• lugal
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      According to the explanation link, it’s /k/ vs /ʃ/ in this case. Old Greek would be [kh], modern Greek [ç]. I guess there was a time where it was [x].

      • Lvxferre@mander.xyzM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was just being cheeky with the cha-cha-cha thing, but if I were to be a bit less useless more informative [sorry, I’ll sperg out about etymology]:

        [kʰ]→[x] likely started around 400 BCE. By then Aristophanes was representing Laconian/Spartan speech using ⟨σ⟩ instead of ⟨θ⟩, indicating that Laconian Greek underwent [tʰ]→[θ]; and since this change goes side-to-side with [pʰ kʰ]→[ɸ x], they’re likely from the same times.

        However odds are that the “old” sound [kʰ] survived for a few centuries in Attic and/or Ionic, as Latin still borrows a fair chunk of Greek words with ⟨φ θ χ⟩ being transliterated with ⟨ph th ch⟩, instead of ⟨f t~s h⟩ - even words related to Christianity like ⟨eucharistia⟩ or ⟨blasphemo⟩. The borrowing ⟨Charon⟩ is probably a bit older, so it’s safe to say that you were “expected” to pronounce it with [kʰ] in Latin (…and in practice everyone adapted to [k] as it was the closest in the local phonology).

        Modern Greek keeps that [x] for that word - [ç] only appears before [e i].

        Then there’s [ʃ] reading from the name Charlene, mentioned in the link. The name is surprisingly recent, Wiktionary claims that it’s from the XIX century. By then French already underwent [tʃ]→[ʃ], although the digraph ⟨ch⟩ was likely repurposed by Old French to be used with [tʃ].

        • lugal
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Modern Greek keeps that [x] for that word - [ç] only appears before [e i].

          I was about to edit that when I saw your comment. Guess I wasn’t completely awake. Thanks for the elaboration!

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh, wow. This comment just made me wonder if Shirley is a female bastardization of Charles through Charlie…

          It’s probably not, but I could see it being the case

          • Lvxferre@mander.xyzM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            This comment just made me wonder if Shirley is a female bastardization of Charles through Charlie…

            I gave it a check (Wiktionary is surprisingly good for this sort of stuff), and reality is even weirder:

            “Shirley” is etymologically equivalent to shire + ley. It was initially a habitational surname. Then based on the 1849 quote it was used for some time as a masculine first name. Then as a feminine one.