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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Apr 9 12:22 AM
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 25 , Apr 9 12:55 AM
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 25 , Apr 9 2:18 AM
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 25 , Apr 9 9:34 AM
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 25 , Apr 9 3:12 PM
            View Source
            • 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.