanish. Don Quijote was
originally spelled Quixote, with the x as in oxala in Portuguese. A
later sound shift turned that into [x].

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-22, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>Xela, Guatemala and Punta Xicalangó, Mexico are city names
>> with [S] spelled as <X>.
>><https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/spanish-letters-how-to-pronounce-x-or-la-equis>
>
> Yes, but those are based on an older form of Spanish. Don Quijote was
> originally spelled Quixote, with the x as in oxala in Portuguese. A
> later sound shift turned that into [x].

<x> for /ʃ/ is used throughout the Iberian Peninsula. This surprising
sound-letter correspondence is actually the result of a historical
soundshift from Latin /ks/ to /ʃ/.

Only Castilian stands out, because of two soundshifts:
* <j> /ʒ/ was devoiced to /ʃ/, merging with <x> /ʃ/.
* The merged /ʃ/ retracted to /x/.

In 1815, Spanish spelling was reformed so that earlier <x> and <j>
were only spelled <j> going forward, e.g. dixo > dijo 'said'.

Remnants of historical <x> /ʃ/ are easy enough to find even in
Spain. One example is the abovementioned Don Quixote, borrowed
into French as Quichote, and later respelled as Quijote. Another
well-known case is the town of Jerez, earlier Xerez, which lent its
name to the fortified wine sherry.

I'm aware that <x> for /ʃ/ is common in the indigenous languages
of Mexico and its southern neighbors, and <x> in names derived from
those languages.

However, there may be sociolinguistic factors. I'm under the
impression that in Mexico, the indigenous languages are languages
of the rural poor with a low prestige. By contrast, Spain's regional
languages have enjoyed a renaissance ever since Franco's death.

I'll need to pay attention to both the pronunciation of <x> in names
and the presence or absence of [ʃ] in Mexican Spanish...

[Dingbat]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:00:07 PM UTC+5:30, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-05-22, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
> >>Xela, Guatemala and Punta Xicalangó, Mexico are city names
> >> with [S] spelled as <X>.
> >><https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/spanish-letters-how-to-pronounce-x-or-la-equis>
> >
> > Yes, but those are based on an older form of Spanish. Don Quijote was
> > originally spelled Quixote, with the x as in oxala in Portuguese. A
> > later sound shift turned that into [x].
> <x> for /ʃ/ is used throughout the Iberian Peninsula. This surprising
> sound-letter correspondence is actually the result of a historical
> soundshift from Latin /ks/ to /ʃ/.
>
> Only Castilian stands out, because of two soundshifts:
> * <j> /ʒ/ was devoiced to /ʃ/, merging with <x> /ʃ/.
> * The merged /ʃ/ retracted to /x/.
>
> In 1815, Spanish spelling was reformed so that earlier <x> and <j>
> were only spelled <j> going forward, e.g. dixo > dijo 'said'.
>
> Remnants of historical <x> /ʃ/ are easy enough to find even in
> Spain.
>

In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
distribution. With Spanish <x>, whether it's [ʃ] is unpredictable.

>
> One example is the abovementioned Don Quixote, borrowed
> into French as Quichote, and later respelled as Quijote. Another
> well-known case is the town of Jerez, earlier Xerez, which lent its
> name to the fortified wine sherry.
>
> I'm aware that <x> for /ʃ/ is common in the indigenous languages
> of Mexico and its southern neighbors, and <x> in names derived from
> those languages.
>

Do indigenous languages pronounced Mexico with [ʃ]? It was [ʃ]
when the name came from Nahuatl, I've read.

[Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com>]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:02:28 AM UTC+2, Dingbat wrote:
> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
> distribution.

Yes:
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/elessimi.htm#SimplKh
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/elessimi.htm#DetalKh

> With Spanish <x>, whether it's [ʃ] is unpredictable.

Well, it’s allmost predictable: it’'s [ʃ] only in Central-American
names (if the speaker is capable of making the sound at all),
and in historical names in Spain (type Quixote) if a historical
pronunciation is followed (which I expect Spaniards never do).

Otherwise, it is [x], which is nearly always.

> Do indigenous languages pronounced Mexico with [ʃ]? It was [ʃ]
> when the name came from Nahuatl, I've read.

Dunno.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
> distribution.

Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
two phonemes.

I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
short it is.)

Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos
(1957: 93–96). Also in Makkai (1972: 66–70).]

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 23 May 2023 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>
>> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>> distribution.
>
>Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
>levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
>information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
>analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
>two phonemes.

Simple conclusion: we may, and should.

Classic example: Kuh-chen, little cow: ichlaut, Kuchen, plural of Kuch
or Kuche (would have to look up): ach-laut. Both according to the
allophone rules.

>I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
>short it is.)
>
>Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos
>(1957: 93–96). Also in Makkai (1972: 66–70).]

http://tscheer.free.fr/papers/Hdt%20Scheer%20Olomouc%2006%20single%20sided.pdf
Indeed Kuhchen vs. Kuchen, and also tauchen (dive, Ach-Laut) vs.
Tauchen (little rope). This is so simple, basi and automatic that even
I as a non-native German speaker would do that right without even
thinking about it. If branches of science have trouble with this, then
there’s something wrong with those branches.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 23 May 2023 17:43:27 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>http://tscheer.free.fr/papers/Hdt%20Scheer%20Olomouc%2006%20single%20sided.pdf
>Indeed Kuhchen vs. Kuchen, and also tauchen (dive, Ach-Laut) vs.
>Tauchen (little rope). This is so simple, basi and automatic that even
>I as a non-native German speaker would do that right without even
>thinking about it. If branches of science have trouble with this, then
>there’s something wrong with those branches.

The rule in German is: ich-Laut when a front vowel, l, r of nothing
precedes in the same syllable.
The in Greek is: ich-Laut when a front vowel follows.

Hence Greek nychta with Ach-Laut, German nicht with ich-Laut. Solch
and durch: also ich-Laut. Suffix -chen: ich-Laut.

It's all really very simple, once you know the rules. Or have learnt
how to apply them by the "always only ever heard it like that" rule.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is any more proof needed that you do, in fact, not understand
the concept of "phoneme"?

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-23, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>> distribution.
>
> Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
> levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
> information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
> analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
> two phonemes.

In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
[ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
a positional allophone of /h/. The shift of initial [k] > [kx] > [x]
as part of the High German sound shift has remained limited to
Highest Alemannic (i.e., Swiss German) and never made it into
Standard German. Ch- in loan words is a mess; famously "Chemie"
'chemistry' can have [k], [ʃ], or [ç]. A few instances of inital
[x] can be found, but these are +foreign. Dialectal replacement
of [ç] with [x] in all positions exists. Dialectal merging of [ç]
and [ʃ] also exists.

> I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
> short it is.)
>
> Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos

No, that is about the same phones being assigned to different
phonemes in American English.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 23 May 2023 11:18:15 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:45:11?AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 23 May 2023 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>> >
>> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>> >> distribution.
>> >
>> >Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
>> >levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
>> >information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
>> >analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
>> >two phonemes.
>> Simple conclusion: we may, and should.
>>
>> Classic example: Kuh-chen, little cow: ichlaut, Kuchen, plural of Kuch
>> or Kuche (would have to look up): ach-laut. Both according to the
>> allophone rules.
>> >I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
>> >short it is.)
>> >
>> >Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos
>> >(1957: 93–96). Also in Makkai (1972: 66–70).]
>> http://tscheer.free.fr/papers/Hdt%20Scheer%20Olomouc%2006%20single%20sided.pdf
>> Indeed Kuhchen vs. Kuchen, and also tauchen (dive, Ach-Laut) vs.

>> Tauchen (little rope). This is so simple, basic and automatic that even

>> I as a non-native German speaker would do that right without even
>> thinking about it. If branches of science have trouble with this, then
>> there’s something wrong with those branches.
>
>Is any more proof needed that you do, in fact, not understand
>the concept of "phoneme"?

I widen it. I make it practical and usable.

Or in other words: if a phoneme theory has trouble explaning the
distribution of ich-laut and ach-laut in German, that shows it is not
a good theory.

BTW, phoneme theory may and should also take into account language
history. Historical sound developments are often clarifying.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Tue, 23 May 2023 20:55:14 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

>On 2023-05-23, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>>> distribution.
>>
>> Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
>> levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
>> information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
>> analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
>> two phonemes.
>
>In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
>front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
>always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
>preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
>[ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
>a positional allophone of /h/.

I don't think so. I think it is a palatalised variant of /k/.

The Dutch diminutive suffix was originally -ke(n). Still so in
dialects, cq. mannequin < manneke(n) = little man; Standard Dutch
varken = pig < var-ken = piglet. (No longer understood by native
speakers, hence varkentje.)

The suffix -ke has become -je in Modern Standard Dutch, with variants
-pje and -tje depending on context: -tje after vowels, nasals, r and
l. Little cow in Dutch is koetje, where in many pronunciation variants
<tj> does NOT contain a [t], but as a whole sounds the same as the
German ich-Laut.

So the only difference between Kuhchen and koetje is the final n, and
that the Dutch word does not have a long [u:].

>The shift of initial [k] > [kx] > [x]
>as part of the High German sound shift has remained limited to
>Highest Alemannic (i.e., Swiss German) and never made it into
>Standard German. Ch- in loan words is a mess; famously "Chemie"

>'chemistry' can have [k], [?], or [ç]. A few instances of inital

>[x] can be found, but these are +foreign. Dialectal replacement
>of [ç] with [x] in all positions exists. Dialectal merging of [ç]

>and [?] also exists.

Agreed.

What about Chemnitz? Pronounced with k-, says Wikipedia. Cf. Chaam,
pronounced Kaam, in Brabant, the Netherlands.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:30:08 PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-05-23, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
> >> distribution.
> >
> > Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
> > levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
> > information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
> > analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
> > two phonemes.
>
> In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
> front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
> always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
> preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
> [ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
> a positional allophone of /h/. The shift of initial [k] > [kx] > [x]
> as part of the High German sound shift has remained limited to
> Highest Alemannic (i.e., Swiss German) and never made it into
> Standard German. Ch- in loan words is a mess; famously "Chemie"
> 'chemistry' can have [k], [ʃ], or [ç]. A few instances of inital
> [x] can be found, but these are +foreign. Dialectal replacement
> of [ç] with [x] in all positions exists. Dialectal merging of [ç]
> and [ʃ] also exists.

That's all true, but historical information cannot be part of a phonemic
analysis, because it is not available to the speaker.

(It's not coincidence that Chomsky & Halle changed that -- on the
original suggestion of Yehoshua Bar-Hillel in 1951.)

(But no one outside their circle knew about that until SPE was published
in 1968, followed by a bunch of dissertations using their system.)

> > I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
> > short it is.)
> > Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos
>
> No, that is about the same phones being assigned to different
> phonemes in American English.

Ruud found the right article.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And that is why they worked on refining it.

> BTW, phoneme theory may and should also take into account language
> history. Historical sound developments are often clarifying.

Evidently the autodidact does not know of the work of Morris Halle.

MIT just announced a conference celebrating his 100th birthday. He
missed attending it by only a very few years.

[Tim Lang]

On 24.05.2023 08:17, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

>>In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
>>front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
>>always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
>>preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
>>[ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
>>a positional allophone of /h/.
>
>I don't think so. I think it is a palatalised variant of /k/.
>
>The Dutch diminutive suffix was originally -ke(n). Still so in
>dialects, cq. mannequin < manneke(n) = little man; Standard Dutch

-ke/n shared by the entire area of Low German (Plattdüütsch, Nieder-
düütsch), already starting in the southernmost spots such as Aachen,
Cologne and Berlin. In Rhineland-Westfalia, -ken is also written
-gen, esp. in person's names; e.g. Röntgen (otherwise this would
have been Röntken and Röntchen).

>varken = pig < var-ken = piglet. (No longer understood by native
>speakers, hence varkentje.)

German: Ferkel. (Old high German: farhili.)

>>The shift of initial [k] > [kx] > [x]
>>as part of the High German sound shift has remained limited to
>>Highest Alemannic (i.e., Swiss German) and never made it into

This k rendered as [x] (e.g. das Kind, pronounced as if it were
written das Chint] is also typical of East Austria, i.e. Tyrol
and its Southern part, which is now an Italian province.

>>Standard German. Ch- in loan words is a mess; famously "Chemie"
>>'chemistry' can have [k], [?], or [ç].

And Kharkiv, i.e. Charkow/Charkiw in German spelling: pronounced
by most German native-speakers [ʃarkiv], "Scharkow"/"Scharkiw",
although all German dialects have frequent [x] pronunciations,
that are as common in German as even the Anglo-speaking world
know of "Achtung" (due to literature esp. comics concerning the
"Huns" :-)) Besides, whole lotta German names starting with H
are historic continuations of earlier names, from the "Frankish"
era "Ch-"/"Kh-" [x] names (e.g. Chlodowech, Chilperich etc).
But Ukrainian Kharkiv is a weird exception: WW2 veterans always
have said "Scharkow whenever talking of the battles there in the
40s, and today's reporters and anchor people keep saying "Scharkiw".

> What about Chemnitz? Pronounced with k-, says Wikipedia.

Of course, since Chemnitz is the pan-Slavic kemen-/kamen-
"stone"(-hard). Which also has been borrowed by Hungarian: kemény "hard
(material); taut; (figurative) "strong" (e.g. colloquial: kemény fickó
"tough guy/dude/bloke").

The question would rather be: why East Germans (with their thick
Slavic substratum) chose the spelling Chemnitz instead of, say,
Kemnitz? (Perhaps due to some "anomaly" or other, like various
other ones, such as -oe- for the long o (Soest, Coesfeld); -gen
instead of -ken (Rhineland); -gg- for -ck- in areas of South
German dialects in Germany, Austria, Switzerland (hence Schwarzen-
egger, which in standard German spelling would be Schwarzenecker.
Or the other way around: the name Honecker is spelled Ho(he)negger
in the Southern regions of the German language). Etc. Fortunately,
German spelling is much easier than the English one (which is the
consummate "chaos," and "as ya like it" = "no rules, gov't just
naff off!").

>Cf. Chaam, pronounced Kaam, in Brabant, the Netherlands.

And its "counterpart" Cham [ka:m], place name in the province of
Oberpfalz ("upper palatinate") of Bavaria, namely in one of the
genuine Bavarian German dialects.

Noteworthy: esp. in the Bavarian dialects (i.e., also in the Austrian
variants), the -ch- above, as in manch-, durch (with the diminutival
-chen barely extant, because -l of -lein is the typical suffix in use
in these Southern dialects) in most cases is pronounced [χ], e.g. in
durch: not [dʊʁç] as in Northern Hochdeutsch, but [dʊəχ; dʊɒχ]. Yet
there are anomalies, too: e.g. manch-, as in manchmal, tends to be
pronounced by the same people, in the same areas (both in the above
mentioned Cham, as in Munich or Vienna) not only with a [ç], or even
with a [ʃ], e.g. [manʃ-moɪ], as if there were some "atavism" or
"teleportation" from Cologne, Frankfurt/Main or Berlin (i.e., from
other dialects, namely from the interface between Middle German and
Low German). (Thus, a real and no-nonsense linguist always should
take in consideration "anomalies," and not be as rigid as a "robot"
in applying the (goddarned) inferred rules. In Bavaria all foreign
intruders who learn the rules are "unmasked" rapidly, because they
don't learn how and when to "embed" the "anomalies." Quite the same
phenomenon like, say, when some Engl. native-speaker imitates
Scottish or Appalachian ("mountain") English. Leaving aside the
idiomatic phrases in this respect: talking only in terms of pronun-
ciation.)

(By and large, the [ç]-pronunciation in standard German is not "at
home" in Southern German dialects; this is why the ending -ig, in
zwanzig, dreißig, vierzig etc in those regions is never pronounced
by natives as [ɪç], but as [ɪk; ɪg] and even [k] (e.g. siebezg
[tsk]).)

Tim

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 24 May 2023 17:42:49 +0200: Tim Lang <m...@privacy.net> scribeva:

>Fortunately,
>German spelling is much easier than the English one (which is the
>consummate "chaos," and "as ya like it" = "no rules, gov't just
>naff off!").

Actually, English spelling does have a lot of rules:
https://www.zompist.com/spell.html

(Pity Mark Rosenfelder hasn't learnt the CSS maxwidth directive over
the past 23 years. I have, in the same period.)
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

[Ruud Harmsen]

Wed, 24 May 2023 08:32:37 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:30:08?PM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2023-05-23, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>> >> distribution.
>> >
>> > Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
>> > levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
>> > information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
>> > analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
>> > two phonemes.
>>
>> In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
>> front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
>> always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
>> preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
>> [ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
>> a positional allophone of /h/. The shift of initial [k] > [kx] > [x]
>> as part of the High German sound shift has remained limited to
>> Highest Alemannic (i.e., Swiss German) and never made it into
>> Standard German. Ch- in loan words is a mess; famously "Chemie"

>> 'chemistry' can have [k], [?], or [ç]. A few instances of inital

>> [x] can be found, but these are +foreign. Dialectal replacement
>> of [ç] with [x] in all positions exists. Dialectal merging of [ç]

>> and [?] also exists.

>
>That's all true, but historical information cannot be part of a phonemic
>analysis, because it is not available to the speaker.

It is, subconciously, through its effects. Using patterns and
generalisations. Just like ChatGPT knows.

(This morning my 5,5 year old granddaughter invented the strong past
conjugation "prak" for the verb "prikken" (to prick, to sting). She
had to laugh about it herself, immediately knowing it was wrong, and
corrected herself: prikte.

Steken, stak, gestoken.
Preken, preekte, gepreekt.
Liggen, lag, gelegen.
Leggen, legde, gelegd.
Liegen, loog, gelogen.)

>(It's not coincidence that Chomsky & Halle changed that -- on the
>original suggestion of Yehoshua Bar-Hillel in 1951.)
>
>(But no one outside their circle knew about that until SPE was published
>in 1968, followed by a bunch of dissertations using their system.)
>
>> > I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
>> > short it is.)
>> > Bloch, Bernard, 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. [Repr. in Joos
>>
>> No, that is about the same phones being assigned to different
>> phonemes in American English.
>
>Ruud found the right article.

Halleluyah!

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-24, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>In Standard German, it's [x] after back/center vowels, [ç] after
>>front vowels or consonants. However, the diminutive suffix -chen
>>always has [ç] and no longer introduces reliable fronting of a
>>preceding back vowel, so that complicates the analysis. Initial
>>[ç ~ x] isn't orginally native to German, since it was historically
>>a positional allophone of /h/.
>
> I don't think so. I think it is a palatalised variant of /k/.

As part of Grimm's law, PIE *k shifted to PGmc *x, variously also
transcribed as *χ or *h. (As well as PIE *kʷ > PGmc *xʷ.) There
appears to have been early allophony with [h] in initial position
and [x] elsewhere. A standard example would be German "hoch",
English "high", Old English "hēah". Note that OE used <h> for all
allophones. French/Latin-influenced Middle English orthography
then used <gh> for the non-initial sound.

The High German consonant shift created a flood of new [x] from
PGmc *k in intervocalic and word-final position:
maken / machen
ik / ich

This new [x] from PGmc *k merged with the old [x] from PGmc *x.

At some point, [ç] emerged as the variant after front vowels and
eventually consonants. Note that an allophone [ç] is also
reconstructed for Old English /h/, presumably an independent
development. This appears to be a natural phonetic evolution,
compare Finnish /h/ which also has the positional allophones
initial [h], [x] after back vowels, [ç] after front vowels.

> The Dutch diminutive suffix was originally -ke(n). [...]

> So the only difference between Kuhchen and koetje is the final n, and
> that the Dutch word does not have a long [u:].

The underlying form was *-ikīn, itself composed from two suffixes.
When attached to a word, it triggered umlaut. Eventually, in German
the first -i- dropped out and the second weakened to a schwa, but
the suffix itself continued to trigger a morphologically conditioned
umlaut (Kuh > Kühchen). However, this no longer happens reliably
and now we can find instances of -chen /çən/ following a back vowel,
e.g. Frauchen (mistress of a dog) instead of *Fräuchen.

> What about Chemnitz? Pronounced with k-, says Wikipedia. Cf. Chaam,
> pronounced Kaam, in Brabant, the Netherlands.

Also Chiemsee. There are a number of geographic names with initial
Ch- /k/. I don't know if the <ch> spelling reflects a dialectal
or historical pronunciation with /x/, but that seems plausible.
Then there is Chur in Switzerland, which _locally_ is /k/, but /x/
elsewhere in Switzerland, which leaves this poor German very confused.

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-24, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>Fortunately,
>>German spelling is much easier than the English one (which is the
>>consummate "chaos," and "as ya like it" = "no rules, gov't just
>>naff off!").
>
> Actually, English spelling does have a lot of rules:
> https://www.zompist.com/spell.html

English orthography clearly reflects Middle English pronunciation.
The question is rather just how underspecified and ambiguous it
actually is.

Earlier this year the sudden insight hit me that the unpredictable
distribution of long and short vowels might be rather more predictable
if restrictions from the syllable structure were to be taken into
account. This kept me distracted for an afternoon, at which point
I managed to force myself to stop thinking and decided to do the
sensible thing, i.e., profit from smarter minds and just read up
on it. Yesterday, Donka Minkova _A Historical Phonology of English_
fell out of my mailbox, so I should have some clarity in a few
weeks' time. After that, I intend to continue with Don Ringe
_A Historical Morphology of English_. Presumably between the two,
I'll also find confirmation or refutation of my long-held suspicion
that English inflectional morphology wasn't wiped out by language
contact with Celtic, Old Norse, certainly not Norman French, but
rather by something as prosaic as a shound shift...

If anybody considers buying those books, or others from the series
"Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language", go and hurry, because
they are disappearing from stock right now.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 26 May 2023 18:54:42 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

>At some point, [ç] emerged as the variant after front vowels and
>eventually consonants. Note that an allophone [ç] is also
>reconstructed for Old English /h/, presumably an independent
>development. This appears to be a natural phonetic evolution,
>compare Finnish /h/ which also has the positional allophones
>initial [h], [x] after back vowels, [ç] after front vowels.

I hear it as [h] in all positions. Or something in beween [h] and [x]:
https://forvo.com/word/eeva_ahtisaari/

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:15:11 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 23 May 2023 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
> >> distribution.
> >
> >Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
> >levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
> >information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
> >analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
> >two phonemes.
> Simple conclusion: we may, and should.
>
> Classic example: Kuh-chen, little cow: ichlaut, Kuchen, plural of Kuch
> or Kuche (would have to look up): ach-laut. Both according to the
> allophone rules.
> >I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
> >short it is.)
>

How do you parse Aachen, Schachen, Schachen?
Aachen is a city, also called Aix la Chapelle
Schachen is the location of Ludwig II of Bavaria
Schächen is a Swiss river, William Tell is claimed to be from its valley,
although he's not from anywhere if he's fictional.

[Tim Lang]

On 28.05.2023 08:05, Dingbat wrote:

>How do you parse Aachen, Schachen, Schachen?

die Ache means "water," as "brook, river" & the like. Also spelled as
ahhe (in old high German < *ahwo. Its kinship in Latin: aqua, plural
aquae). Cf. river Salzach, border betw. Bavaria and Austria, verbatim
meaning "Water/river of the salt", the city of Salzburg (where Mozart
was born) being, in medieval times, one of the most important places
for dealing with salt in middle Europe.

-aa- in Aachen is only a spelling thing to show the length of -a-.
In Roman times it was called Aquae and Aquis as well as AquisGranis in
post-Roman times (under Frankish kings). In the German dialect (Öcher
Platt; mixture of "Ripuarian" German and South Lower Frankish) spoken
there, Aachen ['a:-χən] is called Oche ['ɔː-χə]. In the days of the
Carnival celebrations and parties, people keep shouting/greeting
"Oche, alaaf!" (In Aachen and Cologne "alaaf!" [a-'a:f] instead of
"helau!" which is kind of "hello!" In Cologne: "Kölle, alaaf!")

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripuarian_language>

OTOH:

there are more Ache/Ach/Aach/Achen variants in German-speaking regions,
e.g. in the Alps (in areas of South German, ie., Oberdeutsch dialects).
As well as ending/suffix in many place names ending in -ach. But not
all of them! Some -ach place names have this ending from ancient
(and Romanized) Celtic -acum. Noteworthy the "synergetic" effect of
both words: Ache + Bach, that ended in becoming a component or suffix
in placenames for places having a brook/rivulet. (Aachen has had
thermal water wells, that was appreciated by the ancient Roman "upper
crust". BTW: even today, the _official_ place name for Aachen is ...
"Bad Aachen". "bad" = "bath" = "thermae.")

>Aachen is a city, also called Aix la Chapelle

True. (This would have rendered a "Kapellenoche" in the idiom spoken
there. Yet AFAIK it hasn't: "Oche" has stayed "kapellenlos." :-))

>Schachen is the location of Ludwig II of Bavaria

Schach/e/n is something else: meaning "wood, forest; bush". Middle high
German schach(e) and old high German scahho. Akin to Danish skov and
Swedish skog. Main idea: an area covered with either forest or bush
and shrub kind of "Unterholz."

>Schächen is a Swiss river, William Tell is claimed to be from its valley,
>although he's not from anywhere if he's fictional.

Swiss Schächen is indeed kind of Ache: a rivulet. In the geographic
position where Schächen enters the vally Schächental there is a place
called Äsch: this one might be (I dunno) linked to a "Ache/n" as well.

Only the -sch- transformation from -ch- here is quite _strange_ for
South German-speaking areas, in contrast to the Middle German-speaking
region (from Aachen and Cologne in the West via Frankfurt/Main and
Dresten to (former German) Silezia in the East), where virtually all
-ch- spellings are pronounced as if they were written: -sch- ("isch,
misch, disch, sisch". Strange enough, for Yiddish too: although an
"Oberdeutsch" kind of German, it has the Middle German pronunciation
especially in ... "nischt" (for "nicht").

Tim

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 27 May 2023 23:05:49 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:15:11?PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 23 May 2023 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>> >
>> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
>> >> distribution.
>> >
>> >Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
>> >levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
>> >information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
>> >analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
>> >two phonemes.
>> Simple conclusion: we may, and should.
>>
>> Classic example: Kuh-chen, little cow: ichlaut, Kuchen, plural of Kuch
>> or Kuche (would have to look up): ach-laut. Both according to the
>> allophone rules.
>> >I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
>> >short it is.)
>>

>How do you parse Aachen, Schachen, Schächen?

>Aachen is a city, also called Aix la Chapelle
>Schachen is the location of Ludwig II of Bavaria
>Schächen is a Swiss river, William Tell is claimed to be from its valley,
> although he's not from anywhere if he's fictional.

I'd say: a suffix -en in all cases. The vowel before the ch decides.
So Aachen and Schachen with Achlaut, Schächen with Ichlaut.

[Daud Deden]

Question from ignorance: is -chen /-ken /-gen (German) related to -tion (English) historically?

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 8:05:21 PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 27 May 2023 23:05:49 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 9:15:11?PM UTC+5:30, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Tue, 23 May 2023 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >> >On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:02:28?PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In German, <ch> spells both the ach-laut and ich-laut, in complementary
> >> >> distribution.
> >> >
> >> >Are they? The Ich-laut was a key topic in the 1950s debate on "mixing
> >> >levels" in Descriptive Linguistics. If you are allowed to take morphological
> >> >information (morpheme boundaries) into account in a phonological
> >> >analysis, then Ich- and Ach- are a single phoneme; but if not, they are
> >> >two phonemes.
> >> Simple conclusion: we may, and should.
> >>
> >> Classic example: Kuh-chen, little cow: ichlaut, Kuchen, plural of Kuch
> >> or Kuche (would have to look up): ach-laut. Both according to the
> >> allophone rules.
> >> >I believe, without checking, that this is the key article. (Note how
> >> >short it is.)
> >>
> >How do you parse Aachen, Schachen, Schächen?

> >Aachen is a city, also called Aix la Chapelle.
> >Schachen is the location of Ludwig II of Bavaria's lodge.

> >Schächen is a Swiss river, William Tell is claimed to be from its valley,
> > although he's not from anywhere if he's fictional.
> I'd say: a suffix -en in all cases.
>

Thanks. Did you know that already or are you able to deduce
when the suffix is chen and when it's en?

>
> The vowel before the ch decides.
> So Aachen and Schachen with Achlaut, Schächen with Ichlaut.
> --

FWIW, Swiss German disfavors ich laut; I've heard ICH pronounced
with ach laut in Zürich which city's name too is pronounced with
ach laut by its denizens. I don't know how people in Germany
pronounce the city's name but Italians and French too use a velar -
Zurigo and [zjyrik]/[zjyrik@] which makes me wonder how it's
spelled in French. Written descriptions of French don't talk about an
epenthetic [j] but I've heard Surete with [sjy], so [jy] must be an
allophone of /y/.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 01:59:31 -0700 (PDT): Daud Deden
<daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:

No. Seen at 'complication', for example:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/complicatio#Latin
From complico + -tio.

[Tim Lang]

On 29.05.2023 12:54, Dingbat wrote:

>FWIW, Swiss German disfavors ich laut; I've heard ICH pronounced
> with ach laut in Zürich which city's name too is pronounced with
> ach laut by its denizens.

AFAIK, the Swiss pronounce it without any -ch whatsoever. In
Schwizer Düütsch is Zürich ... Züri. <period> Only foreigners
say Zürich.

And again: most regiolects of the southernmost areas of the German
speaking world, ie, especially in the two main dialects, Bavarian and
Suebo-Alemannian, the -ch- tends to be palatalized - thus being in
an extreme, "shreek", contrast with the Middle German areas (from
Aachen-Cologne to Leipzig, Dresden and Silezia, as I already pointed
out), where the -ch- is so extreme that it turns to -sch- ("Isch
habe fünfzisch Euro und fahre nach Leipzisch" (Actually "Läääpzsch."
:-)) ch in "durch" ist already in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg
very palatal-"dry" as compared with "dursch in Aachen, Cologne,
Frankfurt, Berlin, Leipzig. There isn't any "need" for even "drier"
ch's from some of the Swiss sub-dialects. :-)

>I don't know how people in Germany

In standard ("radio" and "theater stage") German with this ending [ɪç]

> pronounce the city's name but Italians and French too use a velar -
> Zurigo and [zjyrik]/[zjyrik@] which makes me wonder how it's
> spelled in French.

What's the idea? These Romance idioms are too different from any of the
Swiss German regiolects. What significance do -igo and -ik have in
the place names and people names ending in -(i)ch as well as in
those having the -ach? e.g. Erich, Enterich, Wüterich; Andernach, Bach,
Tegernbach & "zillion" others. (-ich in Munich in English has nothing
to do with the suffix -chen in München, actually *Mönchchen "li'l monk").

>Written descriptions of French don't talk about an
> epenthetic [j] but I've heard Surete with [sjy], so [jy] must be an
> allophone of /y/.

Why these "Gedankengänge"? To what avail? :) (syürété might be some
English langu. influence.)

Tim

[Tim Lang]

On 29.05.2023 13:04, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

>>Question from ignorance: is -chen /-ken /-gen (German) related to -tion (English) historically?
>
>No. Seen at 'complication', for example:
>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/complicatio#Latin
> From complico + -tio.

-tion in English is the classical and old Latin -atio, -etio, -itio,
-utio, -otio, with the adding of the N for declension starting with
the genitive: -ation/-is, -em, -ibus (etc). In English, -tion is no
diminutival suffix, so it is in Latin (and in all other Romance
idioms, incl. -zione in Italian, e.g. attenzione). How come that Dawud
thought it had something in common with the Germanic diminutival
-chen/-ke(n)/-gen?!?

-tio/n in numerous cases has the meaning of the Germanic -ing (as well
as German -ung). Always a noun.

-chen, -ke(n)/-gen might be akin to Slavic -ka, -ki; to Slavic -itsa
(perhaps to Latin -itia, too); to Latin -icus, -ica, -icum; to South
Italian -uzzo, -uzza.

In the diminutival-poor collection of possibilities in English,
German -chen, -ke(n)/-gen and -lein/-l/-le, -la, -li translates into
-let: e.g. piglet. (<- Schweinchen, Schweinderl etc) -le is rather
Swabian-Alemanian as well as Yiddish (Yankele); -la is rather
Nuremberg/Würzburg Frankish; and -li is the Swiss spelling. All of
them the same diminutival suffix, as a "contracted" form of -lein
(which has been the standard German "standard" form). These L-diminu-
tivals are typical rather of the southern German "half" of all
German dialects; whereas the -chen suffix is rather Northern, yet
influenced by the South (because of the latest big sound shifts).
Only the K-diminutivals are the most conservative ones and typical
of the North and shared by other Northern Germanic idioms (see e.g.
in Brussels "menneken piss". Standard German: "Männchen").

Tim

[Dingbat]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 7:09:09 PM UTC+5:30, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 29.05.2023 12:54, Dingbat wrote:
>
> > Zürich which city's name too is pronounced with
> > ach laut by its denizens.
> AFAIK, the Swiss pronounce it without any -ch whatsoever. In
> Schwizer Düütsch is Zürich ... Züri. <period>
>

If so, this wrongly describes its Swiss German pronunciation:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCY89DwtmvA>

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 03:54:00 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

>FWIW, Swiss German disfavors ich laut; I've heard ICH pronounced
> with ach laut in Zürich which city's name too is pronounced with
> ach laut by its denizens.

Buchlaut, even.

>I don't know how people in Germany
> pronounce the city's name but Italians and French too use a velar -
> Zurigo and [zjyrik]/[zjyrik@] which makes me wonder how it's
> spelled in French.

Zürich has an ichlaut in Standard Hochdeutsch, but Swiss German
doesn't do ichlauts at all.

> Written descriptions of French don't talk about an
> epenthetic [j] but I've heard Surete with [sjy], so [jy] must be an
> allophone of /y/.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurich
So buchlaut or nothing at all in Swiss German.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

This too is completely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wqzS0mDK0&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 17:14:00 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

And this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4zONVkO-v0&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4&index=9

It's by Frenchman you can't even properly pronounce English, and then
hautinly thinks he can master other local languages. A fantast.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 17:14:00 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Also wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSkLYcG4n-E&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4&index=26

All those videos are totally unreliable and useless.

[Ruud Harmsen]

>All those videos are totally unreliable and useless.

Utrecht.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtnN_3KNVdY&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4&index=115

Ridiculously bad, really. And this one I know for sure, being Dutch.
Strange that as a Frenchman, he doesn't properly say the u at the
start, although French has this sound, as in 'la lune'.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Mon, 29 May 2023 17:24:29 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

Den Haag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idusXj6REEo&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4&index=130
Correct in theory, but still with a foreign accent. Aa too dark, and
the transition between the vowel and the final consonant somehow isn't
right. Difficult or impossible to describe, but true.

[Ruud Harmsen]

This is reliable, as always on Forvo.
https://nl.forvo.com/word/z%C3%BCrich/

[Tim Lang]

On 29.05.2023 16:26, Dingbat wrote:

>If so, this wrongly describes its Swiss German pronunciation:
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCY89DwtmvA>

Do have a look:

<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich>

1st line reads: "Zürich (zürichdeutsch Züri [ˈt͡sʏ̞rɪ, ˈt͡sʏrɪ, ˈt͡sy̞rɪ],
=====================================================================

(...)". Which means that in the Zürich Swiss German Zürich is called
Züri. (I for one know this from ... written: re pieces of news in
newspapers of West Germany decades ago, namely re to turmoils/riots
there under the caption/slogan "Züri brennt!" also spelled in Swiss
German "Züri brännt!")

The wiki-article in English lacks the information that the "Zürcher"
population calles their city in their own idiom "Züri":

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich> Here, only the
standard (Germany's and Austria's) German pronunciation of Zürich
is given.

"Alles klar auf der 'Andrea Doria'" (Udo Lindenberg)

Tim

[Tim Lang]

On 29.05.2023 17:27, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

>Den Haag
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idusXj6REEo&list=PLd_ydU7Boqa0oWhxKgfjgvBIFWXQAWhv4&index=130
>Correct in theory, but still with a foreign accent. Aa too dark, and
>the transition between the vowel and the final consonant somehow isn't
>right. Difficult or impossible to describe, but true.

BTW, there are numerous Haag places in Germany and Austria, too (esp. in
Bavaria, both in Bavaria proper, ie, in the South, and in the northern
part of the state, also called "Franconia").

<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haag>

But its pronunciation isn't [Haach], but [Haak]. Also as a surname.
Along with the one which is more frequent: Hagen. (In Bavaria and
Austria also spelled: Hagn.) Cf. Hagen von Tronje in the "Nibelungen-
lied" = "the Song of the Nibelungs" (Hagen: Siegfried's killer).

Ha(a)g kinship in German: der Hag; die Hecke; die Hege; verb hegen.
(cf. idiomatic saying "hegen und pflegen")

Tim

[wugi]

Op 29/05/2023 om 15:52 schreef Tim Lang:

Officially Manneken Pis. Flemish doesn't do final consonant doubling. But
- menneke(n) is indeed a Brussels dialectal form, and a last name: there
is a Place Mennekens in Brussels;
- the final -(n) would be used in various cases, but not in others; not
in this case, with a following p, from Pis. So, Menneke/Manneke Pis it
would be.

--
guido wugi

[Daud Deden]

Thanks.

Complicuatio.n co.m + plico/ply/plate/peel/fold + tio.n
Xyuam+buatlachya

Complaint
Compliant
Compliment
Complement

complain (v.)
late 14c., compleinen, "lament, bewail, grieve," also "find fault, express dissatisfaction, criticize," also "make a formal accusation or charge to an authority," from stem of Old French complaindre "to lament" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *complangere, originally "to beat the breast," from Latin com-, here perhaps an intensive prefix (see com-), + plangere "to strike, beat the breast" (from PIE root *plak- (2) "to strike"

compliant (adj.)
"yielding to desire, ready to accommodate," 1640s, from comply + -ant.

comply (v.)
early 14c., "to carry out, fulfill" (transitive), probably from Old French compli, past participle of complir "to accomplish, fulfill, carry out," from Vulgar Latin *complire, from Latin complere "to fill up," transferred to "fulfill, finish (a task)," from com-, here probably as an intensive prefix (see com-), + plere "to fill" (from PIE root *pele- (1) "to fill").

Intransitive sense of "to consent, act in accordance with another's will or desire" is attested from c. 1600 and might have been influenced by ply (v.2), or perhaps it is a reintroduction from Italian, where complire had come to mean "satisfy by 'filling up' the forms of courtesy" (compare compliment (n.))

compliment (n.)
"act or expression of civility, respect, or regard" (or, as Johnson defines it, "An act, or expression of civility, usually understood to include some hypocrisy, and to mean less than it declares"), 1570s, complement, ultimately from Latin complementum "that which fills up or completes" (see complement, which is essentially the same word), the notion being "that which completes the obligations of politeness

complement (n.) **
late 14c., "means of completing; that which completes; what is needed to complete or fill up," from Old French compliement "accomplishment, fulfillment" (14c., Modern French complément), from Latin complementum "that which fills up or completes," from complere "fill up," from com-, here probably as an intensive prefix (see com-), + plere "to fill" (from PIE root *pele- (1) "to fill"

** In math, a dual.

[Ruud Harmsen]

29 May 2023 21:42:07 GMT: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
scribeva:

>Tim Lang <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>Ha(a)g kinship in German: der Hag; die Hecke; die Hege; verb hegen.
>>(cf. idiomatic saying "hegen und pflegen")
>

> Hagestolz (alter alleinstehender Mann):
>
>|Das Grundwort "stolz" hat hier nichts mit Hochmut zu tun,
>|sondern ist eine sprachliche Abschleifung des
>|mittelhochdeutschen "stalt". Dabei handelt es sich um die
>|mittelhochdeutsche Vergangenheitsform des Verbs "stellen,
>|stalt, gestalt" (vergleiche die Begriffe "Anstalt" und
>|"Gestalt"). Das Bestimmungswort "Hag" bezeichnet ursprünglich
>|einen kleinen, durch eine Hecke umfriedeten und abgetrennten
>|Bereich auf einem Grundstück, sekundär eine Hecke, ein
>|Gebüsch oder auch einen Hain.
>
> . (While this word strikes me as perfectly familiar, there
> now seem to be some dictionaries that no longer carry it.)

https://www.dwds.de/wb/Hagestolz

[Daud Deden]

Thanks, I was thinking of the similar sounds of -tion, gen- in English and -chen in German.

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-24, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

>>Is any more proof needed that you do, in fact, not understand
>>the concept of "phoneme"?
>
> I widen it. I make it practical and usable.

PTD tends to presents things from linguistics 101 as absolute facts
without mentioning--or possibly even realizing--that an introduction
by necessity teaches _simplifications_.

I just came across this intriguing pointer:

The 'digraph controversy', one of the most 'complex and acrimonious
debates in the history of OE scholarschip' (Lass 1994: 45), was
conducted in terms of a theory of phonology that separates phonemes
from allophones categorically. Current phonological theory
recognizes that segmental inventories are comprised of units that
can range from fully contrastive to fully allophonic, with
intermediate stages (Goldsmith 1995: 12). [...] The realizations
[...] are best analyzed as 'not-yet-integrated semi-contrasts',
a status half-way between a phoneme and an allophone (Goldsmith
1995: 12).
(Minkova, _A Historical Phonology of English_)

Somebody interested in what phonological theory nowadays really
says might want to check out the reference:

Goldsmith, John (1995), 'Phonological theory', in J. Goldsmith (ed.),
_The Handbook of Phonological Theory_, Oxford: Blackwell, 1-23.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 11:30:07 AM UTC-4, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2023-05-24, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> >>Is any more proof needed that you do, in fact, not understand
> >>the concept of "phoneme"?
> > I widen it. I make it practical and usable.
>
> PTD tends to presents things from linguistics 101 as absolute facts
> without mentioning--or possibly even realizing--that an introduction
> by necessity teaches _simplifications_.
>
> I just came across this intriguing pointer:
>
> The 'digraph controversy', one of the most 'complex and acrimonious
> debates in the history of OE scholarschip' (Lass 1994: 45), was
> conducted in terms of a theory of phonology that separates phonemes
> from allophones categorically. Current phonological theory
> recognizes that segmental inventories are comprised of units that
> can range from fully contrastive to fully allophonic, with
> intermediate stages (Goldsmith 1995: 12). [...] The realizations
> [...] are best analyzed as 'not-yet-integrated semi-contrasts',
> a status half-way between a phoneme and an allophone (Goldsmith
> 1995: 12).
> (Minkova, _A Historical Phonology of English_)
>
> Somebody interested in what phonological theory nowadays really
> says might want to check out the reference:

1995 isn't "nowadays."

Someone can't be taught about the refinements to a theory until
they understand the theory itself.

The attacks on the phoneme concept began with Morris Halle's
*Sound Pattern of Russian* (1959), and Goldsmith, McCarthy,
et al., were attempts by Halle's students to try to drag languages
other than English back from the abyss of Chomsky & Halle's
*Sound Pattern of English* (1968). Janet Watson's *Phonology and
Morphology of Arabic* (2002) is particularly ludicrous

https://www.amazon.com/Phonology-Morphology-Arabic-Worlds-Languages/dp/0199257590

-- especially when compared with Michael Brame's (unpublished, AFAIK)
MIT dissertation, which is a generative phonology of Standard Arabic
in orthodox SPE terms.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:47:52 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
<na...@mips.inka.de> scribeva:

Quite interesting, thanks.

[Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com>]

> > Goldsmith, John (1995), 'Phonological theory', in J. Goldsmith (ed.),
> > _The Handbook of Phonological Theory_, Oxford: Blackwell, 1-23.
> Quite interesting, thanks.

Just checked my Gleason notes, for an article I want to write some day.
10/11 May 2008. Go figure. 15 years ago.

[Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com>]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 6:45:09 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Someone can't be taught about the refinements to a theory until
> they understand the theory itself.

I do understand it, and you are just talking rubbish, and have
been for umpteen years, just to ridicule me, only because you
can’t stand it that someone without an academic background
in the field can nevertheless understand things.

It's just your jealousy and uncertainty.

I won’t listen to you anymore, and just go my own way and do my
own thing. So spare yourself the effort.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then stop answering people's questions about linguistic technicalities.

You are mired in "unknown unknowns." You don't know what you don't
know, and you refuse to learn.