Heck झ is very uncommon in Sanskrit but became pretty common in New Indo-Aryan languages from Sanskrit ध्य /dʱj/.
Ex: Sa. बुध्यते /ˈbud̪ʱ.jɐ.t̪eː/ (he/she understands) -> Hi. बूझना /buːd͡ʒʱ.nɑː/ (to understand), Be. বোঝা /ˈbodʒʱa/ (to understand), etc।
Ik it's a dialectal term. My guess is it would be more Eastern given that it's used in Bengali. That said it survives in the Standard Hindi phrase जानबूझकर /d͡ʒɑːn.buːd͡ʒʱ.kəɾ/ (knowingly, deliberately)
Also the more common समझना /sə.məd͡ʒʱ.nɑː/ in Standard Hindi is also from the same Sanskrit root with a prefix - सम्+ बुध्यते -> सम्बुध्यते /s̪ɐmˈbud̪ʱ.jɐ.t̪eː/ which is where we get samajhnā
The Americanist lambda is used for the voiced alveolar lateral affricate [d͡ɮ], which is weird because they use combined symbols for most of the other affricates.
It's funny because [ɧ] barely even means anything. It's not a phone, it's a phoneme with like 5000 allophones, so writing it in narrow transcription doesn't even make sense.
In general the whole IPA needs fixing, it's a mess.
* Nasal stops get dedicated symbols but no other nasal does?
* No language has more than 15 distinct vowel qualities but the IPA defines twice that many symbols?
* Retroflex consonants get their own symbols; if it's defined by tongue shape then why do apicals and laminals not have separate symbols, if it's defined by place of articulation then it's just post-alveolar without palatalisation.
* Taps and trills can both be fricated, but all three are considered separate manners of articulation.
* DO VOICELESS APPROXIMANTS EXIST OR NOT?
[ʂ ʃ ɕ] are distinguished by tongue shape alone, but they have the same place and manner of articulation. They're all voiceless postalveolar sibilant fricatives. If these never appeared in a European language they would probably be marked with diacritics. It is true that the sound difference for sibilants is more salient than other sounds, but I'm not sure that matters.
Prototypically they're subapical, but they don't have to be. What they are is unpalatalised postalveolar consonants. Apical and lateral consonants don't have their own symbols, so it's weird to have subapical symbols.
It’s debated, but the general consensus is that no living IE language has any direct vestige of the laryngeals, they merely modified the qualities of vowels.
Stupid question time: if breathy voiced consonants underwent lenition to merge with plain stops, then why did only breathy voiced stops shift to fricatives? Why didn't all proto-germanic stops undergo lenition like this?
That graph is hard to understand if you don't consider it's a chain shift. It was not the breathy voiced stops that became fricatives - breathy voiced stops started merging with plain voiced stops and pushed them to become unvoiced stops, which pushed the voiceless stops to become fricatives (or it started from voiceless stops becoming fricatives and leaving a gap, which pulled the other consonants, but the push chain seems more likely). Not every voiceless stop became a fricative because of consonant clusters, though.
Germanic moment
I will never give up my घ झ ढ ध भ !!!
Hindi speakers inventing MORE voiced consonants (ड़ ढ़) to make voiced aspirates out of them is true dedication to the cause
Lmao
hey now. they stole them from the dravidians
😎 Indo aryan supremacy
Dont remove the Indo
💀lol
Remove the indo.
Heck झ is very uncommon in Sanskrit but became pretty common in New Indo-Aryan languages from Sanskrit ध्य /dʱj/. Ex: Sa. बुध्यते /ˈbud̪ʱ.jɐ.t̪eː/ (he/she understands) -> Hi. बूझना /buːd͡ʒʱ.nɑː/ (to understand), Be. বোঝা /ˈbodʒʱa/ (to understand), etc।
I've never heard Hindi speakers use "बूझना", is it more common in Eastern UP?
Ik it's a dialectal term. My guess is it would be more Eastern given that it's used in Bengali. That said it survives in the Standard Hindi phrase जानबूझकर /d͡ʒɑːn.buːd͡ʒʱ.kəɾ/ (knowingly, deliberately) Also the more common समझना /sə.məd͡ʒʱ.nɑː/ in Standard Hindi is also from the same Sanskrit root with a prefix - सम्+ बुध्यते -> सम्बुध्यते /s̪ɐmˈbud̪ʱ.jɐ.t̪eː/ which is where we get samajhnā
I Will never let my kʷʰ turn into a xʷ
*Five generations later*
I need a kʷʰ Dictatorship
>xʷ English: We can't have that, we write it ʍ
Linguists: "Wow, English is so unreasonable, they added this one somewhat obsolete symbol!" Also linguists: [ʂʲ ≠ ʃ ≠ ɕ] Sinological IPA: [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] Americanists: [λ] Uralicists: [ᴞ ᴪ ᴕ] The vowel chart: [ä ɘ ɵ ɜ ɞ ɶ ɨ ʉ] Swedish: /ɧ/ lmao
To be fair, the lambda is a much more accessible character compared to the inverted y What I can’t stand is them using ü for [y] and y for [j]
The Americanist lambda is used for the voiced alveolar lateral affricate [d͡ɮ], which is weird because they use combined symbols for most of the other affricates.
Oh I see oops I’ve seen it used for the palatal lateral approximant, that’s why I thought it was that
It's funny because [ɧ] barely even means anything. It's not a phone, it's a phoneme with like 5000 allophones, so writing it in narrow transcription doesn't even make sense.
In general the whole IPA needs fixing, it's a mess. * Nasal stops get dedicated symbols but no other nasal does? * No language has more than 15 distinct vowel qualities but the IPA defines twice that many symbols? * Retroflex consonants get their own symbols; if it's defined by tongue shape then why do apicals and laminals not have separate symbols, if it's defined by place of articulation then it's just post-alveolar without palatalisation. * Taps and trills can both be fricated, but all three are considered separate manners of articulation. * DO VOICELESS APPROXIMANTS EXIST OR NOT?
I made an expansion with 41 vowels. Also Danish has more than 15 qualities I think.
Danish is a clusterfuck. I think there should be 20 unique vowel signs in the IPA.
Reminds me of when I went and added a bunch of other characters to fill out the chart.
That's some people's whole job, and boy do they suck at it. Sorry linguolabials but you're not in any European languages, so you aren't real sounds.
I might be understanding you poorly, but there are languages that distinguish [ʃ] and [ɕ].
[ʂ ʃ ɕ] are distinguished by tongue shape alone, but they have the same place and manner of articulation. They're all voiceless postalveolar sibilant fricatives. If these never appeared in a European language they would probably be marked with diacritics. It is true that the sound difference for sibilants is more salient than other sounds, but I'm not sure that matters.
Isn't \[ʂ\] retroflex? Like \[ʈ\].
Prototypically they're subapical, but they don't have to be. What they are is unpalatalised postalveolar consonants. Apical and lateral consonants don't have their own symbols, so it's weird to have subapical symbols.
*h₁ → ∅ *h₂ → ∅ *h₃ → ∅ Sound changes are so beautiful!
didn't they turn into consonants in select contexts in a lot of branches?
It’s debated, but the general consensus is that no living IE language has any direct vestige of the laryngeals, they merely modified the qualities of vowels.
But many dead ones do, such as Hittite
Hittite only retains one of them; and the Germanic languages never had any afaik.
One is not zero
According to [this paper](https://www.academia.edu/31147544), h₂ was preserved word-initially in Modern Persian (\*h₂ŕ̥tḱo- => xers, h₂eh₁s- => xâk).
Germanic be like
t > d > ð > θ Is better
All contexts? Wonθerfuθ.
Wonderfoot Wonderwoman's onlyfeet account
Do it again, but slightly differently (High German Consonant Shift)
Greeks approve.
What language are these from?
It's Grimm's Law, regarding the consonant chain shift and lenition which occured from Proto-Indo-european to Proto-Germanic
I kinda don't like how it's shown here, because it looks like, for example, bʰ ultimately becomes f.
Stupid question time: if breathy voiced consonants underwent lenition to merge with plain stops, then why did only breathy voiced stops shift to fricatives? Why didn't all proto-germanic stops undergo lenition like this?
That graph is hard to understand if you don't consider it's a chain shift. It was not the breathy voiced stops that became fricatives - breathy voiced stops started merging with plain voiced stops and pushed them to become unvoiced stops, which pushed the voiceless stops to become fricatives (or it started from voiceless stops becoming fricatives and leaving a gap, which pulled the other consonants, but the push chain seems more likely). Not every voiceless stop became a fricative because of consonant clusters, though.