# The digraph and sound "ch" in Latin



## Ben Jamin

I know only one word in Latin that contains the "ch" digraph and (presumably) the corresponding "x" sound, and seems to be originally Latin, and not Greek (or any other language).

The word is *pulcher*.

Is this assumption correct, or is *pulcher* also a Greek loan?


----------



## CapnPrep

You might be interested in the following thread (which you started ):
The ch orthography


----------



## Ben Jamin

Thanks! It proves sadly that five years is enough to forget such things.


----------



## wtrmute

According to Lewis and Short:



> *pulcher , *chra, chrum, and less correctly *pulcer , cra, crum, adj. for pol-cer, root pol-ire, akin with parēre, apparēre, prop. bright, shining*



So clearly not Greek.  Obviously, the [ch] sound does not necessarily represent the /kʰ/ phoneme which was borrowed from Greek, but then again, it might represent some early Etruscan influence.

On the other hand, if Archaic Latin did pronounce _pulcher_ as /pʊlkʰəɾ/, but there is no minimal pair (that is, pair of words which differ only by replacing /k/ with /kʰ/), then even if the pronunciation varies, formally it's not a phoneme.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete!



> I know only one word in Latin that contains the "ch" digraph


 (Ben Jamin, #1)
There are also _cachinnare_ (granted, this is onomatopoeic and may anyway have been subject to Greek influence) and the Sempronian _cognomen_, _Gracchus_.

Σ


----------



## wandle

L&S have a few more. This search (for words beginning with 'ch') brings up six pages of results, most presumably of Greek origin.

The sound both in Greek and Latin is I think correctly described as that of an aspirated unvoiced velar stop.


----------



## CapnPrep

wandle said:


> L&S have a few more. This search (for words beginning with 'ch') brings up six pages of results, most presumably of Greek origin.


And Ben Jamin is asking specifically about native Latin words.

Allen (_Vox Latina_) mentions the following examples of _ch_ appearing in native Latin words starting from the end of the 2nd cent. BC: _pulcher_, _lachrima_, _sepulchrum_, _bracchium_, _Gracchus_; "less generally" _lurcho_, _anchora_, _Orchus_; "occasionally" _chorona_, _praecho, archa_, _trichlinium_, _exerchitator_, _fulchra_, _Volchanus_, _Marchus_.


> _t would be easy to dismiss the aspirated pronunciation as a mere fashionable misapplication of Greek speech-habits. […] But it is remarkable that in nearly all the attested cases the aspiration occurs in the vicinity of a 'liquid' consonant (r or l). It seems more probable, therefore, that the aspiration represents a special but natural environmental development in Latin itself, which may possibly have varied in different areas and social strata. (ibid., p. 26f)_


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo!

And we have forgotten Catullus 84.

Σ


----------



## wandle

CapnPrep said:


> And Ben Jamin is asking specifically about native Latin words.


I did not feel like checking through them all!

As for the pronunciation, we need to distinguish at least three kinds: (a) the unaspirated velar (Greek *κ*, Latin *c*), (b) the aspirated velar (Greek *χ*, Latin *ch*) and (c) softer, more guttural sounds, such as Scottish _loch_ or German _ach_. Other sounds such as German _ich_ or English _ch_ (as in 'church') are further away still.

My understanding of the matter is that:
sound (a), the unaspirated velar, hardly occurs in English; sound (b), the aspirated velar, is the normal sound of English *k* and hard *c*; and that consequently for English speakers attempting a true pronunciation of classical Latin or Greek it is in practice difficult to render the two sounds differently. However, even if we pronounce both (a) and (b) in a somewhat similar way, we will not be too far wrong. 

The one thing we need to avoid is the temptation to treat Greek *χ* and Latin *ch* as if they resembled Scottish _loch_ or German _ach_, let alone German _ich_, etc.


Scholiast said:


> And we have forgotten Catullus 84.



Very relevant. I think that poem (first line: _*Chommoda dicebat, siquando commoda vellet*_; last line: _*iam non Ionios esse sed Hionios*_) supports the point that the *ch*-sound is merely the aspirated velar rather than anything like the German _ach_-sound.


----------



## Ben Jamin

wandle said:


> ... sound (a), the unaspirated velar, hardly occurs in English ...



Is this really true? What about all "k-s" in the middle or at the end of a word. Are they so rare?


----------



## wandle

They are not rare, but I am not sure exactly what sound we give them. No doubt aspiration is stronger or more frequent in the initial position.


----------



## Ben Jamin

So, summing up we can say: Aspiration of the sound K in Latin was a phonetic trend that ocurred in classical Latin, and was a popular phenomenon. Not following it was regarded as snobbish in Cicero's time. The trend never produced a pure *χ  *sound il classical Latin.
The word "pulcher" has many proposed etymologies, but most plausible is that is was a word developed purely from IE Latin roots, and not a loan.


----------



## wandle

If I understand correctly, the aspirated velar stop (pronounced like English 'c' in 'cat') came into Latin as words were adopted from Greek, in which it was relatively common.
 Prior to that, I believe Latin had only the unaspirated velar stop (for example, *c* in _*canis*_).
 Apart from Greek loan-words, the aspirated consonant appears to have occurred only very rarely in Latin.


----------



## CapnPrep

wandle said:


> If I understand correctly, the aspirated velar stop (pronounced like English 'c' in 'cat') came into Latin as words were adopted from Greek, in which it was relatively common.
> Prior to that, I believe Latin had only the unaspirated velar stop (for example, *c* in _*canis*_).


Allen's idea is that aspiration (triggered by a nearby liquid) may have already been a feature of Latin pronunciation, but since it was allophonic, and probably only sporadic (regional, stylistic), the Romans didn't have a way or feel a need to indicate it graphically. After the introduction of ‹ch› etc. in Greek loans, it became possible to use the same digraph for the same sound in Latin words.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo everyone.

One lives and learns: I always thought Lat. "anchora" came from Greek "ánkyra", itself from "ánchos", _bend_.

GS


----------



## sicerabibax

Hello,

My old "Gaffiot" sends form "anchŏra" to "ancŏra" and tells that it does come from ἅγκυρα...


----------

