Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5276Re: German mode (was: Last Name Translation Help?)

Expand Messages
  • j_mach_wust
    Apr 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
      >
      > hisilome skrev:
      >
      > > [ Ah! I thought the glottal stop in German wasn't "phonemic" at
      > > all, but only occuring as an inserted element (in multi-morphemic
      > > words) before morphemes that begin with a vowel, as between _e_
      > > and _a_ in _Beamter_. My point being, is it even necessary to
      > > represent this in writing at all? And--excuse me for asking what
      > > may very well be a stupid question--where does the glottal stop
      > > occur at the beginning of a word? Maybe in something like _Sieh
      > > an_? Just curious... ]
      >
      > We discussed this on Conlang list not so long ago,
      > and concluded that any prefix or root which begins
      > in a vowel in the orthography begins in a phonemic
      > glottal stop -- even when preceded by a consonant,
      > thus _unabh�ngig_ is /'?un?aphENIC/, and _Verein_
      > is /fEr'?ain/ though actual realization in rapid
      > speach may vary. My German L1 mother anyway insisted
      > that _Verein_ be [fE6'?aen], not [fE'raen] as I
      > would have it!
      > (Transcription as usual CXS: <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>)

      I'd rather agree with Hisilome on this point. German is, like English
      or Swedish, a language that does not have one single standard form and
      pronunciation, but different standards varying regionally (unlike
      English or Swedish, this has only been recognized by linguistics very
      recently, mainly over the past ten years). The glottal stop seems to
      be typical for the standard German of Germany, while in Austria and
      Switzerland it is only seldom realized and many speakers don't use it
      at all (in standard German, that is, not in the dialect). Therefore,
      I'd rather not consider it a phoneme.



      ---------------------------


      Hisilome wrote:
      > [ Exactly what I had expected after the last few posts! Except maybe
      > for _ö_, but you allow for the possibility of using the double acute
      > (in analogy to the spelling of _ü_) further down.

      After the last posts with Benct, I'd also recommend the doubled acute,
      not the grave accent.

      > _ä_ is always long, I gather. ]

      Phonemic _ä_ is; orthographic _ä_ may be long or short, but the short
      _ä_ is homophonous with short _e_.

      > and _ch_ (/x/) hwesta, I presume). ]

      Certainly. I forgot to mention I sometimes use hyarmen in the phonemic
      mode for palatal _ch_. I usually don't put the two dots below, since
      it can hardly ever be confused with _h_ which occurs only initially.

      > For double _r_ (as in _wirr_) he proposes to use arda (and alda for
      > _ll_, aaze nuquerna for _ss_), but I don't really see the need for
      > these unattested (at least in the case of _rr, ll_) spellings. For
      > _ll_, for example, why not use the tilde inside lambe. ]

      Alda is attested for _ll_, though only in full writing, but in
      'general use' style full writing. I don't remember whether it was in
      one of the King's Letters or in the Mazarbul inscriptions. Arda,
      however, is not attested for _rr_.

      > > I usually express both the doubling of vowel letters and the
      > > combination of vowel letter + 'lengthening _h_' by the long
      > > carrier, though the latter might as well be represented by plain
      > > hyarmen (indeed, this is more advantageous for words like _Rehe_).
      >
      > [ Indeed! Though confusion probably wouldn't be possible in this
      > example, since I don't think there's a word called _ree_--but there
      > may be other instances where problems would arise? ]

      It's not because of confusion that hyarmen would be more advantageous
      in _Rehe_; just try to spell the _eh_ with a long carrier and then put
      a dot for the final _-e_ below! An isolated short carrier with a dot
      below would be possible, but I dislike it (and it is not attested). In
      a phonemic mode, I sometimes use an ephentetic anna in such cases (or
      vala after _u, o_), which is as far as I know a similar solution to be
      found as well in Arabic orthography.

      > [ Though it would be nice, at least in phonetic spelling, to
      > distinguish /s/ (_fest_) and /z/ (_Sand_), and in phonetic spelling
      > no extra sign would then be needed for _ss/ß_, since that's
      > always /s/, right? ;) ]

      Exactly, and so I do in phonemic modes (even though there are
      varieties of standard German which in this respect are more similar to
      the spelling and distinguish /s/ and /ss/, not /z/ and /s/).

      > > Double consonant letters are expressed by the bar below, though I
      > > sometimes use alda for _ll_ (also because most computer fonts
      > > don't allow for a bar to be placed below alda).
      >
      > [ You mean, they don't allow for a bar below lambe, is it? Hm, I
      > think that was also one of the reasons why Thalmann proposed alda
      > for double _l_.
      > I'm out of my depth here, but how come a frequently attested
      > spelling such as a tilde inside lambe (as it is, for example in
      > Namaarie--I don't think Tolkien himself ever actually put the tilde
      > _under_ lambe) is not available in most computer fonts as you say?
      > Remarkable. ]

      I'm sorry; of course the computer fonts provide a special bar to be
      placed inside lambe. They don't have a bar that could be placed below
      alda, but that was totally besides the point, since the possible
      spellings are either lambe with bar (widely attested) or alda
      (scarcely attested).


      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic