Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> >Andreas Johansson wrote:
> >
> > > I usually claim that my 'lect has 18 vowel phonemes. That'd include
nine
> > > long ones, eight short ones and one diphthong /au/, so ten if length
> >doesn't
> > > count (I don't really see why it shouldn't).
> >
> >Because there aren't really any minimal pairs between
> >short and long vowels,
>
> I assume interjections don't count? If they do, the verb _ha_ [hA:] "have"
> an the interjection _ha_ [ha] "hah" is a definite minimal pair.
To paraphrase: interjections are the last resort of (scoundrel)
phonemicists.....
>
> >because if you have a long vowel
> >you have a short consonant following it and vice versa.
> >So _vit_ and _vitt_ imho aren't minimal pairs even though
> >there is both a quantity and quality difference. You can't
> >have [vIt] or [vi:t:] if you get my drift. It's the same
> >phoneme. But that's just my interpretation.
> It'd make alot of sense if I could convince myself that consonant length
is
> phonemic.
Is it in fact? If you could add a vowel suffix to vit/vitt or some similar
pair, would the pronunciation of |tt| be noticeably different? Would it be
[t:]? Seems to me this is just a reflection of the fairly common Germanic
spelling convention, that a short vowel must be followed by 2 consonants.
The fact that the short vowel differs in quality as well as quantity is
irrelevant from a purely phonemic POV. You have e.g. /i/ = [I] vs. /i:/ =
[i:] or is it just [i]?; this is not unlike the old problem in American
phonemics of calling tense [i] /iy/ (/i:/ in some systems) and lax [I] /i/.
My imperfect knowledge of German suggests something similar: there could be
a verb |betten| /bet@n/ [bEtn=] vs. |beten| /be:t@n/ [betn=]. Suffixless
forms would then be |bett| < |betten| and probably |beht| < |beten|.
There is not to my knowledge a different pronunciation of the t's in these
words.
Simili modo there is Dutch laat 'late' /la:t/, later 'later' /la:t@r/
against a (hypothetical) |latt| /lat/ 'X...' vs. |latter| 'X...er' /lat@r/;
again the vowels differ both as to quantity and quality; but the t~tt is [t]
in both cases.
> > > Swedish isn't normally analyzed as having any phonemic diphthongs, and
> > > considering the various Vj sequences as biphonemic don't really cause
> >any
> > > trouble with my 'lect, unless you're unhappy with syllabifications
> >-VC.V-
> > > (eg girl's name Maja ['maj.a]).
> >
> >I'd analyze that as [maj.ja] with a geminate /j/, which would
> >strongly suggest it's a consonant, right?
>
> I doesn't sound geminate to me ... but I'm not having a spectrograph at
hand
> to make checks.
>
> >It'd be interesting to see a spectrogram of _maj_ and see how
> >long that last /j/ is as compared to, say, _han_.
>
> I can only agree.
>
> > > But I can't see what to do with [aU] in
> > > words like _paus_ "pause", _rauk_ "a kind odd-looking crags found on
> > > Gotland's shores". Analyzing as /a:v/ doesn't work since _paus_ then
> >rhyme
> > > with _stavs_ "staff's", which it certainly does not. [av] is rare, but
> > > occurs and I can't bring myself to think it's an allophone of [aU],
even
> >if
> > > I can't seem to find any minimal pairs. Is there any accepted way to
do
> >away
> > > with it? Aside from the assertion of an old textbook I saw that my
> > > pronunciation does not occur?
> >
> >Yes, I've seen that too. _Kaos_ is supposed to be /kA:.Os/ and
> >I guess by analogy _paus_ is supposed to be /pa:.8s/ or something,
> >which sounds just ridiculous. Swedish definitely has a diphthong /aU/
> >imho.
>
> Actual, my pronounciation of _kaos_ osciliates between
> [kaUs]~[kA:.Us]~[kA:.Os], while _kaotisk_ is unfailingly [ka.u:.tIsk]. I
> think [kaUs] is what I grew up with, while the bisyllabic versions are
from
> TV science programmes and maths teachers.
>
> But _paus_ etc, as said definitely have a diphthong.
>
> Andreas
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus