Hi!
Frank George Valoczy <valoczy@...> writes:
>
> Then, two extra-short [n]'s?
Maybe, but I don't know, maybe one n that is truely shared.
> Yes, in Eeschtraaksch.
>
> I think what we need to do is something I've had difficulty with for a
> long time: determining the distinction between what is truly "High
> German" and what is dialect.
Usually you can see from the vowels whether it is High German. Maybe
if the second German vowel shift applies, I'd consider it HG.
I.e. `Haus' and `Baum' have the same diphthong and no monophthongs.
`Euch' has [OI] and not [aI] or anything. There are rounded front
vowels. These I would take as indications. If all apply (maybe
others), I'd consider it HG.
> In my experience the speech of Frankfurt am Main is fairly close to what I
> generally consider to be High German [namely that what they speak on
> Deutsche Welle], so is that HG or dialect that lays close to it?
Hannover is assumed to have the clearest version. Frankfurt is ok,
but there is dialect around it and probably only the city has High
German.
> I find that in big cities generally the speech is fairly close to Standard
> HG [or is that just people reciprocating when they hear me speak HG? Tho
No, I'd say that it's usually correct that cities have clearer HG.
> even my HG is a bit coloured by dialect, example I say /IS/ for /IC/ and
> /nISt/, or even /nIt/ if I'm not being careful, for /nICt/] but I've
I say [?IC] and [nIC]. If the fricative drops in `nicht', I'd start
thinking it's no HG anymore. Dropping the end-T seems ok. But it's not
clear who makes up these rules, right. :-)
> It's often feelings like that which lead to interesting discoveries.
That's why I still answer using my impression only. :-)))
**Henrik