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

Re: Source Language Phonologies - 1

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Burd
    Great work, Kapitano. The descriptions of phonologies that I found on the web were all amateurish and vague: Like English EE, but with the rounded lips and
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 9, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Great work, Kapitano. The descriptions of phonologies that I found on
      the web were all amateurish and vague: "Like English EE, but with the
      rounded lips and tongue pulled back somewhat"... that sort of thing.

      I have a few comments on the descriptions of German (the only of
      these languages that I know) and Swedish, but they're likely to be
      irrelevant to our purposes.


      > These are the phonologies of the 'Big 4' germanic
      > languages: German, Dutch, Danish, and Sweedish.
      > Transcription is in SAMPA format.
      >
      >
      > GERMAN:
      > Plosives: p b t d k g ?

      Probably most speakers won't recognise [?] as a phoneme; they'll
      think of it as morphological delimiter (as in 'beenden' /b@'?End@n/).

      This makes it distinct from (Estuary) English and Danish [?], which
      is clearly perceived as an allophone of various plosives.

      > Affricates: pf ts tS dZ
      > Fricatives: f v s z S Z C x h

      I think /dZ/ and /Z/ only occur in foreign (or at least semi-foreign)
      words, and a lot of speakers substitute /tS/ and /S/ for them.

      Are /x/ and /C/ (the ich- and ach-lauts) really separate phonemes?
      I'd have thought they were positional variants of each other.

      > Nasals: m n N
      > Lateral: l
      > Rhotic: R r 6

      These are regional/dialect variants of the same phoneme, I think.
      Standard German has [inverted R] (is that [6]?). Post-vocally, this
      tends to be reduced to a kind of schwa (not too far from En [V], and
      distinct from the other German schwa [@]) or lost altogether.

      > Semivowel: j
      >
      > Vowels:
      > I i:
      > E E: e:
      > a a:
      > O o:
      > U u:
      > Y y:
      > 9 2:
      > @

      The pronunciation of long A-umlaut as [E:] is rather "fine", I think.
      Most speakers merge this sound with long E [e:].

      Unstressed -ER is normally something like [V] or [inverse a], and
      clearly distinct from [@] and [a]

      > Diphthongs:
      > aI
      > aU
      > OY

      Plus a bunch more if we look at non-rhotic Rs.

      A note on Swedish. My sources tell me that many speakers use [tS] for
      [C] (graphically, KJ).

      Cheers,

      Chris
    • Thomas Martin Widmann
      ... There s a lot of dialectal variation on this in Swedish and Norwegian. kj / tj is i.a. pronounced as [tS], [S], [C], ..., and skj / sj is i.a.
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 10, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        "Christopher Burd" <cburd@...> writes:

        > A note on Swedish. My sources tell me that many speakers use [tS] for
        > [C] (graphically, KJ).

        There's a lot of dialectal variation on this in Swedish and Norwegian.
        'kj'/'tj' is i.a. pronounced as [tS], [S], [C], ...,
        and 'skj'/'sj' is i.a. pronounced as [S], [hw], [x] and other strange
        labialised [x]/[h] sounds...

        In the Oslo region they are starting to merge into [S].

        BTW, Danish has 'sj' [S] and 'tj' [tS], but not in final position.

        /Thomas
        --
        Thomas M Widmann | Master's Student | Programmer | Uni-parken 8, 2. v.333
        viralbus@...|Ling. & Comp. Sci.| Stibo DS | DK-8000 �rhus C, Danio
        +45 21 67 61 27 |Aarhus Universitet|tmw@... | President/DK-TUG
        <URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus> | +45 87 33 44 65 / T�ONF/T�GEKAMMERET
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.