# German: Timing of merger of <s> (apical s) with <ȥ> ([s]) or with <sch> ([ʃ]).



## berndf

Most of the MHG period, <s> and <ȥ> where phonemically distinct. At some point /s/ merged with <ȥ> so that in ModHG _Haus _(< MHG _hus_) and _aus _(< MHG_ uȥ_) now rhyme. In consonant clusters in the syllable onset, <s> merged with <sch> ([ʃ]), e.g. _snel(le)_ > _schnell_.

What information do we have as to when (and where first) these shifts happened? E.g. first occurrences rhymes like Haus - aus, first occurences of spelling _schnel(le)_, etc. Did the two mergers occur simultaneously? E.g. the fact that the shift /s̺t/,/s̺p/>/ʃt/,/ʃp/ or not reflected in spelling, while /s̺n/,/s̺l/>/ʃn/,/ʃl/ are, could suggest different stages of the shift.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

berndf said:


> Most of the MHG period, <s> and <ȥ> where phonemically distinct. At some point /s/ merged with <ȥ> so that in ModHG _Haus _(< MHG _hus_) and _aus _(< MHG_ uȥ_) now rhyme. In consonant clusters in the syllable onset, <s> merged with <sch> ([ʃ]), e.g. _snel(le)_ > _schnell_.
> 
> What information do we have as to when (and where first) these shifts happened? E.g. first occurrences rhymes like Haus - aus, first occurences of spelling _schnel(le)_, etc. Did the two mergers occur simultaneously? E.g. the fact that the shift /s̺t/,/s̺p/>/ʃt/,/ʃp/ or not reflected in spelling, while /s̺n/,/s̺l/>/ʃn/,/ʃl/ are, could suggest different stages of the shift.



I don't know about that, but in my area there are still people left who pronounce initial st and sp like /s̺t/ and /s̺p/, respektively. Zumindest früher war es eine allgemeingültige Wahrheit, dass Bremern und Hamburger nicht über einen schpitzen Schtein schtoßen, sondern über einen spitzen Stein stoßen - you know what I mean.


----------



## verveeld

Wouldn't and initial _st _instead of _scht _be merely a remnant of Low German? (in Bremen and Hamburg)


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> I don't know about that, but in my area there are still people left who pronounce initial st and sp like /s̺t/ and /s̺p/, respektively. Zumindest früher war es eine allgemeingültige Wahrheit, dass Bremern und Hamburger nicht über einen schpitzen Schtein schtoßen, sondern über einen spitzen Stein stoßen - you know what I mean.


In Northern urban accepts of High German the /s/ in /st/ and /sp/ is clearly laminar and not apical. I suspect this is more spelling induced that anything else. The realization of /s/ in *true *Low German is something else. In words like _smöken (to smoke), Steert (tail)_ or _slaapen (to sleep)_, I can very well imagine an apical /s/ like in Dutch. But I am more concerned with High German than with Low German here as my prime interest is in the loss of the <s> and <ȥ> distinction (_aus _and _Haus _rhyme, _ganz _and _gans _are homophone) which isn't an issue in Low German as the _t>__ȥ_ shift never occurred there and _ut_ (=_aus_) and _Hus_ (=_Haus_) are completely different.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

verveeld said:


> Wouldn't and initial _st _instead of _scht _be merely a remnant of Low German? (in Bremen and Hamburg)


More or less. In Southern dialect (Bavarian, at least), "scht" appears to have become general, even in non-initial position or some Latinisms.


----------



## berndf

verveeld said:


> Wouldn't and initial _st _instead of _scht _be merely a remnant of Low German? (in Bremen and Hamburg)


High German urban accents have there own history and are clearly distinct from the native Low German of those cities which is essentially extinct. Low German spoken in those cities today are re-imports from surrounding rural areas. There is certainly some continuous Low German influence on those urban accepts but I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions. Spelling induced pronunciation is equally possible since you wouldn't say _*slafen_ rather than _schlafen _in those accents. I.e. this peculiarity only occurs in words where the High German shift is not reflected in spelling, as in _der *sp*itze *St*ein_.


----------



## ahvalj

The original Old German _s_ must have been rather lisping in the Spanish or Finnish way (in contrast to the clean _s_<_t_) as suggested by its rendering as _š_ (_sōken_>_szukać_) and _ž_ (_söldner_>_żołnierz_) in various medieval Slavic borrowings and some Yiddish varieties.


----------



## berndf

I am not quite sure how this answers my question. You just reiterated what I said in the introduction to my question.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> I am not quite sure how this answers my question. You just reiterated what I said in the introduction to my question.


Sorry, I didn't realize you had mentioned the lisping pronunciation. Honestly, I still don't. The Polish _żołnierz, ró__ża _(<_Rose_), _żegnać_ (<_segnen_) suggest the merger happened after _s_ became voiced.

More examples with _s_>_ż_ in Polish: _żagiel_ (<_Segel_), _żołtarz/żałtarz_ (<_Psalter_).


----------



## berndf

Sorry, I thought the transcription as /s̺/ was sufficiently clear but sometimes these diacritics get lost in some browsers. I marked the s as apical, i.e. like in Iberian Spanish, Greek or Dutch.


----------



## ahvalj

berndf said:


> Sorry, I thought the transcription as /s̺/ was sufficiently clear but sometimes these diacritics get lost in some browsers. I marked the s as apical, i.e. like in Iberian Spanish, Greek or Dutch.


I understood this as related only to _sC_ groups. Well, let's then regard my comments as illustrations to your question.


----------



## berndf

Ok, I see. That is indeed a possible reading. My mistake. And thank you for the clarification.

EDIT: As we are at it, it might be useful to give some more background information. The disappearance of /s̺/ in German is quite obviously related to the creation of the /ʃ/ phoneme from <sch> = /s̺x/, most likely via the palatalized realization of /x/ as [ç], i.e. [s̺ç]>[ʃ]. So, for a certain period in time there must have been a tree-way phonemic distinction: <ȥ>=/s/, <s>=/s̺/ and <sch>=/ʃ/. This distinction seemed to have been to difficult to maintain and /s̺/, which is a sound in between /s/ and /ʃ/, merged with either of the two others; in front of labial or coronal consonants in the syllable onset with /ʃ/ (in some dialects also in the coda, as ADF mentioned) in other cases with /s/.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

ahvalj said:


> The original Old German _s_ must have been rather lisping in the Spanish or Finnish way (in contrast to the clean _s_<_t_) as suggested by its rendering as _š_ (_sōken_>_szukać_) and _ž_ (_söldner_>_żołnierz_) in various medieval Slavic borrowings and some Yiddish varieties.



Not to mention Hungarian with it's love of /ʃ/ (that's the default reading of the letter s in Hungarian) and /ʒ/. Is it possible that Hungarian rather than German had that influence on the Western Slavic languages?


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Not to mention Hungarian with it's love of /ʃ/ (that's the default reading of the letter s in Hungarian) and /ʒ/. Is it possible that Hungarian rather than German had that influence on the Western Slavic languages?


But (1) Hungarian has an old (pre-Pannonian) opposition of _s_/_sz_ and _zs_/_z_, which sound quite clear and must have been perceived as 1:1 correspondences to their Slavic counterparts, so in any case the question remains why the German _s_ becomes anything else than _s/z_ in Slavic and Hungarian, and (2) I am not sure if the examples I had listed are attested in Hungarian. Actually, I agree with berndf explanation in the post #12. Among modern European languages, the threefold distinction exists in Basque (_z/s/x_), if I am not wrong.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I do not for sure sure about sail and soldier, but rózsa (with /ʒ/) is the Hungarian word for rose. If x means /ʃ/, the threefold distinction does also exist in Portuguese and Catalan.


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> I do not for sure sure about sail and soldier, but rózsa (with /ʒ/) is the Hungarian word for rose. If x means /ʃ/, the threefold distinction does also exist in Portuguese and Catalan.


Hajdú («Urálinyelvék és népek») doesn't mention _ž _among inherited Hungarian sounds, and Maytinskaya («Основы финно-угорского языкознания») states that the early Old Hungarian didn't have this sound and had to substitute it in borrowings (thus I was wrong telling about the ancient opposition of _z_/_zs_). So, in any case _rózsa_ requires explanation. 

I have found two Hungarian words with the same z>_ž _in medieval Latin borrowings: _uzsora_<_usura _"usury"_ and petrezselyem<petrosilium_ "parsley". One of the possible explanations is that Hungarians learnt Latin from Germans, borrowing the German lisping pronunciation of _s_ and _z_ and substituting these sounds with their _š and __ž_.

Do Portuguese and Catalan oppose two kinds of _s_?


----------



## Outsider

ahvalj said:


> Do Portuguese and Catalan oppose two kinds of _s_?


A minority of dialects in northeastern Portugal do, or used to. In such dialects the following are minimal pairs, for instance:

_pa*ss*o_ (step) vs. _pa*ç*o_ (hall)
_co*s*er_ (to sew) vs. _co*z*er_ (to cook)

The lefthand sibilant of each pais is apical and the righthand sibilant is laminal.
The sibilants in the top line are both voiceless, while the ones in the bottom line are both voiced.


----------

