Re: Danish: tonal suffices?

>From: Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
>Subject: Re: Danish: tonal suffices?
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 00:05:08 +0200
>above. So 'hede, hedde' and 'geder, gedder' are merging. It is not
Hmm...I don't think I've ever made any distinction between those in my
speech, nor have I had to!

>ending with [D? j? w? Q?]. So 'sorg, borg' and 'sov, bov' may
>merge.
Very narrow distinction between them already, isn't there? At least in my
own speech (which is the only one I can analyze at the moment :)

>HEAVY VELARIZATION OF [D]
>[D] has always had a certain degree of velarization, but it is much
>stronger now among the youths of Copenhagen. The strong velarization
>gives [D] a common feature with [w], and when they become contiguous
>because of schwa-assimilation, then it seems that the velarization of
>[D] weakens the rounding of [w] such that [w] is 'swallowed'. So
>'levet, skrevet' = 'ledet, skredet' [le:D=  sgR溄=].
Once again I don't feel absolutely certain of how velarization works. But
looking at the examples I feel that merger has somewhat farther to go than
the ones above, though I'd agree the difference is narrow in some Copenhagen
dialects.

>I really suggest you get the book. Its much more detailed for your needs
>and the ASCII-IPA used here can be a nightmare to sort out.
Thanks a lot for the samples. I'll look for the book next time I go to the
library (just need to find the title in the archives...). And the ASCII-IPA
(+ a few Danish special chars.) you used did cause me some problems, yes ;)

Tusind tak!
Oskar
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com