USAGE: Phonematisation of German (was Re: How to Make Chicken Cacciatore)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:03:18 +0200, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
> Quoting Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>:
>
> > "möchte" has /9/, not /2/ - perhaps "mögen" and "Mücken" is a closer
> > pair to exemplify /2/ vs. /Y/ in the standard language.
>
> We would seem to be using different phonematization schemes -
Quite possibly. Phonemic transcription, as opposed to phonetic, is
always language-specific. I never learned a specific one for German so
I use an ad-hoc notation.

(This kind of thing used to garner me frequent disagreements on
sci.lang, for example, where Peter T. Daniels uses the
Trager-Smith(sp?) scheme for notating English phonemes rather than my
system based on IPA.)

> I'd transcribe the
> vowels of _möchte_ and _mögen_ as /2/ and /2:/, considering length to be the
> phonemic difference.
I suppose that would work.

I suppose we both agree that they're different phonemes? So we both
use different symbols, and which symbols we use is essentially
(almost) arbitrary.

I pronounce those phonemes as [9] and [2:], so I phonematicise them as
/9/ and /2/, ignoring length marking since /2/ is always long [2:],
but /2/ = [9] and /2:/ = [2:] would also be valid. *shrugs*

Just as in English, I write /hIt/ vs /hit/ for the distinction "hit"
vs "heat"; PTD would write (IITC) /hit/ vs. /hiyt/. (Again, I don't
write /i:/ though I pronounce [i:].)

The only case where I use : in phonemic transcription of German is for
/a:/ which contrasts with /a/ (e.g. "Sack" /zak/ vs. "sag'!" /za:k/).

> /Y/ (which I'd
> normally would rather write as /y/)
Again, an arbitrary choice.

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>