Talk:Zeta

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Zeta (letter) → Zeta — Since the Greek letter is prominent enough that the term "zeta" should go there instead of a disambiguation page. —Yath 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support  Other uses are derived or obscure. —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 19:47 Z
*Support - I have to agree. If a person searches Zeta they are probably looking for the letter and not some fraternity that has "Zeta" as one of the letters. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support  Other uses are derived or obscure. —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 19:47 Z
*Support - I have to agree. If a person searches Zeta they are probably looking for the letter and not some fraternity that has "Zeta" as one of the letters. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I would like to point out that Ionic (and Doric) σσ (which is regular in the Koine, as well) corresponds to Attic (and Boeotian) ττ, which seems to go back to *[ts] via an intermediate *[θθ] (this sound change has a neat parallel in the Finnish dialects). Interestingly, *[st] in some Greek dialects seems to have merged with *[θθ] and is spelled σσ or ττ respectively (which can be paralleled with developments in Celtic where *[st] becomes [θθ] or [ss], except in Celtiberian). It is tempting to think that the voiced equivalents of *[ts] and *[st] developped in a parallel fashion: First, *[dz] became *[ðð], and *[zd] merged with this sound in various dialects. Then, it became *[zz] in Ionic (but it does not seem to have become [dd] in Attic - on the other hand, perhaps Attic ττ was really a spelling for [θθ] - or even [ts], as suggested in Ancient Greek phonology - anyway, and ζ was likewise a spelling for [ðð] - or even [dz] - in Attic). Then we would have [zz] in the Koine just as we have [ss], and this is (besides the retention of original *[st]) in fact what we find. (Modern Standard Greek, predictably, simplifies the geminates.) This kind of reasoning (paralleling the voiced sounds with the voiceless ones) is not new if one looks at the arguments in favour of [zd] and against. Therefore I think it would be worthwhile to examine if the assumption that *[zd] and *[dz] developped in a manner (largely) parallel to *[st] and *[ts] explains all the facts. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting.  Is it citable? (cf. WP:NOR and WP:RS) --macrakis (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so, I'm afraid. I just wanted to throw it out somewhere. That said, I've always been reluctant to accept the [zd] reading for its eccentricity, but the argument with Bulgarian is a very good one I have to admit now. In fact, even Proto-Slavic */dʲ/ has turned into /ʒd/ in Bulgarian, that would be an even more accurate parallel. (It's also curious that the best parallel is found in a geographically neighbouring language.) Although I have to say it still mystifies me how that works phonetically. But I'm now more ready (than I used to be) to consider the [zd] solution, as well. --84.151.219.189 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Meh, that was me. I got logged out in the meanwhile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation in Ancient Greek 

message: ...Are how I would describe this article. It's biased towards the zd pronunciation with weasel-words such as "most handbooks", contains no footnotes (i.e. I have no idea where to search for the facts in the books in the reference list, even if such facts are contained within them) and mentions authors who lived 500 years after the classical time or have been filtered down to us through Alexandrian scholars. Servus Triviae (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased with unverified (and/or) inaccurate (and/or) irrelevant facts 

message: A person identifying as a zoophile told me that this symbol, Zeta, has been used by zoophiles as a way of identifying themselves to others. Should this be part of this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.22.201 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism

message: In the first argument in favor of a historical value of [zd] for zeta, it mentions that [dz] is more likely because [zd] would violate the sonority hierarchy. However, the sonority hierarchy is only really relative to the position of a cluster in the syllable, so while [zd] might be bad (depending on a language's minimal sonority distance) in the onset because the sequence proceeds from greater to lesser sonority (then followed by a vowel, presumably, which would have the greatest sonority), this is expected in the coda.
Based on that, I think mention of sonority hierarchy should be removed from this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.11 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but bear in mind that ζ (just like most other consonants in Greek) basically only ever occurs in the syllable onset. Greek had very strict rules about restricting syllable codas; apart from -s, -n, -r and some few clusters (-ks, -ps) no consonants could appear in absolute word-final position, and I can't think of many others apart from -l- that could appear in word-internal syllable codas either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonority of affricates/cluster

message: Am I the only one feeling that the treatment of this is getting a bit out of control? There is a whole section with several point "for", another "against", and each point has a "contra" for each point "for" or "against"; and, now,  has been expanding it a lot with several unrelated but parallel examples from Slavic languages. I call it overkill. LjL (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  For and against /zd/ and /dz/ 

message: The article claims there is no distinction between Zeta, and the Latin letter Z in Swedish. This is inaccurate, as there is a distinction in both pronunciation and spelling (although letters are rarely spelled out in Swedish). Zeta is spelled Zeta and pronounced with an ⟨e⟩, and Z is spelled Zäta, and pronounced with an ⟨æ⟩. --AwaweWiki (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other languages