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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.