# German: -chs- (pronunciation)



## AndrasBP

Hello, 

In German words such as "Da*chs*", "Fu*chs*" or "We*chs*el", the sequence -chs- is pronounced */ks/*, not /xs/ or /çs/ as the spelling suggests.
Is it just a spelling convention, the fricative sounds being phonotactically impossible before /s/, or did the pronunciation of these words change to /ks/ some time in history, the spelling representing an older phonology?


----------



## berndf

There was probably a PGm [-xs] which in some WGm languages became [-ks] and in others [-s]/[-ss], e.g., Eng. _fox_, HGerm. _Fuchs_, LGerm/Dutch _vos_. There are two forms for a female fox: German _Füchsin_/English _vixen_, which has an s and the hardening to [k]. But there is also a second female form without s and without [k]: _Fehe_. The oldest OHG forms of _Fuchs_ and _Fehe_ are _fuhs_ and _foha_. By contrast in Old English we find _fox_ and _fyxen_ (corresponding to _Füchsin_). So, the hardening was probably already complete in Old English but not in OHG. That would at explain why [ks] is still spelled _chs_ and not _x_ as in English.


----------



## AndrasBP

Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Red Arrow

Apparantly Austrians pronounce Daxs as /daxs/.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dachs#Pronunciation


----------



## berndf

Occasionally, yes. It is regular in Swiss German, like e.g. in Zurich German _Sächsilüüte _(six o'clock bells). The is a form of the second Germanic consonant shift k>kx>x occurring only in very South as in the probably most famous Swiss German word _*Ch*uchi*ch*äschtli_ (*K*_üchen*k*ästlein_).


----------



## AndrasBP

berndf said:


> It is regular in Swiss German, like e.g. in Zurich German _Sächsilüüte _(six o'clock bells).


Yes, the /xs/ cluster is clearly audible in this dialect.
Do you know if that's an "archaic" feature where the /xs/ > /ks/ "hardening" has never happened, or is that a secondary consonant shift?


----------



## berndf

That is why I compared it to the k>x in other cases in Swiss dialect. I would assume this to be a later development but I am not sure.


----------



## Riverplatense

Red Arrow said:


> Apparantly Austrians pronounce Daxs as /daxs/.
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dachs#Pronunciation



I've never heard this pronunciation, except for some isolated cases that I'd consider hypercorrection. This pronunciation appears to be even less likely taking into account that in dialectal speech (I'm not sure for Vorarlberg, but in Bavarian dialects definitely) the pronunciation with /x/ is rather unthinkable. Besides, also _Duden – Das Aussprachewörterbuch_ only gives [daks], without any alternative pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

Riverplatense said:


> I've never heard this pronunciation, except for some isolated cases that I'd consider hypercorrection.


Except in Vorarlberg and Tirol, maybe.


----------



## Riverplatense

berndf said:


> Except in Vorarlberg and Tirol, maybe.



Yes, maybe in the Alemmanic part of far eastern Tyrol. Yet as I'm Tyrolean, my observations about Bavarian dialects are mainly based on this land, anyway.


----------



## eamp

I think in Austria this is purely a spelling pronunciation, all the Bavarian dialects have /ks/ here and the few samples I could find from Vorarlberg also had /ks/ (not to say there could not exist pockets that indeed have /xs/).
From personal experience I would say the pronunciation with /xs/ is on the rise here in Vienna though, especially among younger women. And then it is applied most consistently in the word 'sechs' to avoid homophony with 'Sex'. In this regard I have even heard some go as far as voicing the initial s - only in this word - to maximize the contrast: /zexs/ vs. /seks/ ...

In Switzerland almost all dialects have /xs/, exceptions I found include some areas near Lake Constance, Basel and Walser German, so its use in spoken Swiss Standard German is not surprising.
I don't think this pronunciation can easily be related to the simplification of initial /kx/ to /x/, and considering there does exist a contrast /xs/ - /ks/ in these dialects, I reckon an archaism is most likely here.


----------



## berndf

eamp said:


> considering there does exist a contrast /xs/ - /ks/ in these dialects


Not that I know of. High Alemannic (except for the regional exeptions you mentioned) have lost the /k/ phoneme completely (there is only <gg> as in _Weggli_ or _Schoggi_ as a reflex of original /k:/). Any [-ks-] would occur in foreign words only.


----------



## AndrasBP

Even in Standard German, the fricative is preserved is *sechzehn */ˈzɛ*ç*tseːn/. 
Has the "hardening" to /k/ never happened here or is it a secondary "softening" somehow caused by /ts/?


----------



## berndf

AndrasBP said:


> Even in Standard German, the fricative is preserved is *sechzehn */ˈzɛ*ç*tseːn/.
> Has the "hardening" to /k/ never happened here or is it a secondary "softening" somehow caused by /ts/?


The _s_ of _sech*s*_ is lost in _sechzehn_. And it was lost relatively early, still in OHG. So there is no reason for /x/>/k/ to happen any more.


----------



## eamp

berndf said:


> Not that I know of. High Alemannic (except for the regional exeptions you mentioned) have lost the /k/ phoneme completely (there is only <gg> as in _Weggli_ or _Schoggi_ as a reflex of original /k:/). Any [-ks-] would occur in foreign words only.


Well, yes, original (West-Germanic) /k/ has certainly disappeared, but that wasn't really what I wanted to signify...
What I mean is that these dialects distinguish between a cluster consisting of a velar stop plus s and one of a velar fricative plus s while Standard German doesn't (except at morpheme boundaries). 
Of course the first kind is secondary, arising from syncope of a vowel between a stop and s and later from loanwords, but in any case only Swiss German seems to maintain a pronunciation difference. 
Though the actual situation is complex as there are 5 potential ohg. velar sequences /kk/, /gg/, /g/, /hh/ and /h/ plus the two kinds of sibilant sounds, all of which could result in a different outcome once in contact. And dialects indeed seem to show a variety of outcomes, but I find it too difficult to come by reliable transcripts for some quick insights ...


----------



## bearded

Riverplatense said:


> in the Alemmanic part of far eastern Tyrol


Hi
Do you mean ''Alemannic part of far _western _Tyrol''? I thought the Alemannic part was towards the Swiss border.


----------



## fdb

“Lachs” is /laks/, but “du lachst” is /du laxst/. Likewise “Bachs Kantaten” is /baxs/, not /baks/. Oder?


----------



## berndf

Correct. The change is not productive, i.e. it is not applied across morpheme boundaries.


----------



## ahvalj

AndrasBP said:


> did the pronunciation of these words change to /ks/ some time in history, the spelling representing an older phonology?


In Gothic, _*xs_>_hs_ is consistently found in these cases (Search the Gothic Bible): cp._ saihs, wahsjan, taihswa, ahs._ Recent loanwords retain _ks:_ _Alaiksandrus__, __*Arfaksads_.

Middle High German (e. g. in Matthias Lexers Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch) still writes _hs: sehs, wëhsel, wahsen, ahse, vuhs, dahs._


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> In Gothic, _*xs_>_hs_


What do you mean? X and h is the same thing. X and h split into different phonemes only in the high/late middle ages.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> What do you mean? X and h is the same thing. X and h split into different phonemes only in the late middle ages.


I meant the original Germanic sound transliterated at the turn of the eras by Romans as _ch_ and Greeks as _χ_ in cases like _Chattī__ > Hesse, Chamavī > Hamaland, Chaucī, Cheruscī, Charudēs > Hordaland, Chalī, Chaemae, Chaedinī > heathen _etc.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> I meant the original Germanic sound transliterated at the turn of the eras by Romans as _ch_ and Greeks as _χ_ in cases like _Chattī__ > Hesse, Chamavī > Hamaland, Chaucī, Cheruscī, Charudēs > Hordaland, Chalī, Chaemae, Chaedinī > heathen _etc.


Yes, that is the same as _h_. What we express by "h" today was an allophone of this sounds that developed some time in the middle ages. When exactly is not clear because Germanic languages started to differentiate them in writing only around 1200.


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, phonemically, but I meant the actual sounds. Wulfila uses his _h_ for the Greek _h:_ _Helias__, Herodes, Haileisaius _and also_ Abraham, __Beþlahaim_ (but _Iairusalem _and _Wmainaius_) vs. _x_ found only in _Xristus_ and, strangely, in _Xreskus_ pro _Crescens, _otherwise _χ_ becomes _k:_ _Iairiko__, Antiaukia, Twkeikus. _This suggests that in his speech this consonant sounded rather as _h._ In contrast, Slavic at approximately the same time consistently borrows this Gothic sound as _x: xlěbъ _"bread" (_hlaifs_), _xlěvъ_ "stall" (_hlaiw_ "tomb, grave", cp. Slavic _xlěvina_ "pit"),_ xъlmъ_ "hill", _xǫdogъ_ "skillful" (from _*handags, _an alternative form of _handugs_), _lixva_ "rest" (from an otherwise unattested outcome of PIE _leı̯kʷ-_ "to leave" — cp. _leiƕan_) (the Slavic forms are given in their attested shape of 6–8 centuries later).


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Yes, phonemically, but I meant the actual sounds. Wulfila uses his _h_ for the Greek _h:_ _Helias__, Herodes, Haileisaius _and also_ Abraham, __Beþlahaim_ (but _Iairusalem _and _Wmainaius_) vs. _x_ found only in _Xristus_ and, strangely, in _Xreskus_ pro _Crescens, _otherwise _χ_ becomes _k:_ _Iairiko__, Antiaukia, Twkeikus. _This suggests that in his speech this consonant sounded rather as _h._ In contrast, Slavic at approximately the same time consistently borrows this Gothic sound as _x: xlěbъ _"bread" (_hlaifs_), _xlěvъ_ "stall" (_hlaiw_ "tomb, grave", cp. Slavic _xlěvina_ "pit"),_ xъlmъ_ "hill", _xǫdogъ_ "skillful" (from _*handags, _an alternative form of _handugs_), _lixva_ "rest" (from an otherwise unattested outcome of PIE _leı̯kʷ-_ "to leave").


We don't really know how the Gothic X was supposed to be pronounced. It was mainly used to transcribe Greek words. I don't think you can deduce from this that Gothic distinguished phonetically between h and x.

In West Germanic languages there was definitely no written distinction between the sounds before about 1200.

Anyway, it doesn't matter for this thread. We are talking about a sequence that only occurs at the end of a syllable. [h] is phonologically completely impossible in any Germanic languages. In the spelling _saihs_, <h> cannot represent [h] but only [x].


----------



## Riverplatense

bearded said:


> Hi
> Do you mean ''Alemannic part of far _western _Tyrol''? I thought the Alemannic part was towards the Swiss border.



Yes, of course  Sorry for the mistake and the late reply!


----------

