Hallo!
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:38:01 +0100, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
>As for _denn_, sorta. It's regularly reduced to [dn=], and then the [d]
drops
>after a [t], so _ist denn_ becomes [Istn=]. But _gehst du denn_ would
normally
>stop at the [gestUdn=] stage, I think.
Indeed. You can't apply these things to anything.
>Yup. Also _'nem_.
I forgot. Of course.
>> 'm | [(?)m=] | den, ihn | the, him
>
>You mean for _dem_ and _ihm_, don't you?
My bad. Yes.
>Only _dem_>_-m_ with prepositions.
>
>> 'mer | [m6] | wir | we
>
>Not on it's own, but for _-en wir_, like in _habmer_ for _haben wir_.
>Also _-me_ [m@].
Yep. "Haben wir" > ["hAm6] for me.
>You don't have _'s_ for _das_? In Aachen they have it whenever possible
(which
>is not to say they refrain from it when it's impossible!), and I've heard
it or
>heard it reported from other bits of Germany and Switzerland too.
Maybe.
>(By "impossible" I mean when it creates initial consonantal clusters no
sane
>human would want to associate with, as in _'s Schwimmen_ [sSvImn=].)
_'s_ usually does not appear on its own in my dialect. It's rather [@s] for
me.
Carsten
... in school instead of paying attention to the Computer Science
teacher ... ahem!