5280Re: German mode (was: Last Name Translation Help?)
- Apr 9, 2006Hisilome wrote:
> >I sometimes use hyarmen in theEspecially since even a basic knowledge of German will be sufficient
> >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.
> [ Hm. How about words like _gehabt, gehoben, verhï¿½ren_, where the
> _h_ is certainly pronounced (and not a sign of vowel lengthening)?
> But even then, confusion would probably rarely arise... ]
to recognize that _ge_ and _ver_ are typical prefixes. I'd also spell
_ge_ with a dot below ungwe and _ver_ with formen + Ã³re, so it'd be
even more obvious that it's prefixes.
> so onlyIn the orthographic proposal of mine, however, a doubled _rr_ would be
> arda for _rr_ is unattested...could warm up to this. Although in
> your proposal one wouldn't need it, since _rr_ occurs only after
> short vowels (=not vocalized) and is then spelled with roomen (as
> opposed to oore) anyway. ]
necessary, but I haven't ever thought much about it. I think I
wouldn't use arda because it isn't attested at all. Maybe I'd use Ã³re
with a bar below, since a bar below rÃ³men would be awkward to me and
since a doubled _rr_ in one way is always at the end of a syllable
(but also at the beginning of the next syllable).
> [ So, anna to lengthen _a, e, i_, and vala to lengthen _u, o_, do II wouldn't use anna and vala to lengthen the vowels. I'd lengthen them
> understand you correctly here? Is that attested somewhere in
> Tolkien's modes (don't know any Arabic I'm afraid :()? Also, why
> call it "epenthetic"? Isn't that sort of an "added" sound in spoken
> language, while here we're dealing with an added _letter_ to express
> vowel length in writing? I'm no expert, mind you, but curious. ]
in the normal way with the long carrier. I'd only use vala/anna as a
kind of "carrier" for a following schwa, because I'd rather not write
a short carrier with a dot below. And I've called it "epenthetic"
because the reason why I'd use these letters is the assumption that
_Rehe_ /re:@/ is really pronounced [re:j@], with a epenthetic [j] in
> >(even though there areAt least all of Austro-Bavarian and Alemannic-Swabian dialects are
> >varieties of standard German which in this respect are more similar
> >to the spelling and distinguish /s/ and /ss/, not /z/ and /s/).
> [ That's interesting! Even though this is drifting OT, I'd be
> curious to know which varieties these are (geographically speaking)?
> And what would this mean concretely: that one would pronounce the
> _s_ in _Sand_ and _fest_ identically (and this would have to be an
> unvoiced _s_ in both cases, right?), while discerning, say, _dass_
> (conjunction, i.e. _daï¿½_) and _das_ (article) in pronuncation? Would
> the article then have a voiced _s_ (/z/)...? Sorry if I'm a bit slow
> here. :) ]
said not to have any voiced obstruents at all (except for /v/, but
that's a special case), and neither have the varieties of standard
German in the same regions, that is to say, in much of Southern
Germany and in all of Switzerland and Austria (except for a border
region with Slovenia).
Since most of these regions, as far as I know, have terminal devoicing
(note that "devoicing" must not be understood literally in this case,
since there is no voice in the first place, but the term is still
used; it means just that the opposition is neutralized at the ends of
words), the opposition between _s_ and _ss_ exists only within a word
between voiced sounds, for instance in _reisen_ vs. _reissen_.
It is debated what makes the difference. The traditional point of view
is that the main feature of that opposition is a fortis-lenis
distinction, though others say the main feature is a length
distinction. If I remember correctly, the length difference can be
measured, but the force difference can't, as far as I know. The
traditional way of transcribing the opposition is with [s] vs. [z_0]
(voiceless [z]). This may seem strange to someone who supposes that
it's the voice that differentiates [s] from [z], and that a voiceless
[z] would be the same as an [s]; in the traditional use in German
linguistics, however, there's more to that differentiation than just
voice, but as I said, the nature of that "more" is debated.
I don't know whether the initial opposition heard in Germany between
_Sex_ /sEks/ 'sex' (an English loanword) and _sechs_ /zEks/ 'six' is
also made in areas that don't have voiced [z]. I'd say it would be
perfectly possible, but I could also figure that this initial
distinction is only made in areas that have voiced [z] since in
Switzerland, at least, it is not made. At least in Switzerland, on the
other hand, there is no terminal devoicing, so pairs like _Reis_
'rice' and _reiss_ 'rip (imperative singular)' are not homophonous.
Nonetheless, 'das' and 'dass' are perfectly homophonous, just like
they are etymologically identical. Their differenciation is just
made-up (surely an invention of cruel teachers to annoy their students).
j. 'mach' wust
- << Previous post in topic