Re: German language game [was: Newbie Delurking ...]
|From:||Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 16, 2001, 16:33|
At 10:00 AM -0500 11/16/01, Muke Tever wrote:
>From: "Henrik Theiling" <theiling@...>
>> Dirk wrote:
>> > >flausch-hausch-le-fausch ig-hig-le-fig e-he-le-fe blau-hau-le-fau
>> > >e-he-le-fe Aff-haff-le-faff en-hen-le-fen.
>> > Hmmm. Is "flau-hau-le-fau schi-hi-le-fi ge-he-le-fe ... A-ha-le-fa
>> > fen-hen-le-fen" also possible?
>> I think it is. I did it without thinking. Now that you say it, your
>> version seems more reasonable. However, there must be a reason for me
>> not splitting at syllable breaks.
>Probably because the morpheme breaks feel more relevant?
I'm curious about this as well. I've been doing a little bit of
reading in Germanic prosody: an article on the Norwegian
stress-quantity interdependence, and an article on the orthography of
the Ormulum -- an Early Middle English text (the author contends that
the orthography can be understood from the vantage point of a
particular theory of prosody).
>Like, in English it'd be easier to say "fuzz-huzz-le-fuzz y-hy-le-fy" than
>"fuh-huh-le-fuh zy-hy-le-fy", and "fuz-huz-le-fuz zy-hy-le-fy" is cheating.
>(But syllable breaks in English are an anomaly, I don't know if it's as bad in
Anomalous only under a particular set of assumptions ...
Dirk Elzinga Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
"Speech is human, silence is divine, yet also brutish and dead;
therefore we must learn both arts." - Thomas Carlyle