Talk:Zeta

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been renamed from Zeta (letter) to Zeta as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that Ionic (and Doric) σσ (which is regular in the Koine, as well) corresponds to Attic (and Boeotian) ττ, which seems to go back to *[ts] via an intermediate *[θθ] (this sound change has a neat parallel in the Finnish dialects). Interestingly, *[st] in some Greek dialects seems to have merged with *[θθ] and is spelled σσ or ττ respectively (which can be paralleled with developments in Celtic where *[st] becomes [θθ] or [ss], except in Celtiberian). It is tempting to think that the voiced equivalents of *[ts] and *[st] developped in a parallel fashion: First, *[dz] became *[ðð], and *[zd] merged with this sound in various dialects. Then, it became *[zz] in Ionic (but it does not seem to have become [dd] in Attic - on the other hand, perhaps Attic ττ was really a spelling for [θθ] - or even [ts], as suggested in Ancient Greek phonology - anyway, and ζ was likewise a spelling for [ðð] - or even [dz] - in Attic). Then we would have [zz] in the Koine just as we have [ss], and this is (besides the retention of original *[st]) in fact what we find. (Modern Standard Greek, predictably, simplifies the geminates.) This kind of reasoning (paralleling the voiced sounds with the voiceless ones) is not new if one looks at the arguments in favour of [zd] and against. Therefore I think it would be worthwhile to examine if the assumption that *[zd] and *[dz] developped in a manner (largely) parallel to *[st] and *[ts] explains all the facts. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sounds interesting. Is it citable? (cf. WP:NOR and WP:RS) --macrakis (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Don't think so, I'm afraid. I just wanted to throw it out somewhere. That said, I've always been reluctant to accept the [zd] reading for its eccentricity, but the argument with Bulgarian is a very good one I have to admit now. In fact, even Proto-Slavic */dʲ/ has turned into /ʒd/ in Bulgarian, that would be an even more accurate parallel. (It's also curious that the best parallel is found in a geographically neighbouring language.) Although I have to say it still mystifies me how that works phonetically. But I'm now more ready (than I used to be) to consider the [zd] solution, as well. --84.151.219.189 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Meh, that was me. I got logged out in the meanwhile. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to ad my two cents. The entire debate seems to reflect the English problems of ascian (ask) / axian (aks) and tascian (task, "to require") / taxian (taks, "to require").

It is generally accepted by linguists that the easier to pronounce variant, while more common in the language as a whole, comes later. The harder to pronounce variant would have arisen as a newer word -- relative to the language -- for a newly discussed phenomenon. Over time the majority of people have an easier time with a different pronunciation, so it changes. Thus, ask -> aks, task -> tax, and -dz- -> -zd-. 173.30.103.80 (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

...Are how I would describe this article. It's biased towards the zd pronunciation with weasel-words such as "most handbooks", contains no footnotes (i.e. I have no idea where to search for the facts in the books in the reference list, even if such facts are contained within them) and mentions authors who lived 500 years after the classical time or have been filtered down to us through Alexandrian scholars. Servus Triviae (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

A person identifying as a zoophile told me that this symbol, Zeta, has been used by zoophiles as a way of identifying themselves to others. Should this be part of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.22.201 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC) EDIT: They're citing this page. http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoophilia 86.167.22.201 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the first argument in favor of a historical value of [zd] for zeta, it mentions that [dz] is more likely because [zd] would violate the sonority hierarchy. However, the sonority hierarchy is only really relative to the position of a cluster in the syllable, so while [zd] might be bad (depending on a language's minimal sonority distance) in the onset because the sequence proceeds from greater to lesser sonority (then followed by a vowel, presumably, which would have the greatest sonority), this is expected in the coda.

Based on that, I think mention of sonority hierarchy should be removed from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.11 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, but bear in mind that ζ (just like most other consonants in Greek) basically only ever occurs in the syllable onset. Greek had very strict rules about restricting syllable codas; apart from -s, -n, -r and some few clusters (-ks, -ps) no consonants could appear in absolute word-final position, and I can't think of many others apart from -l- that could appear in word-internal syllable codas either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Am I the only one feeling that the treatment of this is getting a bit out of control? There is a whole section with several point "for", another "against", and each point has a "contra" for each point "for" or "against"; and, now, 129.101.91.240 has been expanding it a lot with several unrelated but parallel examples from Slavic languages. I call it overkill. LjL (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article claims there is no distinction between Zeta, and the Latin letter Z in Swedish. This is inaccurate, as there is a distinction in both pronunciation and spelling (although letters are rarely spelled out in Swedish). Zeta is spelled Zeta and pronounced with an ⟨e⟩, and Z is spelled Zäta, and pronounced with an ⟨æ⟩. --AwaweWiki (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

As of an unknown date, zoophiles have started using this symbol as a way to identify each other. Potentially related to the use of Theta Delta for therian communities. Multiple other symbols have been used in this way, but this is the only one I've managed to decipher thus far. Not sure if this is important enough to make it onto the page, but it's prevalent enough that I've decided to at least make a comment about it. Myth (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Would this reference be enough? https://zooey.pub/a-history-of-zeta-verein/ The actual use of it in an online handle is pretty widespread, but I was unable to locate a reference other than Urban dictionary. So I'm pretty sure it meets notability standard.

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:The community is also talked about at zoophileSubanark (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both the pages you linked to about that community are self-published, so no reliable sources establishing notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Finding a good source amongst all the self-published stuff has been hard as few really want to address it formally, as it is generally taboo. Here are some other sources I found indicating it's notability (which mostly establish the notability of the German advocacy group, which adopted the Zeta name): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 https://suspectslist.neocities.org/ https://eububble.eu/zoophilia-lobbying-in-europe

A formal study on the group is currently ongoing, so I am unsure when that will be completed. Subanark (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

this should be included in the article but we need more reliable sources Daisytheduck (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of the material mentioned so far even mention a connection between that group and the Greek letter, so even if there were sources sufficient to establish notability of the group, there would still be no relevance to this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a reference supporting the assertion that:

The lower case letter can be used to represent: The rotational quantity of angular jerk in physics

However, I'm not totally satisfied. While it's technically correct that finding one example supports the assertion that it "can be used", I think it's generally understood that examples in these lists are supposed to suggest common, or standard usage as opposed to simply the existence of one such usage. I would be helpful if someone could find source asserting that this usage is common. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a second theory for its name's etymology found in Frisk that shoukd be presented as a possibility. "From Semitic, cf. Hebr. zajit, Aram. zētā (Lewy Fremdw. 169f.; s. Schwyzer 140 n. 4). The idea that ζῆτα continues Hebr. zajin reshaped after βῆτα, ἦτα, θῆτα, is unnecessary." emph. mine. shown in https://lsj.gr/wiki/ζῆτα One reference is made to Schwyzer. The entire footnote reads roughly as follows: "Genaueres bei Schwyzer, KZ58, 170 ff. Hammarström, Arctos 1, 1 ff. (s. hier Fußn. 1) weist nach, daß die Greichen nur die bekannten Buchstabennamen, nicht auch Bezeichnungen nach Art des lat. a, be, ce hatten. ζῆτα braucht nicht durch die Analogie von βῆτα usw. erklärt zu werden, da schon im Semitischen neben hebr. zajin eine Form zajit steht (Sethe, ZDMG 80, 43 f., Lindblom Symbol. philol., Danielsson 1932, 157 f.). Zu γάμμα sind vielleicht nilnub. kam 'Kamel' u.a. zu vergleichen (J.-J. Heß)." This line of argument needs to be presented and compared with other theories whether to prove or disprove it. 97.67.84.170 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply