False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 04 Sep 2018 01:30

Shemtov wrote:
02 Sep 2018 19:23
Aren't all :deu: words with a /x/ that is not syllable-final, loan words, unless their is a vowel-initial suffix? I would have never guessed :esp: <carajo> though, I would have guessed a West Slavic loan.
Maybe a better way to say it than "syllable-final" would be "in the coda of a syllable", since Nacht, nichts, Dachs, etc. are permissible words in German.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 04 Sep 2018 02:23

Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:30
Shemtov wrote:
02 Sep 2018 19:23
Aren't all :deu: words with a /x/ that is not syllable-final, loan words, unless their is a vowel-initial suffix? I would have never guessed :esp: <carajo> though, I would have guessed a West Slavic loan.
Maybe a better way to say it than "syllable-final" would be "in the coda of a syllable", since Nacht, nichts, Dachs, etc. are permissible words in German.
/x/ is in the coda in all three of those words.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 04 Sep 2018 02:39

shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:23
Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:30
Shemtov wrote:
02 Sep 2018 19:23
Aren't all :deu: words with a /x/ that is not syllable-final, loan words, unless their is a vowel-initial suffix? I would have never guessed :esp: <carajo> though, I would have guessed a West Slavic loan.
Maybe a better way to say it than "syllable-final" would be "in the coda of a syllable", since Nacht, nichts, Dachs, etc. are permissible words in German.
/x/ is in the coda in all three of those words.
Yes.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Pabappa » 04 Sep 2018 02:48

I think there are a tiny number of exceptions , such as Ache, Kuchen, etc, which have [x] and is a unit rather than e.g. ach + /-e/. Kuchen is perhaps a loan but a very early one. Wiktionary says it's native.
Last edited by Pabappa on 04 Sep 2018 02:50, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 04 Sep 2018 02:49

Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:39
shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:23
Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:30
Shemtov wrote:
02 Sep 2018 19:23
Aren't all :deu: words with a /x/ that is not syllable-final, loan words, unless their is a vowel-initial suffix? I would have never guessed :esp: <carajo> though, I would have guessed a West Slavic loan.
Maybe a better way to say it than "syllable-final" would be "in the coda of a syllable", since Nacht, nichts, Dachs, etc. are permissible words in German.
/x/ is in the coda in all three of those words.
Yes.
Uh… oh, wow, I completely misread what you'd written. Sorry. Just ignore my last post, please.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 04 Sep 2018 05:04

Pabappa wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:48
I think there are a tiny number of exceptions , such as Ache, Kuchen, etc, which have [x] and is a unit rather than e.g. ach + /-e/. Kuchen is perhaps a loan but a very early one. Wiktionary says it's native.
Knochen?
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Zé do Rock » 04 Sep 2018 09:42

Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:39
shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 02:23
Khemehekis wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:30
Shemtov wrote:
02 Sep 2018 19:23
Aren't all :deu: words with a /x/ that is not syllable-final, loan words, unless their is a vowel-initial suffix? I would have never guessed :esp: <carajo> though, I would have guessed a West Slavic loan.
Maybe a better way to say it than "syllable-final" would be "in the coda of a syllable", since Nacht, nichts, Dachs, etc. are permissible words in German.
/x/ is in the coda in all three of those words.
PROGRESAL EUROPAN

'Nichts' ha no /x/, ha /ç/. Und in el umgangssprache wird das word /niks/ prononcert. 'Dachs' doesnt have /x/ either, it is /daks/... et veraiment, ny a seulement ache et kuchen, ai buche, kachel, jauche, etc. Meibi se can decir ki la regla is valida si se consider -e, -el, -en, -er finales como terminaciones, mesme ki ellos ha non una funccion de sufijos, así ki se consider esas palabras como ach-e, kuch-en, kach-el, jauch-e, etc


ENGLISH

'Nichts' doesnt have /x/, it has /ç/. And in coloquial language the word is pronounced /niks/. Dachs doesnt have /x/ either, it is /daks/... and indeed, there isnt only acha and kuchen, there is buche, kachel, jauche, etc. Maybe one could say that the rule is valid if we consider final -e, -el, -en, -er as endings, even if they dont have the function of suffixes, so we'd consider these words as ach-e, kuch-en, kach-el, jauch-e, etc

Zé do Rock
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 12 Jul 2018 18:22

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Zé do Rock » 04 Sep 2018 09:48

Salmoneus wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:20
Someone's probably mentioned this already, but Old English (Geman Kuh, etc), vs Old Irish (and modern Irish for that matter) .

These even come quite close together in Scotland - Scots coo vs Scottish Gaelic ...
REFORMADU

Im portugalian: cu = ass


ENGLISH

In portuguese: cu = ass

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 04 Sep 2018 13:19

Zé do Rock wrote:
04 Sep 2018 09:42
'Nichts' doesnt have /x/, it has /ç/.
Isn't [ç] an allophone of /x/?

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 193
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by WeepingElf » 04 Sep 2018 19:20

Salmoneus wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:20
Someone's probably mentioned this already, but Old English (Geman Kuh, etc), vs Old Irish (and modern Irish for that matter) .
Not everybody here knows that the former means 'cow' and the latter 'dog'.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 193
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by WeepingElf » 04 Sep 2018 19:21

shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 13:19
Zé do Rock wrote:
04 Sep 2018 09:42
'Nichts' doesnt have /x/, it has /ç/.
Isn't [ç] an allophone of /x/?
It is. The rule is not "no /x/ within a word" but "no /x/ in syllable onsets".
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 05 Sep 2018 02:09

WeepingElf wrote:
04 Sep 2018 19:20
Salmoneus wrote:
04 Sep 2018 01:20
Someone's probably mentioned this already, but Old English (Geman Kuh, etc), vs Old Irish (and modern Irish for that matter) .
Not everybody here knows that the former means 'cow' and the latter 'dog'.
I know what "Kuh" means, but I don't speak any Celtic languages. As a result, I was thinking maybe the Gaelic word "cú" meant cow, and thought for a while that I was on the false cognates thread.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 05 Sep 2018 02:11

shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 13:19
Zé do Rock wrote:
04 Sep 2018 09:42
'Nichts' doesnt have /x/, it has /ç/.
Isn't [ç] an allophone of /x/?
If [ç] is an allophone of /x/, then how come we have [ç] at the ends of words, like lustig and zwanzig, where [x] would also be possible? There's nothing to prevent German from having words like lustich or zwanzich, AFAIK.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Sep 2018 02:49

Khemehekis wrote:
05 Sep 2018 02:11
shimobaatar wrote:
04 Sep 2018 13:19
Zé do Rock wrote:
04 Sep 2018 09:42
'Nichts' doesnt have /x/, it has /ç/.
Isn't [ç] an allophone of /x/?
If [ç] is an allophone of /x/, then how come we have [ç] at the ends of words, like lustig and zwanzig, where [x] would also be possible? There's nothing to prevent German from having words like lustich or zwanzich, AFAIK.
Disclaimer: I don't know if words like lustig are analyzed phonemically as /ˈlʊstɪx/ or as /ˈlʊstɪg/. In other words, I don't know whether the [ç] here is thought of as an allophone of /g/ having undergone devoicing, lenition, and palatalization, or if the <-g> here is thought of as representing /x/. Also, I am not a native German speaker, and I have not actively studied the language for years now.

With that out of the way:

Why would a hypothetical word lustich not be pronounced identically to lustig? [x] and [ç] can both occur word-finally, but what matters, if I remember correctly, is the preceding sound. Although I'm sure the reality of the situation is more nuanced, put simply, /x/ is realized as [ç] after front vowels (and maybe also after consonants?)*. So, if I'm not mistaken, lustich /ˈlʊstɪx/ would be realized as [ˈlʊstɪç], just like lustig.

Hopefully I haven't completely misread what you've posted again.

*Actually, if I remember correctly, and the phoneme is [x] after non-front vowels and [ç] after front vowels and consonants (in other words, "elsewhere"), then wouldn't it make more sense to represent the phoneme as /ç/? Again, I don't know what the convention is.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 05 Sep 2018 02:56

shimobaatar wrote:
05 Sep 2018 02:49
Khemehekis wrote:
05 Sep 2018 02:11
If [ç] is an allophone of /x/, then how come we have [ç] at the ends of words, like lustig and zwanzig, where [x] would also be possible? There's nothing to prevent German from having words like lustich or zwanzich, AFAIK.
Disclaimer: I don't know if words like lustig are analyzed phonemically as /ˈlʊstɪx/ or as /ˈlʊstɪg/. In other words, I don't know whether the [ç] here is thought of as an allophone of /g/ having undergone devoicing, lenition, and palatalization, or if the <-g> here is thought of as representing /x/. Also, I am not a native German speaker, and I have not actively studied the language for years now.

With that out of the way:

Why would a hypothetical word lustich not be pronounced identically to lustig? [x] and [ç] can both occur word-finally, but what matters, if I remember correctly, is the preceding sound. Although I'm sure the reality of the situation is more nuanced, put simply, /x/ is realized as [ç] after front vowels (and maybe also after consonants?)*. So, if I'm not mistaken, lustich /ˈlʊstɪx/ would be realized as [ˈlʊstɪç], just like lustig.

Hopefully I haven't completely misread what you've posted again.

*Actually, if I remember correctly, and the phoneme is [x] after non-front vowels and [ç] after front vowels and consonants (in other words, "elsewhere"), then wouldn't it make more sense to represent the phoneme as /ç/? Again, I don't know what the convention is.
You haven't misread my post.

Is the ch/g phoneme [ç] after all front vowels? Like ich or nicht? I wasn't aware of such a rule. Maybe you're right about that. And if it's true that it's [ç] after consonants (it's [ç] in Mädchen -- just checked Wiktionary), then maybe you're onto something with the phoneme being /ç/ instead of /x/.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Sep 2018 03:09

Khemehekis wrote:
05 Sep 2018 02:56
Is the ch/g phoneme [ç] after all front vowels? Like ich or nicht? I wasn't aware of such a rule. Maybe you're right about that. And if it's true that it's [ç] after consonants (it's [ç] in Mädchen -- just checked Wiktionary), then maybe you're onto something with the phoneme being /ç/ instead of /x/.
I'm pretty sure. Yeah, at least in the standard variety I learned (Hochdeutsch), ich and nicht are [ɪç] and [nɪçt]. [ç] is even referred to in German as the "ich-Laut", as opposed to the "ach-Laut", [x]. Regarding [ç] occurring after consonants, the word I was thinking of was manchmal "sometimes" [ˈmançmaːl]. I'm pretty sure that <ch> is always [ç] in the diminutive suffix <-chen>, but maybe that's just because it often, if not always, comes after a consonant? I can't think of any words where <-chen> is affixed after a vowel, but if there are any, <-chen> causes umlaut, so wouldn't the preceding vowel become front anyway, leading to the realization of the <ch> as [ç]?

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Pabappa » 05 Sep 2018 03:15

i think that rule is begininng to break down. Wikipedia article http://enwp.org/ich-laut says that Frauchen is a word, which has the suffix after a vowel, pronounced with /ç/, and yet does not trigger umlaut. If this pattern is consdiered standard, one can also create the word Kuhchen, diminutive of Kuh, which would form a minimal pair with Kuchen "cake", where the -chen is part of the root. This would mean that both /ç/ and /x/ are phonemic, though the contrast would be very marginal. Loans are probably a better pillar to build a claim of phonemic /ç/ vs /x/ on.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 05 Sep 2018 03:18

shimobaatar wrote:
05 Sep 2018 03:09
Khemehekis wrote:
05 Sep 2018 02:56
Is the ch/g phoneme [ç] after all front vowels? Like ich or nicht? I wasn't aware of such a rule. Maybe you're right about that. And if it's true that it's [ç] after consonants (it's [ç] in Mädchen -- just checked Wiktionary), then maybe you're onto something with the phoneme being /ç/ instead of /x/.
I'm pretty sure. Yeah, at least in the standard variety I learned (Hochdeutsch), ich and nicht are [ɪç] and [nɪçt]. [ç] is even referred to in German as the "ich-Laut", as opposed to the "ach-Laut", [x]. Regarding [ç] occurring after consonants, the word I was thinking of was manchmal "sometimes" [ˈmançmaːl]. I'm pretty sure that <ch> is always [ç] in the diminutive suffix <-chen>, but maybe that's just because it often, if not always, comes after a consonant? I can't think of any words where <-chen> is affixed after a vowel, but if there are any, <-chen> causes umlaut, so wouldn't the preceding vowel become front anyway, leading to the realization of the <ch> as [ç]?
So that's what "ach-laut" and "ich-laut" are referring to!

"Munch" and "durch" also come to mind. I couldn't find the pronunciation of the surname Munch, but Wiktionary says durch is with [ç], so you're probably right.

As for words with -chen, you have an excellent point about -chen causing umlaut. I can't think of any vowel+chen words either. Aachen and Knochen must not be derived from -chen, or else they'd be Äachen and Knöchen.
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11459
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Sep 2018 03:28

Pabappa wrote:
05 Sep 2018 03:15
i think that rule is begininng to break down. Wikipedia article http://enwp.org/ich-laut says that Frauchen is a word, which has the suffix after a vowel, pronounced with /ç/, and yet does not trigger umlaut. If this pattern is consdiered standard, one can also create the word Kuhchen, diminutive of Kuh, which would form a minimal pair with Kuchen "cake", where the -chen is part of the root. This would mean that both /ç/ and /x/ are phonemic, though the contrast would be very marginal. Loans are probably a better pillar to build a claim of phonemic /ç/ vs /x/ on.
Interesting. I guess [ç] is probably remaining, even when umlaut does not occur, through analogy with the pronunciation of the majority of the words ending in <-chen>? I Googled Kuhchen, and it appears to be attested. At the very least, it has an entry on the German Wiktionary. Regarding loanwords, I didn't even consider those, since this discussion was, at least originally, about native vocabulary, if I'm not mistaken? Not to say that that's an invalid point, of course.
Khemehekis wrote:
05 Sep 2018 03:18
"Munch" and "durch" also come to mind. I couldn't find the pronunciation of the surname Munch, but Wiktionary says durch is with [ç], so you're probably right.

As for words with -chen, you have an excellent point about -chen causing umlaut. I can't think of any vowel+chen words either. Aachen and Knochen must not be derived from -chen, or else they'd be Äachen and Knöchen.
That's very interesting about durch. I was actually just wondering whether [ɐ̯] would be considered a non-front vowel or a consonant (as an allophone of /ʁ/) in terms of conditioning either [ç] or [x]. I guess it's considered a consonant, although my faulty L2 intuition makes me want to read it as [dʊɐ̯x].

Well, see above for what Pabappa said regarding umlaut. Even so, I am pretty sure that the <-chen> in Aachen and Knochen is a part of those words' roots.

Khemehekis
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2288
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 09:36
Location: California über alles

Re: False friends and other unfortunate coincidences

Post by Khemehekis » 05 Sep 2018 03:34

The full pronunciations given on Wiktionary are:

IPA (key): /dʊʁç/, /dʊɐ̯ç/ (standard)
IPA (key): /dʊɐ̯x/, /dʊɪ̯ç/ (regionally)

Note that in standard German, even the [ɐ̯] pronunciation takes [ç]! [dʊɐ̯x] is acceptable regionally though (not sure which regions).
♂♥♂♀

Squirrels chase koi . . . chase squirrels

My Kankonian-English dictionary: 60,000 words and counting

31,416: The number of the conlanging beast!

Post Reply