zompist bboard

First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

Secondly, how do you write ν and υ such that they are easily disambiguable? Even with a computer font those two letters look really similar, and I'm not sure how you'd consistently write them by hand in such a way that you could always tell which one you mean.

con quesa wrote:First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

Wikipedia wrote:The unusual use of special letters for the consonant clusters [kʰs] and [pʰs] can be explained by the fact that these were the only combinations allowed at the end of a syllable. With this convention, all Greek syllables could be written with at most one final consonant letter.

Sampi was apparently used in some places to write /ts/.

con quesa wrote:Secondly, how do you write ν and υ such that they are easily disambiguable? Even with a computer font those two letters look really similar, and I'm not sure how you'd consistently write them by hand in such a way that you could always tell which one you mean.

My recollection of Greek class is hazy, but I think we just wrote them as a v and a u with no descending stroke (i.e. like a smaller U).

One has a triangle shape, one has a curved shape.

Yeah... you can tell the difference between Latin <v> and <u>, can't you? And context is always underestimated.

con quesa wrote:First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

I asked this question once on here. See if you can find my topic. My question was why <ξ> and <ψ> are single letters, while <τσ> is a digraph.

con quesa wrote:Secondly, how do you write ν and υ such that they are easily disambiguable?

Look at what you just wrote. Yeah. There you go.

YngNghymru wrote:Yeah... you can tell the difference between Latin <v> and <u>, can't you?

not in handwriting, no

Nortaneous wrote:

YngNghymru wrote:Yeah... you can tell the difference between Latin <v> and <u>, can't you?

not in handwriting, no

I can clearly distinguish my <v> and <u>. True, curly styles of handwriting might blur them a little, but again:

And context is always underestimated.

Nortaneous wrote:

YngNghymru wrote:Yeah... you can tell the difference between Latin <v> and <u>, can't you?

not in handwriting, no

You're joking?! In handwriting one joins at the top, the other at the bottom with a descender (well, whatever you call a vertical line that doesn't ascend or descend), couldn't be more different really. u and n are easier to mix up in my opinion.

Well, I can distinguish u and v in my handwriting, too, but judging from what Nort has shown us of his quickly scribbled notes I doubt they are very distinct in his. Because nothing is.

Skomakar'n wrote:

con quesa wrote:First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

I asked this question once on here. See if you can find my topic. My question was why <ξ> and <ψ> are single letters, while <τσ> is a digraph.

The cluster /ts/ did not occur in most dialects of Ancient Greek (including Ionic, which the classical alphabet was made for) - it had become /s/. Hence, there was no need for a letter for it. (Don't ask me where the /ts/ in Modern Greek is from, though.)

WeepingElf wrote:

Skomakar'n wrote:

con quesa wrote:First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

I asked this question once on here. See if you can find my topic. My question was why <ξ> and <ψ> are single letters, while <τσ> is a digraph.

The cluster /ts/ did not occur in most dialects of Ancient Greek (including Ionic, which the classical alphabet was made for) - it had become /s/. Hence, there was no need for a letter for it. (Don't ask me where the /ts/ in Modern Greek is from, though.)

This is the answer I got, yeah. I'm afraid I can't say where the modern sound comes from either.

nu and upsilon are differentiated similarly to v and u, yeah. but lowercase upsilon looks more like a small version of capital U, ie without the stalk/tail.

The funny thing about greek fonts is that I saw a much, much greater scale of variation when I was actually in Greece than I've been able to find on the internet. For instance, eta, which always has a tail in the fonts I have on my computer, often looks exactly like 'n', and lowercase chi and zeta are very often rendered as 'x' and 'z' – again, without the tails that they tend to have on my computer. Capital omega often looks like an O with a line underneath instead of, well, like an omega...

I think at least some of that could be put down to western influence or something.

As for handwriting, to be honest I don't know, and the very few samples of greek handwriting that I've seen i haven't been able to decipher.

As for my own handwriting, I'm not very good at distinguishing v and u, at least when I don't put the tail on the end of u. I often make v quite curly. It doesn't help when I then try to write IPA and come across ʋ, which I often end up putting a little loop or curl on.

I've seen, on the cover of a book presumably in Russian, cyrillic <Д> written as <Δ> and cyrillic <Л> written as <Λ>. I can't say I've ever seen these variations online though, so I'm not surprised in the variations of greek you've seen.

I can tell them apart pretty easily; for one, <ν> never occurs between to consonants. Also, many fonts give <υ> μὲν a down-facing hook on the left, and in-facing one on the right (the latter makes it look rather like <ʋ>), while <ν> δὲ just gets a small serif on the left, at most, which is shorter and thicker than <υ>'s left-hook. Compare the images at the top of Wikipedia's pages on them. And also there is, of course, the rounding.

Also, a Greek phonological/orthographic question of my own: I recently read John Well's page on transcribing Ancient Greek in IPA, and was surprised to see him give <γμ> the value of /ŋm/, which I've never seen anywhere else. How wide spread, well-supported, and current is this reconstruction? What is it's basis?

Jetboy wrote:Also, a Greek phonological/orthographic question of my own: I recently read John Well's page on transcribing Ancient Greek in IPA, and was surprised to see him give <γμ> the value of /ŋm/, which I've never seen anywhere else. How wide spread, well-supported, and current is this reconstruction? What is it's basis?

This is also Allen's recommendation in Vox Graeca. He offers two supporting arguments, one based on the easier explanation of what would otherwise be some verbal irregularities, the other being that it explains the somewhat odd use of γ for ŋ before velars. (Latin and English have the same assimilation but use n, not g-- cf. angulus, ink).

Jetboy wrote:Also, a Greek phonological/orthographic question of my own: I recently read John Well's page on transcribing Ancient Greek in IPA, and was surprised to see him give <γμ> the value of /ŋm/, which I've never seen anywhere else. How wide spread, well-supported, and current is this reconstruction? What is it's basis?

That's how I learnt Greek, back in the day. We used Ἀθήναζε.

Zoris wrote:I've seen, on the cover of a book presumably in Russian, cyrillic <Д> written as <Δ> and cyrillic <Л> written as <Λ>.

That's not unusual at all (and indeed, the peaked tops of Δ and Λ are actually the older forms in Cyrillic). In handwriting and various decorative fonts they're extremely commonplace, though they aren't really present in your standard 'web fonts' (though of course you'll see them in online images, such as banner ads, all the time).

Does it really surprise anyone that there's a lot more variation in scripts in actual usage?

Mecislau wrote:

Zoris wrote:I've seen, on the cover of a book presumably in Russian, cyrillic <Д> written as <Δ> and cyrillic <Л> written as <Λ>.

That's not unusual at all (and indeed, the peaked tops of Δ and Λ are actually the older forms in Cyrillic). In handwriting and various decorative fonts they're extremely commonplace, though they aren't really present in your standard 'web fonts' (though of course you'll see them in online images, such as banner ads, all the time).

Does it really surprise anyone that there's a lot more variation in scripts in actual usage?

No. What actually surprises me is that there's so little variation in the fonts I can find online. Thai is another good example: I've seen a lot of publicity in the language which is done with a "Western-style" font that looks very similar to a seriffed Latin font, but I have tried to look for such a font online and I find it very difficult. It's quite possible that I'd have to look on a Thai website, which I wouldn't be able to read anyway.

It's just always very different seeing these things online and seeing them IRL.

Skomakar'n wrote:

WeepingElf wrote:

Skomakar'n wrote:

con quesa wrote:First off, why are there separate letters for /ks/ and /ps/, and for no other clusters? What privileges those two?

I asked this question once on here. See if you can find my topic. My question was why <ξ> and <ψ> are single letters, while <τσ> is a digraph.

The cluster /ts/ did not occur in most dialects of Ancient Greek (including Ionic, which the classical alphabet was made for) - it had become /s/. Hence, there was no need for a letter for it. (Don't ask me where the /ts/ in Modern Greek is from, though.)

This is the answer I got, yeah. I'm afraid I can't say where the modern sound comes from either.

<ts> and <tz> mostly seem to come from loanwords (Italian, Turkish, Arabic; specifically /tS/ and /dZ/), though some of the <ts> words are apparently native (maybe from other dialects or from an older sound change?)

A lot of /ts/ in names seems to occur as a replacement for /l/ ... e.g. Speliotis appears also as Spetsiotis, Karakolios as Karakotsios, and so on. But this doesnt explain all of it, just some. Tsetsekas is apparently from the Turkish word for flower.

here's how I do nu and upsilon in handwriting:
So it's basically the bottom that's different, and theyre pretty easy to tell apart. This is just from math, though, I dont handwrite Greek in everyday usage, nor do I ever have to connect letters to other letters.

Soap wrote:Nor do I ever have to connect letters to other letters.

Neither do the Greeks from what I've seen. And I do something similar to what you've written too.

Soap wrote:A lot of /ts/ in names seems to occur as a replacement for /l/ ... e.g. Speliotis appears also as Spetsiotis, Karakolios as Karakotsios, and so on. But this doesnt explain all of it, just some.

Note also Tsakonian, which is a descendant of Laconian. But /l/ > /ts/ is quite a weird sound change

zompist wrote: it explains the somewhat odd use of γ for ŋ before velars.

Mm? How would γ having a value of /ŋ/ before a labial nasal help explain it having that value before velar stops? I'd think you meant that /gm/ assimilated to /ŋm/ so that γ spread to the pre-velar nasal, but it seems like that would negate the irregular verb part, because if /ŋ/ and /g/ were spelled the same, there wouldn't be any visible orthographic difference.

vecfaranti wrote: That's how I learnt Greek, back in the day. We used Ἀθήναζε.

That's what we've been using too, but I'm pretty sure it only said it was before velars. I'll have to check once I have access to it again.

WeepingElf wrote:/l/ > /ts/ is quite a weird sound change

[l] > [ɬ] > [tɬ] > [ts] wouldn't be all that weird, actually...

cedh audmanh wrote:

WeepingElf wrote:/l/ > /ts/ is quite a weird sound change

[l] > [ɬ] > [tɬ] > [ts] wouldn't be all that weird, actually...

Even just [l] > [tɬ] > [ts] or [l] > [ɬ] > [ts].