Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Danish: tonal suffices?

From:Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
Date:Monday, July 3, 2000, 13:05
Oskar Gudlaugsson skrev:

>>From: Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...> >>Subject: Re: Danish: tonal suffices? >>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 18:45:14 +0200 > >>I think your perception of tone here is actually stî ‰'m sure that a >>glottal-catch could in certain circumstances be perceived as a falling >>tone to the untrained ear. When you add '-e', stød dropped; <dreng> >>[drEN?] becomes <drenge> [drEN@]. > >I'm not very good with vowel phonetics, but I really don't perceive the >vowel in 'dreng' as an [E]...is that what the dictionary gives? I perceive >it closer to [a] (closer, not exactly equal to) or even the diphthong [ai]. >But then [E] is pretty close to [a] already, so perhaps I'm wrong. As I say, >vowel phonetics is not my thing; I'm more into consonants.
Actually, you are right. Its [A] phonetically. But it is /E/ underlyingly. The phoneme /E/ becomes coloured by /r/. After /r/, /E/ becomes [a], unless it precedes a peripheral (labial or dorsal) consonant where it becomes [A] instead.
>Furthermore, the [@] often assimilates >>to the preceding voiced continuant (if any), so you'd have [drEN?] >>becoming [drENN=] -- utterances that sound almost identical except for >>the presence or absence of stਯr to the untrained ear; the presence >>or absence of a falling tone <-- Hint hint: there's an idea for a >>conlang!) > >What is [=]? Length?
No, it means syllabic. Length is [:].
>I'll very well accept the [NN] transcription; what I >perceived as a long vowel is much rather a long final continuant. As to the >hint, well thanks, I'm already into it! :)
Strictly speaking, it isn't a long *final* continuant. The continuant is long but is distributed over two syllables, not one syllable, hence the transcription [drENN=] not [drEN:]. There are no phonologically long consonants in Danish.
>Sometimes I perceive Danish phonology as so unusual that I get doubts that >its phenomena can be transcribed with IPA, or even described by conventional >phonetics at all! I know it must be possible, but it's just like a feeling, >you know :) And I'm definitely not the only one; my fellow countrymen often >joke that it can hardly be a human language at all! (Icelandic has a very >different phonetic character to that of Danish - perhaps analogous to that >of French vs Spanish and Italian). The Icelandic slang for 'speaking Danish' >is "speaking with the potato in your throat" ;)
Its not only Icelandic, I've heard other Scandinavians say that too. ;) -kristian- 8)