# k>x or x>k (all languages)



## CyrusSH

Let's talk about modern languages and not consider our ancestors as a weird people, for example do you think Persian _khud_ (helmet) could be changed to _kud_ (like Latin _cudo_) or vice versa? Of course the same thing can be said about Persian words, like Persian _kimiya_ from Greek _ khumeía_.


----------



## Borin3

I don't consider them to be weird, but us. We are the weird ones. I don't understand the question


----------



## CyrusSH

For example let's consider we don't know the origin of the word _caviar_ (Serbian _kavijar_, Korean _kaebia_, Persian _xaviar_, ...), do you think the original word began with k or kh sound?


----------



## djmc

If a word is borrowed from another language, the word will be pronounced as if it were ones own. The is no standard pronunciation in English for the Welsh ll. If one knows something about Welsh one might try to pronounce names like Llangollen to imitate the Welsh. Most English have great difficulty and pronounce as a single l. The English don't use the guttural fricative ch and normally pronounce it as a k. Many may hear the difference but not be able to pronounce it.


----------



## CyrusSH

djmc said:


> If a word is borrowed from another language, the word will be pronounced as if it were ones own. The is no standard pronunciation in English for the Welsh ll. If one knows something about Welsh one might try to pronounce names like Llangollen to imitate the Welsh. Most English have great difficulty and pronounce as a single l. The English don't use the guttural fricative ch and normally pronounce it as a k. Many may hear the difference but not be able to pronounce it.



Logically if it is difficult to pronounce ll then it won't be changed to lll but l, it is not just about English but all other languages.


----------



## desi4life

In most Indian languages, borrowed words from Persian/Arabic that have an _x _sound are usually changed to aspirated _kh*_. However, Urdu is one of the few exceptions because it has been strongly influenced by Persian pronunciation and uses Persian orthography, so it generally retains the _x _sound.

*The aspirated _kh _is just an allophone of the phoneme _k _in English (as in _*k*ing_).


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> In most Indian languages, borrowed words from Persian/Arabic that have an _x _sound are usually changed to aspirated _kh*_. However, Urdu is one of the few exceptions because it has been strongly influenced by Persian pronunciation and uses Persian orthography, so it generally retains the _x _sound.
> 
> *The aspirated _kh _is just an allophone of the phoneme _k _in English (as in _*k*ing_).



Phonetically the relation between Urdu and Persian can be compared to the relation between Persian and Semitic languages and probably for this reason it retains the _x_ sound. I think aspiration in Indian languages can be related to Dravidian languages.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> Logically if it is difficult to pronounce ll then it won't be changed to lll but l, it is not just about English but all other languages.


But he answered your question. Rendition of x as k in loanwords is normally due to the absence of x in that language. And that is not a peculiarity of English.


----------



## desi4life

CyrusSH said:


> Phonetically the relation between Urdu and Persian can be compared to the relation between Persian and Semitic languages and probably for this reason it retains the _x_ sound. I think aspiration in Indian languages can be related to Dravidian languages.



I believe it's postulated that the aspirated and unaspirated plosives (except retroflex) in Indic languages are from Proto-IIr, and that Iranian languages merged the two sets. So, aspiration is not related to Dravidian.


----------



## Delvo

Indic languages' aspirated plosives come from either a Proto-Indo-European aspirated plosive, or a plain PIE plosive followed by a PIE laryngeal. What they might have gotten from Dravidian languages is the retroflex consonants.

* * *

I'm aware of a long list of examples of plosives becoming fricatives, including k→x, in a variety of languages. I'm not aware of any examples in the opposite direction. It's made me wonder where new plosives in a language can possibly come from, because if there weren't some way to get new ones, then they all would have converted to something else over a thousand centuries ago and there wouldn't be any plosives left anywhere.


----------



## desi4life

Delvo said:


> I'm aware of a long list of examples of plosives becoming fricatives, including k→x, in a variety of languages. I'm not aware of any examples in the opposite direction.



It's common in Indian languages. I mentioned above that Indian languages have x→kh. Others also occur, including: ɣ→g, f→ph, θ→th and ð→d.


----------



## CyrusSH

desi4life said:


> I believe it's postulated that the aspirated and unaspirated plosives (except retroflex) in Indic languages are from Proto-IIr, and that Iranian languages merged the two sets. So, aspiration is not related to Dravidian.



You yourself talked about the aspiration of kh in the Indian languages, so it relates to the Indian languages.


----------



## CyrusSH

Delvo said:


> I'm aware of a long list of examples of plosives becoming fricatives, including k→x, in a variety of languages.



Please talk about modern languages and mention some examples, not about obscure theories of ancient languages.


----------



## Borin3

CyrusSH said:


> For example let's consider we don't know the origin of the word _caviar_ (Serbian _kavijar_, Korean _kaebia_, Persian _xaviar_, ...), do you think the original word began with k or kh sound?


 I guess it should have began with kh.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> You yourself talked about the aspiration of kh in the Indian languages


Which have it from Proto-IIR. Where is the problem?


CyrusSH said:


> Please talk about modern languages and mention some examples, not about obscure theories of ancient languages.


To observe shifts we have to go back in time. What constitutes a modern language for you? If you mean attested languages, Aramaic would be an example.


----------



## CyrusSH

I actually mean loanwords in modern languages or sound changes in second languages.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> I actually mean loanwords in modern languages or sound changes in second languages.


As far as x>k is concerned the question has been answered in #4. This happens routinely in languages that don't have x.

K>x in loaning is a rare thing to happen. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single example.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> As far as x>k is concerned the question has been answered in #4. This happens routinely in languages that don't have x.



But it also happens in languages that have x, for example Hebrew _Mixael_ (Michael) is pronounced _Mikail_ in Persian.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> But it also happens in languages that have x, for example Hebrew _Mixael_ (Michael) is pronounced _Mikail_ in Persian.


I don't know when and how the name was loaned into Persian, so I don't know. There are essentially two possibilities: either the loan was indirect or it is older than the allphonic spirantisation of non-emphatic stops in Aramaic and Hebrew.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> ... K>x in loaning is a rare thing to happen. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single example.


An example of this _tendency _could be the German or English, as the  consonant '_k_' is pronounced aspirated in these languages. (I say _tendency _as the aspirated _kh _is, of course, not the same sound as _x_).


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> An example of this _tendency _could be the German or English, as the  consonant '_k_' is pronounced aspirated in these languages. (I say _tendency _as the aspirated _kh _is, of course, not the same sound as _x_).


Linking [kʰ] to [x] would be very misleading. Greek had a sound shift /kʰ/ > /x/ but that is a different story. In Germanic, aspiration is defining characteristic of /k/ playing a role in the distinction from /g/ (in some Germanic languages always, in other ones only in specific contexts). Germanic [x] developed either from pre-Germanic [k] or (after the Germanic sound shift) through de-voicing of /g/=[ɣ] (e.g. English _brou*gh*t_) or, in High German, through allophonic spirantisation of /k/ (similar to the process in Aramaic and Hebrew).

But the question was specifically about loans, and there is certainly no tendency to spirantise foreign /k/. It is aspiration only to make it a normal Germanic /k/.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Linking [kʰ] to [x] would be very misleading. ... But the question was specifically about loans, and there is certainly no tendency to spirantise foreign /k/. It is aspiration only to make it a normal Germanic /k/.


Of course, I only wanted to generalise what you have written before: 





berndf said:


> ... This happens routinely in languages that don't have x.


I.e. if a language has only an aspirated _k_ then the sound [k] also in loanwords will be typically rendered/pronounced  as [kʰ]. If a languages has only [x] but no [k], then it is probable that [k] will be rendered as [x].

(Of course, other solurtions are possible as well, dependeing on the concrete language, e.g. [k]>[g] ...)


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> If a languages has only [x] but no [k], then it is probable that [k] will be rendered as [x].


Do you know any such language? I don't. I would rather assure /k/ would be rendered /g/ like in Arabic where /p/ was spirantised to /f/ and foreign /p/ becomes /b/.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Do you know any such language? ...


No, I don't. I.e. I don't know any language that has no [k] like sound ... The evolution [k]>[x], or even [k]>[x]> is, of course, evident (p.e. also in the Uralic languages), but it is apparently an other question.

I have the feeling that I do not understand very well the original question ... Why should [k] develop to [x] in a modern language and especially in case of loanwords, supposing that the sound [k] _does _exist in the given modern language ? ...


----------



## berndf

Same with me. I don't consider such a phenomenon likely.


----------



## desi4life

berndf said:


> Do you know any such language? I don't. I would rather assure /k/ would be rendered /g/ like in Arabic where /p/ was spirantised to /f/ and foreign /p/ becomes /b/.



In standard Arabic /g/ does not exist, while foreign /k/ seems to be rendered /k/ or /q/.


----------



## francisgranada

In theory, there is the possibility that a certain phoneme (sound), e.g. [k] is possible only in certain positions in a certain language. E.g. the Uralic/Finnougric [k] has become [x] in the Ugric branch (later on  in Hungarian), but only if followed by certain vowels, i.e. the consonant [k] has not disappeared.

So, in theory, it is possible/probable that the original [k] could become [x] in certain positions even in case of loanwords, if borrowed in a certain period. This "restriction" does not exist any more in Hungarian, so [k] is possible in whatever position.


----------



## CyrusSH

francisgranada said:


> In theory, there is the possibility that a certain phoneme (sound), e.g. [k] is possible only in certain positions in a certain language. E.g. the Uralic/Finnougric [k] has become [x] in the Ugric branch (later on  in Hungarian), but only if followed by certain vowels, i.e. the consonant [k] has not disappeared.
> 
> So, in theory, it is possible/probable that the original [k] could become [x] in certain positions even in case of loanwords, if borrowed in a certain period. This "restriction" does not exist any more in Hungarian, so [k] is possible in whatever position.




Isn't it more possible that the original sound was [x] which was changed to [k] in a language and  in another one?


----------



## berndf

desi4life said:


> In standard Arabic /g/ does not exist, while foreign /k/ seems to be rendered /k/ or /q/.


Usually /q/. This is because most European loans into Arabic are via Aramaic and they used the emphatic stops to transcribe foreign /k/ because of the allphonic ambiguity, like Hebrew.


----------



## Delvo

Hebrew & Syriac: b,g,d,k,p → v,ɣ,ð,x,f; t→θ or t→s depending on dialect (letters בגדכפת, ܒܓܕܟܦܬ)

Greek: b,g,d,tʰ,kʰ,pʰ → v,ɣ,ð,θ,x,f (letters βγðθχφ)

Arabic: p→f universally (letter ف), g→d͡ʒ in most dialects then d͡ʒ→ʒ in some (letter ج), q→ɢ→g→ɣ in few dialects (letter ق)

Spanish: b→β or b→β→v depending on dialect (letter B)

That's sticking exclusively to Indo-European and Semitic cases that I already knew of, which we didn't need to reconstruct because the languages they happened in were already being written before as well as after the spoken sound-shifts.

Some non-standard dialects of Arabic also give a few examples in the opposite direction: fricative to plosive: ð→d (ذ), θ→t (ث), *θ̣*→*ð̣*→*ḍ* (ظ), *ẓ*→*ḍ* (ض)


----------



## berndf

Delvo said:


> Hebrew & Syriac: b,g,d,k,p → v,ɣ,ð,x,f; t→θ or t→s depending on dialect (letters בגדכפת, ܒܓܕܟܦܬ)


Here the fricatives are allophonic variants and have never become phonemes in their own rights.

What you describe as t→s is rather subsequent θ→s. This is Ashkenazi pronunciation and is obviously due to German influence.


----------



## Delvo

I forgot to mention modern English! I often hear /x/ where /k/ (usually the allophone /kʰ/) would be expected. It's far from universal, but could be a sign of where the language is going in the future.

I doubt that most other English speakers would say that it happens at all, but I believe that would be because we're all so used to thinking that English doesn't have /x/ and subconsciously converting it to /k/ so we think we heard /k/.

Did the Iranian shifts happen within the era of Persian writing, or before?


----------



## desi4life

I've never heard k(or kʰ)→x in English from native speakers, but I'll look out for it.


----------



## Stoggler

desi4life said:


> I've never heard k(or kʰ)→x in English from native speakers, but I'll look out for it.



I'm only familiar with it in the speech of Liverpool (i.e. Scouse) in some environments.  A word like "chicken" is likely to be pronounced /tʃɪxɪn/.


----------



## desi4life

I just realized _x _is also used in Scottish English in words such as _loch_.


----------



## Stoggler

desi4life said:


> I just realized _x _is also used in Scottish English in words such as _loch_.



Is that a case of _*k(or kʰ)→x*_ though?  I did consider mentioningScots and Scottish English in my previous post but I was unsure as to the status of /x/ in those varieties (loch is a  borrowing from Gaelic, for example).


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> Here the fricatives are allophonic variants and have never become phonemes in their own right.



In Aramaic post-vocalic _p, b, t, d, k, g_ were lenated to /f, v, ϑ, δ, x, γ/ probably around the beginning of the Christian era. This shift pre-dated the generalised loss of short vowels in open syllables. The result is that Syriac (at least) has minimal pairs like *_qaṭalet-eh_ ‘I killed him’ > Syr. _qṭalteh_, but *_qaṭalat-eh_ ‘she killed him’ > Syr. _qṭal_ϑ_eh_ (-e- was lost before the lenation, -a- after it). Similarly _*gareb-ā_ ‘leprous (fem.)’ > Syr. _garbā_, but *_garab-ā_ ‘leprosy’ > Syr. _garvā_.


----------



## desi4life

Stoggler said:


> Is that a case of _*k(or kʰ)→x*_ though?  I did consider mentioningScots and Scottish English in my previous post but I was unsure as to the status of /x/ in those varieties (loch is a  borrowing from Gaelic, for example).



It probably should be considered a case of preserving the original _x _sound in loanwords. I found this about Scottish English:



> The phoneme /x/ is common in names and in SSE's many Gaelic and Scots borrowings, so much so that it is often taught to incomers, particularly for "ch" in loch. Some Scottish speakers use it in words of Greek origin as well, such as technical, patriarch, etc. (Wells 1982, 408).


----------

