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

Re: [elfscript] Re: Large vowel systems (was: Last Name Translation Help?)

Expand Messages
  • Melroch 'Aestan
    ... I see your point, but while you can confuse people, you can t confuse Tolkien anymore. Besides *he* would probably just have invented new ad_hoc tehtar!
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      j_mach_wust skrev:
      > Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
      > ...
      >
      >>The problem with the W-tehta is that people have used
      >>it for _ö_ in the past, before // was invented...
      >
      >
      > People might have, but Tolkien hasn't. This is my simplistic view on
      > these matters. I don't care much for posttolkenian traditions in
      > Tolkien's work.

      I see your point, but while you can confuse people,
      you can't confuse Tolkien anymore. Besides *he*
      would probably just have invented new ad_hoc tehtar!

      [big snip]

      > But the expression of the roundedness symmetry through doubling has
      > the advantage that it fits better with Tolkien's attested tehtar for
      > _i_ and _y_. I mean, describing it as 'doubling' is more exact than
      > describing it as 'modification'. Neither description is wrong, but one
      > is more precise, so it fits better.
      >
      > And now I see an obvious way to express the roundedness symmetry
      > through doubling but still preserve the following w tehta:
      >
      > i = . y = .. u = )
      > e = / 2 = // o = (
      > E = \ 9 = \\ O = ((
      >
      > It's the same trick again I used above to explain the i-y case: The
      > height symmetry is expressed through "modification", and by
      > modification I mean any kind of modification (preferrably doubling if
      > still available).

      Since back vowels tend to get more rounded the
      higher they are it might be a good idea to use
      (( = /o/ and ( = /O/: doubling would then indicate
      relatively greater rounding. That way you can still
      -- tenuously -- preserve consistency in the use of
      the doubling modification.

      > Also, this very same system could be used for the
      > Swedish vowels:
      >
      > i = . y = .. u = )
      > e = / ö = // o = (
      > å = ((

      For the mnemonic reason i said before I'd prefer
      (( for _o_: this letter usually has the same sound
      as English _oo_; moreover /u/ is usually derived
      from historical /o:/, although few beside me would
      be sensitive to that consideration!

      Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
      there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
      I would express these like this:

      i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
      e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
      ä /E/ = \
      â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^

      which I feel would be a more consistent use of doubling,
      by the "more closed--more rounded" criterion.

      (I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
      Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
      being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
      by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
      people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
      phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
      is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)

      > By the way, for my dialect I rather swap i tehta and e tehta, since it
      > does not have two e-grades, but two i-grades:
      >
      > i = \ y = \\ u = ))
      > I = / Y = // U = )
      > e = . 2 = .. o = (

      Yes, that makes sense, although AFAIK the use
      of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,
      which you maybe would consider to speak against it.

      If having to distinguish two levels of i-vowels
      I'd prefer using the caret tehta for /Y/ and double
      it (vertically) for /y/ -- and of course . = /I/
      and .. = /i/. There would be the slight problem
      that no font as yet provides for a doubled caret
      tehta, be it vertically or horizontally doubled!
      (At least for me that's a problem: my hands are
      lame and I write atrociously by hand...)

      > It's time I get used to these new vowel systems!
      >
      >
      >>I would use / for /e/
      >>and \ for /E/ however -- as a mnemonic, since it is _é_
      >>that is /e/ and _è_ that is /E/ in French. Actually it
      >>would feel very strange to use your assignments when
      >>writing French,
      >
      >
      > You're certainly right! This shows I haven't used this system yet...
      > The reason why I chose / for _è_ was that I guess French è-grade
      > vowels occur more often than é-grade vowels and so I chose the easier
      > signs for è-grade. But I'd say your practical "iconic" argument is
      > more important.

      Yes. If one would use \ for the vowel indicated
      with acute accent in the Roman orthography one
      would surely write it wrong more often than not!

      For French I would personally prefer a system closer
      to the Roman orthography, i.e. ( for _u_, (( for _ou_,
      ) for all of _o, ô, au, eau_, )) for both of _eu, êu_
      / for _é_ and \ for _è_, but . for _e_ when it is /E/
      and . below when it is [@] or silent, and .. for _i, î_,
      v for _ai, aî, ei_.
      This is probably because I'm unfamiliar and uncomfortable
      with spoken French and simply am not sure about the
      distribution of /2/ vs. /9/ and /o/ vs. /O/.

      >>As for the following-W-tehta I think it is often a bit
      >>of an embarrasment, since it gets messy when combining
      >>it with vowel tehtar an the nasal stroke.
      >
      >
      > I've gotten used to it, and now it's become an indispensable part of
      > my tengwar writing. It may get messy, but thats all attested.

      Yes sure, but then in a language like Icelandic, where older
      /Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
      that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
      the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
      because the orthography is archaizing...)

      >>Also when
      >>writing French you would need a following-/H/-tehta in
      >>words like _nuit_: better to use Úre for /w/, Yanta
      >>or Anna for /j/ and Vala for /H/ across the line.
      >
      >
      > I express /H/ as if it were /wj/: Vala with two dots below in initial
      > position or both two dots below and the modified left curl above when
      > there's a preceding letter. Tehtar crowding, but it works fine.

      Oh I see; yes that works too! :-) Do you have any particular
      reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
      would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
      is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
      think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
      with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.
      What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.

      >>(Phonetic transcription again as per <http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>!)
      >>(BTW I wouldn't use Wilya for /w/ when using the Quessetéma
      >>for velars rather than for labiovelars. Wilya could OTOH
      >>be used for [@_^], [A_^] or /M\/ if Quessetéma is used for velars.
      >
      >
      > Or for [?].

      Yes, though I would rather use Halla (single rising stem)
      for /?/. Certainly in Arabic Halla for Hamza and
      Wilya for `Ayn!

      >>Also Tolkien obviously used this tehta for Old and
      >>Modern English /æ/ in addition to and quite possibly
      >>even before using it for Latin _ae_.
      >
      >
      > Did he even use it for Latin _ae_ at all? If I'm not mistaken, the
      > "Latin" word identified with the inscription of DTS 41 is _gladiolus_,
      > not *_glaediolus_. And I think it's misleading to consider the
      > spellings of that word to be representations of Latin sounds, since
      > it's rather representations of English sounds, even though the word
      > might be considered Latin.

      I certainly consider _gladiolus_ to be "English" here.
      In _daemonio_ in the same source _ae_ is curiously
      Yanta with /, indicating an English pronunciation of
      Latin, so yes he probably didn't use "v-dots" for
      *Latin* _ae_ only for (Old) English _æ_ -- in which
      case it is certainly appropriate for German, Swedish
      and Finnish _ä_, and for Danish and Norwegian _æ_!

      --

      /BP 8^)>
      --
      Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
      A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
      __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
      / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
      /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
      Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
      ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
      || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
    • Melroch 'Aestan
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 _unabhängig_ 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/>)

        As for Christian Thalmann's mode it is obviously
        *very* orthographic. I like it for the most part.

        --

        /BP 8^)>
        --
        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
        ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
      • j_mach_wust
        ... 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,
        Message 3 of 25 , 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
          ---------------------------
        • j_mach_wust
          ... That also sounds reasonable. ... That s a pretty system! What is /9-/? ... Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in Swedish
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
            > Since back vowels tend to get more rounded the
            > higher they are it might be a good idea to use
            > (( = /o/ and ( = /O/: doubling would then indicate
            > relatively greater rounding. That way you can still
            > -- tenuously -- preserve consistency in the use of
            > the doubling modification.

            That also sounds reasonable.

            > Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
            > there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
            > I would express these like this:
            >
            > i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
            > e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
            > ä /E/ = \
            > â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^

            That's a pretty system! What is /9-/?

            > (I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
            > Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
            > being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
            > by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
            > people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
            > phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
            > is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)

            Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in
            Swedish phonology? Traditionally, the Alemannic consonant length is
            considered to be a secondary feature of the fortis-lenis opposition,
            but it is debated whether there are other features to that opposition.

            > AFAIK the use
            > of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,

            It's attested in DTS 10, after all one of the two major English tehtar
            mode samples.

            > If having to distinguish two levels of i-vowels
            > I'd prefer using the caret tehta for /Y/ and double
            > it (vertically) for /y/ -- and of course . = /I/
            > and .. = /i/.

            I prefer to keep the attested symmetry between unrounded front vowel =
            . and corresponding rounded front vowel = ..

            > in a language like Icelandic, where older
            > /Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
            > that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
            > the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
            > because the orthography is archaizing...)

            Wouldn't the usual (and attested) distinction between a phonemic and
            an orthographic mode work for Icelandic as well (the latter allowing a
            fair representation of Old Icelandic) and make the use of the modified
            left curl dispensable?

            > Do you have any particular
            > reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
            > would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
            > is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
            > think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
            > with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.

            That's the reason.

            > What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.

            Úre is not attested for initial /w/ in tehtar modes, but only as a
            "reading direction inverter" (as in Quenya). So I'd certainly use vala.


            ---------------------------
            j. 'mach' wust
            http://machhezan.tripod.com
            ---------------------------
          • Melroch 'Aestan
            ... Well, traditionally it s identified as an open rounded front vowel -- [9] or even [& ] -- but in my pronunciation it certainly is a low mid rounded
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              j_mach_wust skrev:

              >>Also should it come to expressing my native dialect
              >>there would be three extra vowel phonemes to consider.
              >>I would express these like this:
              >>
              >>i /i/ = . y /y/ = .. u /u\/ = (( o /u/ = ))
              >>e /e/ = / ö /2/ = // û /8/ = ( å /o/ = )
              >>ä /E/ = \
              >>â /a/ = v /ô/ /9-/ = \\ a /A/ = ^
              >
              >
              > That's a pretty system! What is /9-/?

              Well, traditionally it's identified as an
              open rounded front vowel -- [9] or even [&\] --
              but in my pronunciation it certainly is a
              low mid rounded *central* vowel [3\], so
              I notated it as a retracted front vowel.
              I also put it one row too low for some reason...

              >>(I'm anyway ignoring the fact that long /A/ is [Q:]!
              >>Length is not phonemic in Swedish, the rule basically
              >>being that a stressed vowel is long if not followed
              >>by a consonant cluster or a geminate consonant. Still
              >>people tend to hear phonetic vowel length better than
              >>phonetic consonant length, so the question about length
              >>is a bit vexed both in phonology and in Tengwar writing...)
              >
              >
              > Is consonant gemination considered to be mere consonant length in
              > Swedish phonology? Traditionally, the Alemannic consonant length is
              > considered to be a secondary feature of the fortis-lenis opposition,
              > but it is debated whether there are other features to that opposition.

              Yes consonant gemination is just consonant length in Swedish.

              >>AFAIK the use
              >>of . for _i_ and / for _e_ is a CJRT usage,
              >
              >
              > It's attested in DTS 10, after all one of the two major English tehtar
              > mode samples.

              Ah, OK.

              >>in a language like Icelandic, where older
              >>/Q/ has become /9/, you almost have to use the W-tehta for
              >>that phoneme, if you are going to use the same mode for both
              >>the old and the new language (which anyway is possible only
              >>because the orthography is archaizing...)
              >
              >
              > Wouldn't the usual (and attested) distinction between a phonemic and
              > an orthographic mode work for Icelandic as well (the latter allowing a
              > fair representation of Old Icelandic) and make the use of the modified
              > left curl dispensable?

              Sure, but the point is that you would want to be able
              to use the same orthographic mode both for the old and
              the new language. It would feel very weird otherwise.
              Anyway my usage is to represent _v_ with Vala in all
              positions. I guess anyone who wants can use \ for _ö_
              and W-tehta for _v_ after consonants, but I don't.

              >>Do you have any particular
              >>reason for choosing the analysis /wj/ over /jw/? I guess it
              >>would matter only word-initially. My hunch is that initial /j/
              >>is much more common than initial /w/ in French (I can only really
              >>think of _oui_) but I guess that whatever you use for initial /w/
              >>with a .. below looks better than Anna with a W-tehta above.
              >
              >
              > That's the reason.
              >
              >
              >>What do you use for initial /w/ BTW. I guess Úre or Vala.
              >
              >
              > Úre is not attested for initial /w/ in tehtar modes, but only as a
              > "reading direction inverter" (as in Quenya). So I'd certainly use vala.
              >

              I thought so.

              --

              /BP 8^)>
              --
              Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
              A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
              __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
              \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
              / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
              / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
              /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
              Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
              ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
              || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
            • hisilome
              ... [ I think your mother s realization corresponds more closely to Thalmann s, who also has the glottal stop in _Verein_. Thalmann says that _Verein_ is
              Message 6 of 25 , 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?

                >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...
                >My German L1 mother anyway insisted that _Verein_ be [fE6'?aen],
                >not [fE'raen] as I would have it!

                and j_mach_wust replied:

                >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.

                [ I think your mother's realization corresponds more closely to
                Thalmann's, who also has the glottal stop in _Verein_. Thalmann says
                that _Verein_ is _Ver-ein_, but _bereit_ is _be-reit_, i.e. in the
                latter case the _r_ is syllable-initial and thus pronounced
                differently.
                While I think that _bereit_ is practically never realized as _ber-
                eit_, in the case of _Verein_, the realization _Ve-rein_ is also
                possible (and I think this would correspond to what 'Mach' means when
                he says that in some variants of High [Standard] German [and I
                believe not just in Austria and Switzerland, but also in some
                regions/speakers in Germany, espcially in the south] the glottal stop
                would not be realized).
                Thalmann doesn't introduce a separate sign for the glottal stop.
                Where _r_ is involved, he simply uses oore for syllable-final _r_
                (regardless of whether it's followed by a vowel/glottal stop or a
                consonant), and roomen for syllable-initial/medial _r_, which is
                always pre-vocalic (syllable-medial for example in _Christian_). ]


                Melroch 'Aestan wrote:

                >As for Christian Thalmann's mode it is obviously
                >*very* orthographic. I like it for the most part.

                [ Yes, I agree it is! And I don't think there's a problem with that
                (as you may remember, I'm actually quite partial to orthographic
                modes, no matter what the language). The only thing I'm really not so
                happy with (as I said) is that this mode uses basically the same
                method for representing the diphthongs and the umlauts. I think since
                umlauts are simple vowels, they should be spelled as such (and not
                like diphthongs) even in orthographic writing, which is why I prefer
                the solutions with inverted A-tehta/double acute/double over-dot for
                _ä, ö, ü_. ]

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

                j_mach_wust wrote:

                > > 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.

                [ Hm. How about words like _gehabt, gehoben, verhören_, where the _h_
                is certainly pronounced (and not a sign of vowel lengthening)? But
                even then, confusion would probably rarely arise... ]


                > 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.

                [ Ah, you're of course right: both DTS 13 (Mazarbul) in _Dimrill,
                shall_ (and, mistakenly, in the first occurrence of _hold_) and all
                three copies of the King's Letter have it (in _all_). Hm, so only
                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. ]


                > > > 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_...

                >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.

                [ So, anna to lengthen _a, e, i_, and vala to lengthen _u, o_, do I
                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. ]


                > > 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/).

                [ 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. _daß_) and _das_ (article) in pronuncation? Would
                the article then have a voiced _s_ (/z/)...? Sorry if I'm a bit slow
                here. :) ]

                Hisilome
              • j_mach_wust
                ... Especially since even a basic knowledge of German will be sufficient to recognize that _ge_ and _ver_ are typical prefixes. I d also spell _ge_ with a dot
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hisilome wrote:
                  > >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.
                  >
                  > [ Hm. How about words like _gehabt, gehoben, verh�ren_, where the
                  > _h_ is certainly pronounced (and not a sign of vowel lengthening)?
                  > But even then, confusion would probably rarely arise... ]

                  Especially since even a basic knowledge of German will be sufficient
                  to recognize that _ge_ and _ver_ are typical prefixes. I'd also spell
                  _ge_ with a dot below ungwe and _ver_ with formen + óre, so it'd be
                  even more obvious that it's prefixes.

                  > so only
                  > 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. ]

                  In the orthographic proposal of mine, however, a doubled _rr_ would be
                  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 óre
                  with a bar below, since a bar below rómen 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 I
                  > 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. ]

                  I wouldn't use anna and vala to lengthen the vowels. I'd lengthen them
                  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
                  the hiatus.

                  > >(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/).
                  >
                  > [ 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. _da�_) and _das_ (article) in pronuncation? Would
                  > the article then have a voiced _s_ (/z/)...? Sorry if I'm a bit slow
                  > here. :) ]

                  At least all of Austro-Bavarian and Alemannic-Swabian dialects are
                  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
                  http://machhezan.tripod.com
                  ---------------------------
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.