# f vs ph in English & French



## Lusus Naturae

Are ph and f indicative at all whether an English or French word is borrowed or inherited?
For instance: 
dauphin, dolphin 
fancy, fantasy, fantôme
Rudolph, wolf


----------



## francisgranada

I think _ph _is used _mostly_* in loanwords, typically of Greek origin (even if not borrowed directly from Greek, but from Latin). The letter _f_ may appear both in inherited and borrowed words.

*_Mostly_, i.e. not exclusively, perhaps because of some inconsistency in orthography or some kind of hypercorrection or for other reasons ... E.g. _Rudolph _is originally a Germanic name, thus the expected spelling should be _Rudolf _(BTW such spelling exists, as well).

Finally, the othography (spelling) is a covention, so it does not necessarily _perfectly _reflect the origin or etymology of a concrete word ...


----------



## Ben Jamin

I don't think so. Many loanwords from Greek (direct or through Latin) may have a spelling that has been "nationalized", especially when the loan was old. Modern (from XIX century) Greek loans to French and English tend to use "ph" more often, but I don't think that there is a consistent system in it. The only way is to compile lists of Greek loans to French and English and a list of Latin loans from Greek with corrsponding inherited French words, and find out if there is any regularity.
You will find a list of French words of Greek origin here
Note that many inherited words may have spelling changed (at least relatinized) in newer times (for example English "debte").
Rudolph is a pure Germanic word, and the spelling reflects only snobbery, not origin.


----------



## merquiades

Ph occurs in Greek words written originally with the Greek letter φ (phi).  This literally was a p followed by aspiration, so it was logically given the ph spelling in the Latin alphabet so as to keep this pronunciation.  When the pronunciation changed to /f/ in Latin, the spelling stayed the same and was passed on to English and French.


----------



## AndrasBP

Also, there's the phenomenon we might call "fancy ph" in new terms such as _phat_, _phreak_, _phishing_, etc.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

How do we explain Fforbes?


----------



## Stoggler

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How do we explain Fforbes?



In some middles ages handwriting, a capital F was sometimes rendered as a double lower-case-f.  This tradition was continued by some families (probably as a snobby affectation!).

There is also the fact that Welsh has the Ff digraph, and so some surnames from Wales may have Ff.  This is not an affectation: ff represents the /f/ sound in Welsh, whereas f represents the /v/ sound.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> When the pronunciation changed to /f/ in Latin


You meant in Greek, right?


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> When the pronunciation changed to /f/ ....., the spelling stayed the same and was passed on to English and French.


Not consistently in modern times, I would say. Cf. for example _fantasy, _from an original Greek word with 'phi'. There was an old spelling 'phantasy', but the modern spelling is not consistent in such words.


----------



## Perseas

bearded said:


> Not consistently in modern times, I would say. Cf. for example _fantasy, _from an original Greek word with 'phi'. There was an old spelling 'phantasy', but the modern spelling is not consistent in such words.


I think Italian (maybe also Spanish) hasn't preserved the Latin spelling of Ancient Greek words: _filosofia, Filippo, istoria, armonia _etc. as opposed to English or French (_philosophy, Philipp, history, harmony / philosophie, Philippe, histoire, harmonie)_.


----------



## bearded

Perseas said:


> as opposed to English


...in most cases, yes


----------



## merquiades

bearded said:


> Not consistently in modern times, I would say. Cf. for example _fantasy, _from an original Greek word with 'phi'. There was an old spelling 'phantasy', but the modern spelling is not consistent in such words.


I have seen both but _fantasy_ is far more common.  I would encourage using the ph though.  I am in favor of etymology based spelling.  Another puzzling variation is _phantom_ with is _fantôme_ in French.  
I'm now curious to find out what other Greek words have changed spellings.
Maybe some words in theta don't correspond to th as they normally should: authentic- αὐθεντκός


----------



## berndf

The English spelling _author_ rather than _autor_ is a hypercorrection, probably caused by a confusion with _authentic_, which is etymologically unrelated.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> The English spelling _author_ rather than _autor_ is a hypercorrection, probably caused by a confusion with _authentic_, which is etymologically unrelated.


Ok, but in this case the spelling should follow the pronunciation of the word.  Author is not pronounced autor.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Ok, but in this case the spelling should follow the pronunciation of the word.  Author is not pronounced autor.


You are probably thinking of other unetymological _th_ like in _River Thames_. But it is not always predictable if pronunciation eventually follows spelling or not as, e.g., in _Anthony_, for which both pronunciations exist (/t/ predominantly British and /θ/ predominantly US), where, incidentally, the unetymological _h_ is also caused my confusion with a Greek word (_ἄνθος_).


----------



## francisgranada

merquiades said:


> Ok, but in this case the spelling should follow the pronunciation of the word.  Author is not pronounced autor.


Agreeing with the previous post of berndf, I'd like to add that _author _is a "learned word", that is, the unetymological spelling could influence the actual pronunciation.


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> Agreeing with the previous post of berndf, I'd like to add that _author _is a "learned word", that is, the unetymological spelling could influence the actual pronunciation.


Yes, that is the major difference between _author_ and _Thames_. Today, _author_ probably wouldn't be seen as learned but in the 17th century it probably would have been.


----------

