Re: fuzzy blue monkeys(was Re: .sig)

Hi!

Christian Thalmann <cinga@...> writes:
> --- In conlang@y..., Henrik Theiling <theiling@A...> wrote:
>
> > Hmm.  I definitely disagree.  It *is* a phonemic /i:/, otherwise I'd
> > write ,flauschigge'. :-) I'm very sure about this, since that
> > imaginary word and the one in question are a minimal pair for phonemic
> > length in High German.
>
> Not at all.  In Swedish, either the vowel or the following consonant
> cluster must be long.  In German, this is not the case.  You can have
>
> 1) long vowel, short consonant: *flauschiege /flaU."Si:.g@/
> 2) short vowel, long consonant: *flauschigge /flaU."SIg.g:@/
> 3) short vowel, short consonant: flauschige /"flaU.SI.g@/
You corrected yourself into .../g.g@/..., so I interpret `long
consonant' as a double consonant in written language, where each one
belongs to a different syllable.

> Variant 3) only occurs in unstressed syllables.
Yes.  Ok.

We seem to agree about my examples: they do not prove anything. :-)
Even about:

> > Something with `-iege' would be most clear, but:
> >    `Anstiege' almost rhymes with `flauschige'
>
> HONK!
>
> Incorrect.  Wildly so.  "Anstiege" is pronounced /"?an.%Sti:g@/.  /%/ is
> secondary stress.  The stress profile of that word is distinctly
> different from "flauschige".
Yes, I agree.

> >        Second syllable has secondary stress, however, so
> >        it is also phonetically long.
>
> It has secondary stress, so it is phoneMically long.
As is /i:/ in /flauschige/. :-)))))))

> Flauschige has no secondary stress, so it is phoneMically
> long.
`short' you wanted to say.

But no, I still think it is long.

> /i:/ doesn't appear in completely unstressed positions.
I'm sure it can appear in completely unstressed positions as any other
vowel can.  Like /o:/ in /kro:ko:"di:l/.  The only (:-))) problem is,
I could not find a rhyming example for `flauschige'.

Although not with stress pattern /".../ but /."../, do you also think
that `Visite' is /vI."si:.t@/?  Because I think it is /vi:."si:.t@/.
With /i:/ in unstressed position.

Hmm... What about `Libido'?  I say it's /"li:.bi:.do:/.  Same stress
pattern as `flauschige'.

What about `breiige'?  I clearly pronounce /i:/ for the second one
there, so I'd say it is /"bRaI.i:.g@/.  Because of the two adjacent
{i}-sounds, these are quite contrastive for me as I clearly raise my
tongue for the second {i}.

I searched quite a large lexicon for -iegen, -ieger and -iege words,
which would most clearly have long /i:/, but unfortunately none is
without secondary stress.  So I fear I cannot undoubtedly prove my
point.  Too bad for me.

> It always starts there where someone inexplicably disagrees with my
> infallible opinions.  ;-)
HAHA!  Same here! :-)

Before this one can be resolved, I fear either you have to prove what
you say, or I have to prove what I say.  Plus, we have to agree on the
proof...

**Henrik

Reply