Re: / / vs [ ]

Do German words ending in <t> /t/ change to /d/ when something is added to
it? *<bent> [bent] > *<benter> or <bender> [benda] for example? (I don't
know German phonology, I'm just copying with Philip did to the -<er>) (In
a similar way to <laughter> [lA:ftA] > <laughter is> [lA:ft@rIz]; <data>
[dA:tA; -dA] > <data is> [dA:t@rIz; -d@-] in my dialect of English.) If it
didn't, I'd say <hund> was /hund/ but [hunt], but I don't have a native
German's intuition.

Tristan

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Philip Newton wrote:

> On 5 Jan 02, at 3:10, Elliott Lash wrote:
>
> > Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...> writes:
> >
> > > On 5 Jan 02, at 1:25, Sven Sommerfeld wrote:
> > >
> > > > the phoneme /d/ may have the allophones [d] and [t] as
> > > > in German "Hund" that is /hUnd/ but [hUnt].
> > >
> > > I disagree there... for me, "Hund" rhymes exactly with "bunt", so I'd
> > > write both of those as /hUnt/ and /bUnt/. If they sound the same, then
> > > they're one phoneme. Don't be mislead by the spelling! Or even by the
> > > fact that a final /t/ can turn into a medial /d/ when an ending is
> > > added.
> >
> > But that's EXACTLY the point! Phonemes are UNDERLYING forms whereas
> > phones are SURFACE representations.
> >
> > so that VOICED OBSTRUENTS -> UNVOICED /__#
> >
> > This is a phonetic rule. However, once an ending is added the
> > UNDERLYING voiced obstruent is nolonger at the word boundary, so
> > that the rule does not operate, yeilding such allophonic variation
> > as:
> >
> > [hunt] ~ [hund@]
> >
> > Proving that [d] and [t] are allophones of the phoneme /d/ (but only
> > in this possition). German of course does have a phoneme /t/, but
> > this is totally separate.
>
> Hm... it makes a little sense to me, but I must say I'm still a little
> confused.
>
> Take the examples <Haus> --> <Häuser>. How would you write that in
> phonemic notation? /haws/ --> /hawsa/? We have here an [aw] that
> changed to [Oj] and a [s] that goes to [z]. Should either of those
> changes be represented in phonemic notation? If so, why? If not, why
> not? I would be inclined to write /haws/ --> /hOjza/, but perhaps it
> should be /hawz/ --> /hawzEr/ since <s> is usually [z] but turns into
> [s] in syllable-final position, so could (should?) be considered an
> allophone?
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>
>

Replies