LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.16 (02) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 16 21:36:31 UTC 2002
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 16.JAN.2002 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================
From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Phonology"
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Sandy, you wrote:
>
> > |[-vocal] ||[+reduced]| n -> |[+consonantal]|/V$__#
> > |[-voice] || |[+nasal] |
> > |[-continuant]|| |[+sonorant] |
> > |[+syllabic] |
>
> Unless it affects more than one phoneme, you don't have to go through
> all of this. The following would suffice, since only /t/ is involved:
Ron,
The "big" rule above wasn't actually referring to glottalisation,
but was a response to your sequence:
> > /pit/ /pitt at n/
> > 3 pI? pI?t at n/
> > 4 - pI??@n
> > ( - pI?n)
I was trying to explain why I thought the /@/ was lost in this
sequence (which it can be in Scots).
So the rule was my attempt to express the fact that Scots
speakers in casual speech often say "pitn" for "pitten",
"happm" for "happen" and "leukng" for "leuking" as you can
see from the examples I gave (and the ones you gave for Low
Saxon - an interesting correspondance!):
> pitten: /'pIt at n/ -> /'pIt=n/ ( -> /'pI?=n/)
> stappin: /'sta:pIn/ -> /'sta:p=m/
> leukin: /'ljukIn/ -> /ljuk=N/
> steak and kidney: /'ste:k @n 'kIdnI/ -> /'ste:k=N 'kIdnI/
> puddock an princess: /'pVd at k @n prInsE:s/ (no change because the <dock>
> syllable is unstressed).
I think this sort of process is worth being aware of, because
I've seen Scots writers who will write "leuk'ng" throughout a
piece of writing, and yet write "stappin" and suchlike, unaware
that this is a purely Scots process, not some corruption of the
English participial ending (I should say that the word in question
isn't normally "leuk'ng", but a certain word beginning with "f"
that tends to dominate that kind of writing). Of course the point
is not to show how to represent this process in writing as to show
that it is merely a regular process and therefore doesn't need to
be represented in writing.
Incidentally, John Magnus has been explaining to me some
subtleties I'd missed in the meaning of "lax" and "tense"
when describing vowels and I now realise that [+reduced]
above should probably be [-tense]. I'm sure the rule could
be made simpler, but currently I'm still trying to find
ways of generalising it further.
> Conventions and models in phonology are here today and gone tomorrow.
> This generative model is considered outmoded by many, anyway.
I've been wondering about it - some rules, like the one above,
seem very complicated and yet what a speaker actually does to
produce the sound change is very simple - just holds the mouth
in the same shape as for the previous consonant while pronouncing
the /n/. One suspects that a better model would express this fact
rather than make it look like something complicated was going on.
It's still worked wonders for my understanding, though!
Glottalistation always seemed such a mystery before, but
this model reduced it to a fairly methodological derivation.
I have to add that there's a lot of fun too, in listing words
and seeing what you can discover about them!
> > I often think this - especially these days when phonetics is
> > studied using medical scanners and x-rays to measure exactly
> > what goes on during speech!
>
> Yes, in this light the rule schemes we discussed are probably "rough,"
> i.e., very general. Things would get very complex indeed if we had to
> account for minute differences like those. As far as I know,
> phoneticians often add symbols such as + and - and up and down arrows as
> diacritics to show slight differences, but the notation then becomes
> very complex and for most people hard to read.
It's probably my mathematical background speaking, but it seems very
odd to me to be able to plot points on a chart (ie the trapezoid) and
yet never go on to express them in numerical form. While perhaps not
so useful for transcription, I would have thought it an important
preliminary to the study of historical processes (vowel shifts) and
perhaps other things such as language classification and the shape
or "speed" of diphthongs.
Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
- C.W.Wade,
'The Adventures o McNab'
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology
Sandy,
This may be the Scots and Low Saxon /n/ assimilation rule:
|[+conso]| |[a+labi]| |[a+labi]|
|[+voice]| -> |[+sylla]| / |[-sylla]|__#
|[+nasal]| |[ß+high]| |[ß+high]|
I often wonder if in Low Saxon (Low German) one should even bother to posit an
underlying schwa in what is written _-en_, namely if it is not just /-n/, and
if this does not also apply in Scots. As far as I know, a schwa or short [e]
is *never* pronounced in what in Low Saxon is written as _-en_, not even in
slow and deliberate speech or song, at least not in the dialects with which I
am familiar. Thus, the infinitive suffix would be simply /-n/ (e.g., _kieken_
/kiik-n/ -> ['k`i:k=N] 'to look'), and in many dialects the present
participial suffix (/-nd/ >) would also be /-n/ (due to d assimilation and
eventual loss; e.g., _'n bieten(en) Hund_ 'a biting dog' /biit-n(-n)/).
How about Scots then?
By the way, you might like to check out the following site:
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/courses/ling210-901/course/phonology/features/
Items 3 and 4 are particularly useful.
Apart from the feature outline and the example of Australian English, its
source code may help you solve the IPA symbol display problem. But .. wait! I
just looked at your phonetics page and saw that you have solved the display
problem. I might come to you for some pointers sometime. "Share the
intelligence," as one professor of mine liked to say, and as should be the
motto on Lowlands-L.
I'm glad you have included "tense" as a feature, but I am not so sure if
"reduced" has a place. As far as I am aware, schwa has a minus for all the
features, thus being the "featureless" default or basic vowel that in the
absence of primary stress may be inserted or to which other vowels may be
reduced (by losing their distinctive features).
Your "Scots Grâmmar" project (http://sandyfleemin.org/grammar/) looks very
promising (and ambitious!) even at this early stage of development.
Congratulations!
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
==================================END===================================
You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
as message text from the same account to
<listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list