- Добро пожаловать на Лингвофорум.
Автор temp1ar
- мая 4, 2009, 16:01чушь написал, сорри
иногда лучше жевать, чем писать
иногда лучше жевать, чем писать
Автор Wolliger Mensch
- мая 4, 2009, 15:31Цитата: temp1ar от мая 4, 2009, 14:56
Заимствование в славянские
??
Автор Чайник777
- мая 4, 2009, 15:09Цитата: temp1ar от мая 4, 2009, 14:56Разве? Приведите цитаты, ссылки какие-нибудь, если не трудно?
Заимствование в славянские
Автор temp1ar
- мая 4, 2009, 14:56Цитата: Чайник777 от мая 1, 2009, 18:49Заимствование в славянскиеЦитата: Алексей Гринь от апреля 30, 2009, 19:44Заимствование из славянских
В родных словах — а это обычно после n — заменять на s: Grenz >grens.
Автор Тайльнемер
- мая 4, 2009, 09:19Цитата: Чайник777 от мая 2, 2009, 12:37[zʣ]
А что такое /зѕ/?
Автор Bhudh
- мая 2, 2009, 23:45Цитата: Алексей Гринь от апреля 30, 2009, 21:13Цитата: Alone Coder от апреля 30, 2009, 20:541. По Платону ("Кратил"), ζ развилась из δ.а вообще из [dj]
Цитата: StarLingКорень: įō(u)s- : įūs-
Производные: įōs-to-s `gegürtet', įōs-men- n. `Gurt'
Материал: gr. ζώννυμι `gürte', ζωστός (= av. yāsta-, lit. júostas) `gegürtet', ζωστήρ `Gürtel', ζωμα ds. (*ζωσ-μα vgl. lit. juosmuõ `Gurt'), ζώνη ds. (*ζωσ-νᾱ, vgl. russ.-ksl. pojasnь ds.)
Не только из [dj], но и просто из [j], как известно.
Автор Чайник777
- мая 2, 2009, 12:37Цитата: Wolliger Mensch от апреля 30, 2009, 20:43А что такое /зѕ/?
Скорее, /зѕ/. Из /зд/ исходить не очень удобно, помня о не которых фонетических явлениях в греческом, а также о том, как читали «z» римляне.
![:-\](https://lingvoforum.net/Smileys/default/sm_confused.gif ":-\")
Автор Алексей Гринь
- мая 1, 2009, 19:57Arguments in favour of [zd]
1. IE *zd becomes ζ in Greek (e.g. *sísdō > ἵζω). Contra: these words are rare and it is therefore more probable that *zd was absorbed by *dz (< *dj, *gj, *j).
2. Without [sd] there would be an empty space between [sb] and [sg] in the Greek sound system ( πρεσβύς, σβέννυμι, φάσγανον ), and a voiced affricate [dz] would not have a voiceless correspondent. Contra: a) words with [sb] and [sg] are rare; b) there was [sd] in ὅσδε, εἰσδέχται etc.; and c) there was in fact a voiceless correspondent in Archaic Greek ([ts] > Attic, Boeotian ττ, Ionic, Doric σσ).
3. Persian names with zd and z are transcribed with ζ and σ respectively in Classical Greek (e.g. Artavazda = Ἀρτάβαζος / Ἀρτάοζος ~ Zara(n)ka- = Σαράγγαι. Similarly, the Philistine city Ashdod was transcribed as Αζωτος.
4. ν disappears before ζ like before σ(σ), στ: e.g. *πλάνζω > πλᾰ́ζω, *σύνζυγος = *συνστέλλω > σῠστέλλω. Contra: ν may have disappeared before /dz/ if one accepts that it had the allophone [z] in that position like /ts/ had the allophone [s]: cf. Cretan ἴαττα ~ ἀποδίδονσα (Hinge).
5. Verbs beginning with ζ have ἐ- in the perfect reduplication like the verbs beginning with στ (e.g. ἔζηκα = ἔσταλται). Contra: a) The most prominent example of a verb beginning with στ has in fact ἑ- < *se- in the perfect reduplication (ἕστηκα; b) the words with /ts/ > σ(σ) also have ἐ-: Homer ἔσσυμαι, -ται, Ion. ἐσσημένῳ.
6. Alcman, Sappho, Alcaeus and Theocritus have σδ for Attic-Ionic ζ. Contra: The tradition would not have invented this special digraph for these poets if [zd] was the normal pronunciation in all Greek. Furthermore, this convention is not found in contemporary inscriptions, and the orthography of the manuscripts and papyri is Alexandrine rather than historical. Thus, σδ indicates only a different pronunciation from Hellenistic Greek [z(ː)], i.e. either [zd] or [ʣ].
7. The grammarians Dionysius Thrax and Dionysius of Halicarnassus class ζ with the "double" (διπλᾶ) letters ψ, ξ and analyse it as σ + δ. Contra: The Roman grammarian Verrius Flaccus believed in the opposite sequence, δ + σ (in Velius Longus, De orthogr. 51), and Aristotle says that it was a matter of dispute (Metaph. 993a) (though Aristotle might as well be referring to a [zː] pronunciation).
8. Some Attic transcriptions of Asia Minor toponyms (βυζζαντειον, αζζειον, etc) show a -ζζ- for ζ; assuming that Attic value was [zd], it may be an attempt to transcribe a dialectal [dz] pronunciation; the reverse cannot be ruled completely, but a -σδ- transcription would have been more likely in this case. This suggest that different dialects had different pronunciations.
9. Some Attic inscriptions have -σζ- for -σδ- or -ζ-, which is thought to parallel -σστ- for -στ- and therefore to imply a [zd] pronunciation.
Arguments in favour of [dz]
1. The Greek inscriptions almost never write ζ in words like ὅσδε, τούσδε or εἰσδέχται, so there must have been a difference between this sound and the sound of ἵζω, Ἀθήναζε. Contra: a few inscriptions do seem to suggest that ζ was pronounced like σδ (though it may indeed be a minority pronunciation).
2. It seems improbable that Greek would invent a special symbol for the bisegmental combination [zd], which could be represented by σδ without any problems. /ds/, on the other hand, would have the same sequence of plosive and sibilant as the double letters of the Ionic alphabet ψ /ps/ and ξ /ks/, thereby avoiding a written plosive at the end of a syllable. Contra: the use of a special symbol for [zd] is no more or no less improbable that the use of ψ for [ps] and ξ for [ks], and such use of special letters may be justified by the fact that they are the only double sounds that could appear at a word initial.
3. Boeotian, Elean, Laconian and Cretan δδ are more easily explained as a direct development from *dz than through an intermediary *zd. Contra: a) the sound development dz > dd is improbable (Mendez Dosuna); b) ν has disappeared before ζ > δδ in Laconian πλαδδιῆν (Aristoph., Lys. 171, 990) and Boeotian σαλπίδδω (Sch. Lond. in Dion. Thrax 493), which suggests that these dialects have had a phase of metathesis (Teodorsson).
4. Greek in South Italy has preserved [dz] until modern times. Contra: a) this may be a later development from [zd] or [z]; b) even if it is derived from an ancient [dz], it may be a dialectal pronunciation.
5. Vulgar Latin inscriptions use the Greek letter Z for indigenous affricates (e.g. zeta = diaeta), and the Greek ζ is continued by a Romance affricate in the ending -ίζω > Italian. -eggiare, French -oyer. Contra: whether the prononciation of ζ was [dz], [zd] or [zː], di would probably still have been the closest native Latin sound.
1. IE *zd becomes ζ in Greek (e.g. *sísdō > ἵζω). Contra: these words are rare and it is therefore more probable that *zd was absorbed by *dz (< *dj, *gj, *j).
2. Without [sd] there would be an empty space between [sb] and [sg] in the Greek sound system ( πρεσβύς, σβέννυμι, φάσγανον ), and a voiced affricate [dz] would not have a voiceless correspondent. Contra: a) words with [sb] and [sg] are rare; b) there was [sd] in ὅσδε, εἰσδέχται etc.; and c) there was in fact a voiceless correspondent in Archaic Greek ([ts] > Attic, Boeotian ττ, Ionic, Doric σσ).
3. Persian names with zd and z are transcribed with ζ and σ respectively in Classical Greek (e.g. Artavazda = Ἀρτάβαζος / Ἀρτάοζος ~ Zara(n)ka- = Σαράγγαι. Similarly, the Philistine city Ashdod was transcribed as Αζωτος.
4. ν disappears before ζ like before σ(σ), στ: e.g. *πλάνζω > πλᾰ́ζω, *σύνζυγος = *συνστέλλω > σῠστέλλω. Contra: ν may have disappeared before /dz/ if one accepts that it had the allophone [z] in that position like /ts/ had the allophone [s]: cf. Cretan ἴαττα ~ ἀποδίδονσα (Hinge).
5. Verbs beginning with ζ have ἐ- in the perfect reduplication like the verbs beginning with στ (e.g. ἔζηκα = ἔσταλται). Contra: a) The most prominent example of a verb beginning with στ has in fact ἑ- < *se- in the perfect reduplication (ἕστηκα; b) the words with /ts/ > σ(σ) also have ἐ-: Homer ἔσσυμαι, -ται, Ion. ἐσσημένῳ.
6. Alcman, Sappho, Alcaeus and Theocritus have σδ for Attic-Ionic ζ. Contra: The tradition would not have invented this special digraph for these poets if [zd] was the normal pronunciation in all Greek. Furthermore, this convention is not found in contemporary inscriptions, and the orthography of the manuscripts and papyri is Alexandrine rather than historical. Thus, σδ indicates only a different pronunciation from Hellenistic Greek [z(ː)], i.e. either [zd] or [ʣ].
7. The grammarians Dionysius Thrax and Dionysius of Halicarnassus class ζ with the "double" (διπλᾶ) letters ψ, ξ and analyse it as σ + δ. Contra: The Roman grammarian Verrius Flaccus believed in the opposite sequence, δ + σ (in Velius Longus, De orthogr. 51), and Aristotle says that it was a matter of dispute (Metaph. 993a) (though Aristotle might as well be referring to a [zː] pronunciation).
8. Some Attic transcriptions of Asia Minor toponyms (βυζζαντειον, αζζειον, etc) show a -ζζ- for ζ; assuming that Attic value was [zd], it may be an attempt to transcribe a dialectal [dz] pronunciation; the reverse cannot be ruled completely, but a -σδ- transcription would have been more likely in this case. This suggest that different dialects had different pronunciations.
9. Some Attic inscriptions have -σζ- for -σδ- or -ζ-, which is thought to parallel -σστ- for -στ- and therefore to imply a [zd] pronunciation.
Arguments in favour of [dz]
1. The Greek inscriptions almost never write ζ in words like ὅσδε, τούσδε or εἰσδέχται, so there must have been a difference between this sound and the sound of ἵζω, Ἀθήναζε. Contra: a few inscriptions do seem to suggest that ζ was pronounced like σδ (though it may indeed be a minority pronunciation).
2. It seems improbable that Greek would invent a special symbol for the bisegmental combination [zd], which could be represented by σδ without any problems. /ds/, on the other hand, would have the same sequence of plosive and sibilant as the double letters of the Ionic alphabet ψ /ps/ and ξ /ks/, thereby avoiding a written plosive at the end of a syllable. Contra: the use of a special symbol for [zd] is no more or no less improbable that the use of ψ for [ps] and ξ for [ks], and such use of special letters may be justified by the fact that they are the only double sounds that could appear at a word initial.
3. Boeotian, Elean, Laconian and Cretan δδ are more easily explained as a direct development from *dz than through an intermediary *zd. Contra: a) the sound development dz > dd is improbable (Mendez Dosuna); b) ν has disappeared before ζ > δδ in Laconian πλαδδιῆν (Aristoph., Lys. 171, 990) and Boeotian σαλπίδδω (Sch. Lond. in Dion. Thrax 493), which suggests that these dialects have had a phase of metathesis (Teodorsson).
4. Greek in South Italy has preserved [dz] until modern times. Contra: a) this may be a later development from [zd] or [z]; b) even if it is derived from an ancient [dz], it may be a dialectal pronunciation.
5. Vulgar Latin inscriptions use the Greek letter Z for indigenous affricates (e.g. zeta = diaeta), and the Greek ζ is continued by a Romance affricate in the ending -ίζω > Italian. -eggiare, French -oyer. Contra: whether the prononciation of ζ was [dz], [zd] or [zː], di would probably still have been the closest native Latin sound.
Автор Ванько
- мая 1, 2009, 19:50Цитата: Gerbarius от апреля 30, 2009, 22:41Могла быть ошибка средневекового переписчика, что сигма стоит перед дельтой.
ζ из σ и δ
Автор Алексей Гринь
- мая 1, 2009, 19:07Цитата: Чайник777 от мая 1, 2009, 18:49давно уже родное
Заимствование из славянских