# Phonetic parallelism



## Ben Jamin

Hello
I have been wondering how the following phenomenon is called by professional linguists:

Two related languages have words built up of phonemes that closely correspond in each of the series of words, for example:

Danish _skog_ - Norwegian _skog_
Low German _water_ - English _water_
Italian _casa _- Spanish _casa_
Spanish _bajo_ - Portuguese _baixo_

Except of the last example the graphic representation is the same, but pronunciation differs. Sometimes up to the point that the recognition of the uttered word as a cognate is difficult for an uninitiated person (the first example).
Such pairs of languages show usually many word pairs, where a phoneme in one language corresponds to the phoneme in the other language, so that the whole words are somehow allophonic. 

What is the correct name of such similarity: "word allophony", "phonetic parallelism", or something else?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'm not sure it's anything more technical than talking about the quantity of cognates that the languages share, that they show earlier phonemic (identical) reflexes of the phonemes in the parent language.


----------



## Outsider

I suppose this is what we call 'accent'...


----------



## Ben Jamin

Outsider said:


> I suppose this is what we call 'accent'...


 Accent, I think, is usable about speakers of the same language. 
You can't say that Spanish is an accent of Portuguese, or vice versa.
It is also a non linguistic term. What I wantod to describe with a linguistic term a situation where two separate langauges have a set words that have the same meaning and consist of the same number of phonemes, and the phonemes of one language closely correspond systematically with the phonemes in the other language, sharing the same origin. However, the actual pronunciation of the words may differ in such a degree that they are almost incomprehensible to the speakers of the other language.


----------



## JuanEscritor

Ben Jamin said:


> What I wantod to describe with a linguistic term a situation where two separate langauges have a set words that have the same meaning and consist of the same number of phonemes, and the phonemes of one language closely correspond systematically with the phonemes in the other language, sharing the same origin.



What leads you to conclude that they have the same phonemes?  To take one of your examples, what is the identical phonemic form of English and German ‹water›?

Jon


----------



## artion

I know this is not an english term but in Greek the words which sound the same but have different meaning are called _homo-echous_, from _homou_ (same, together) and _echos_ (sound). 

Could this term possibly be used for this case?


----------



## Ben Jamin

JuanEscritor said:


> What leads you to conclude that they have the same phonemes? To take one of your examples, what is the identical phonemic form of English and German ‹water›?
> 
> Jon


What makes you think that I mean they have the same phonemes?
I wrote: 
_"...consist of the same *number* of phonemes, and the phonemes of one language closely *correspond systematically* with the phonemes in the other language, *sharing the same origin*."_

In English 'water' and Low German 'water' the phomemes have different values, but they have the same origin. Some differ consderably (w = _w_ or _v_), while other are more similar (t). None is identical, but they come from the same Germanic root. There is no such correspndence between French eau and English water.


----------



## Ben Jamin

artion said:


> I know this is not an english term but in Greek the words which sound the same but have different meaning are called _homo-echous_, from _homou_ (same, together) and _echos_ (sound).
> 
> Could this term possibly be used for this case?


 We could use them, if they were really identical, but they are usually more or less different. It is like a horse and a donkey, both have a head, four legs, four hooves, a tail, and so on, they are built analogously, but we usually do not confuse them, they are not _homoformous,_ they are _similiformous_.


----------



## artion

Until an expert come up with the established term, we can have some fun coinning hypothetical terms.
- _Homologous_. This is also used for chromosomes that carry (almost) the *same* *information* and the look *alike*. The best choice, I recon.
- _Plesiophonous_ or _plesio-echous_ (from plesion = close, near). These are words that I invented and are close to your _similiforms. _They don't reflect the "common meaning", though.
- _Sister-words._ Compare it with the "sister-chromosomes" which are also identical in construction and information.


----------



## JuanEscritor

Okay, so you are looking for a term to describe the relationship between phonemes in daughter languages that have been begotten of a single phoneme in their ancestral parent language?  

If so, consider the term already in use to describe _words _with this relationship: cognates.  I don't think it would be at all out of place to apply this term to phonemes.

JE


----------



## Ben Jamin

JuanEscritor said:


> Okay, so you are looking for a term to describe the relationship between phonemes in daughter languages that have been begotten of a single phoneme in their ancestral parent language?
> 
> If so, consider the term already in use to describe _words _with this relationship: cognates. I don't think it would be at all out of place to apply this term to phonemes.
> 
> JE


 I think you are coming closer to understanding my meaning, but I am not concerned with single phonemes, but with whole words. Cognates, on the other hand, describe words of common origin, regardless if they are "plesiophonous" or not. Acqua, agua and eau are all cognates, and descendants from a common ancestor - latin aqua, but only acqua and agua are plesiophonous, eau is not: the number of phonemes is different, and there is no consonnant in eau, there is no systematic correspondence of phonemes in other words either.


----------



## Ben Jamin

artion said:


> Until an expert come up with the established term, we can have some fun coinning hypothetical terms.
> - _Homologous_. This is also used for chromosomes that carry (almost) the *same* *information* and the look *alike*. The best choice, I recon.
> - _Plesiophonous_ or _plesio-echous_ (from plesion = close, near). These are words that I invented and are close to your _similiforms. _They don't reflect the "common meaning", though.
> - _Sister-words._ Compare it with the "sister-chromosomes" which are also identical in construction and information.


 I buy _Plesiophonous!_ Thanks!


----------



## sokol

I don't think that there is an established 'name' for this phenomenon. The closest there is, in my opinion, would be 'false friend' (as in most cases those very similar words still have slightly different connotations) - or, in case they aren't really false friends because they're almost exactly equivalent, then I'd use the neologism 'true friend' (I've seen that one used on occasion already, in publications for learners of a language).

Except if you count 'cognate' - this of course is an established term, but it does not say anything about phonological or even phonetic structure plus meaning = semantics being near-identical.
To bring discussion back on a more serious plane  (not that I'd like to be a spoilsport, but this after all is a serious forum ;-), I'd rather prefer something like *'interlingual*) synonyms'* which might or might not be* 'cognates'.*

*) Intralingual = within one 'language' (however loosely that one might be defined); interlingual = between two (or more) different 'languages'.


----------



## artion

But "synonyms" may have completely different phonem, e.g. casa - home. 
Sorry if I spoil the seriousness of the phorum, but, how about "_synonymophones"_ or "_synphononyms_", i.e. both synonyms and syn-phones? It is understantable that in "synonyms" a slight variation of meaning is tolerable and "syn-phones" rarely sound exactly the same if spoken by different language speakers.


----------



## sokol

Well, I guess we should differentiate between inventing funny new words (something I love to do myself) and defining new terminologies.

Funny new words however are chat, and do not belong to this forum.

Defining new terminologies now, that's a different thing.

If you really intend to define new terminologies, and more importantly manage to gain acceptance for them, then we've got a long way to go. "Syn-phone" is not an accepted term, and it doesn't really make much sense (except out of fun) to use it if it isn't accepted and, most importantly, many even wouldn't understand what is meant by it.

So anyway, you cannot define a term like, say, "synonymophones", by explaining it as an extension of "synphone", as the latter isn't even an accepted term nobody would know what "synonymophones" except if you explain, which means that the term basically would be useless.


----------



## Frank06

Out of curiosity, which purpose would the new term serve?


----------



## sokol

Frank06 said:


> Out of curiosity, which purpose would the new term serve?


Excellent question! I didn't think about this at all. Of course it wouldn't be worth the effort to try and create a new scientific term if there were no practical uses for it.


----------

