From what I understand, zeta was pronounced as /zd/ in Attic during the 5th century BC arising from a previous /dz/.
Was this metathesis unique to 5th c. BC Attic or was it innovated by other dialects of Ancient Greek?
4
-
3Note that some cases of Attic ⟨ζ⟩ (zeta) /zd/ are continuation of Proto-Hellenic *zd from PIE *sd (maybe already voiced in PIE). In other dialects, they were spelt as ⟨σδ⟩ (sigma + delta). (Sigma was probably pronounced as voiced /z/ before all voiced consonants (e.g. ⟨σβ⟩ = /zb/ as in ἄσβεστος).) E.g. Attic ἵζω (hízō), Doric ἵσδω (hísdō). You can investigate which dialects (other than Attic and Doric) use which spelling for these words which have original /zd/ from Proto-Hellenic *zd.– ArfreverCommented Jan 26 at 7:20
-
Also term metathesis is incorrect for that phonological change in Attic. Metathesis is inversion of consonants or vowels. It is assumed that ⟨ζ⟩ (zeta) was originally pronounced as single affricate consonant /d͡z/ (voiced alveolar sibilant affricate), not sequence of 2 consonants: plosive + fricative /dz/ (voiced alveolar plosive /d/ + voiced alveolar sibilant fricative /z/).– ArfreverCommented Jan 26 at 7:49
-
2@Arfrever Whatever sound it represented, ζ often represents a merger across morpheme boundaries, so even if it was a single affricate at some given time, it (mostly) originated as the merger of distinct elements. The metathesis presumably happened before this merger, at a time when the elements were still perceived as distinct. Plus it’s uncertain whether it was ever a single phone; the fact that it frequently counts as a double consonant in poetry, making the previous syllable heavy, goes against such an analysis, for example.– Janus Bahs JacquetCommented Jan 26 at 9:35
-
2@JanusBahsJacquet Inherited clusters *ts, *ds and *tʰs merged with *t͡s (outcome of first palatalization of *tj, *tʰj) into *t͡s, which in Attic developed into s or tt. While original *dj, *gj and *gʷj would develop, through *d͡z and *ďď, ultimately into Attic zd (and merging with inherited *zd from PIE *sd, as I mentioned in my earlier comment). Some summary based on Sihler 1995 here.– ArfreverCommented Jan 26 at 11:01
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Per Teodorsson 1979:325
In Elean, Laconian, and temporarily in Cretan, the normal spelling is ⟨Δ(Δ)⟩, beside ⟨Τ(Τ)⟩ (Cret. and El.) and ⟨Ζ⟩ (Cret.). In these dialects, then, the pronunciation was probably [d(:)], or an affricate, or possibly [ð(:)]. The last two alternatives are also most probable for Corinthian and Argolic.
("On the Pronunciation of Ancient Greek Zeta", Sven-Tage Teodorsson, Lingua 47, 323-332)
Teodorsson interprets [d(:)] as the endpoint of a change *[ʒdʒ] > *[ʒd] > *[zd] > [d:] (page 330).
Teodorsson (at least at this point this article was written) did not accept the communis opinio that zeta became [zd] in Ionic-Attic: he considers [zd] in the historical period to have been a pecularity of the Lesbian dialect (corresponding to the transmission of the digraph spelling "σδ" in Lesbian poetry):
It appears that the occurrence of [zd] in historical Greek is reduced to literary Lesbian, and to the theory of the grammarians. It is tempting to surmise that this coincidence may be significant. It was perhaps only in Lesbian that [zd] (< *[ʒdʒ]) was not assimilated into [d:] but remained in historical times.
(330-331)
Note that the general topic is one of the most debated points of Ancient Greek phonetics. There is copious literature on it that I have not read. For a conflicting viewpoint, see Cairnarvon's answer to What evidence is there for the classical pronunciation of zeta?
-
2+1. A good summary of the arguments pro and contra [zd] and [dz] is given in the Wikipedia article on ζ. Commented Jan 26 at 17:17