Ranking : The language with more vowels

User avatar
Pittsboy
Posts:1515
Joined:2002-06-28, 5:42
Real Name:Thiago do Nascimento
Gender:male
Location:Toronto, Canada
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Pittsboy » 2003-10-27, 2:38

elgrande wrote:So, the two words are distinguished by something that is not phonemic? How weird is that?


What will distinguish both words is the syllable...

I know what an affricate is.
Why can't one sound represent a combination of two phonemes? Some speakers of German use [n^] (like Portuguese nh) as an allophone of /nj/.


Portuguese ortographic 'NH' is a (voiced) nasal palatal (which is an n with a left tail), there are people who claim it may be also an [n] with a superscripted [j] (and people usually, due to laziness, leave it as a segment!!), well, just take a look at the IPA chart and you will see that it is only one symbol to represent one sound and the [j] is a palatalization diacritic... so where in heaven there are two symbols to represent one sound?

Oh, we are just talking about this tie bar? Yes, then give the two vowels a tie bar, they deserve one! So can we finally agree that German has the phonemes /OI/ (with tie bar, don't know the ascii symbol!), /aU/ (with tie bar!) and /aI/ (with tie bar!)?


It doesn't work like this!! Not even one language on Earth has been described having tie-barred vowels which make diphthongs... what people usually do is putting a diacritic mark below the glide vowel that resembles a '^', this is the symbol for non syllabic segments... so in the German [OI] diphthong (and all the others), the [ i ] should have this diacritic under... but as it is a common practice it is left aside, and languages only permit certain types of vowels to function as glides, in order to make diphthongs, so this is not necessary for it becomes redundant... So, this diacritic is used to inform you that the vowel will not make a new syllable and will be a satelite vowel, a glide, and not a nucleus! So, the only possibility will be this vowel to stay with the target vowel, this makes a diphthong....

Image This is the image of two syllables, the word is "Limit"

Image
This image shows the syllable structure of the words 'rapid' and 'boy' ... note the [OI] diphthong... the [O] is the nucleus and the [I] is the glide, two distinct vowels... if they were only one, both would be under the nucleus line and not split... t and this happens in all of the world's languages!
"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."
~~Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)~~

User avatar
Pittsboy
Posts:1515
Joined:2002-06-28, 5:42
Real Name:Thiago do Nascimento
Gender:male
Location:Toronto, Canada
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Pittsboy » 2003-10-27, 5:38

Message follows below, it is my friend's: Bender
Last edited by Pittsboy on 2003-10-27, 6:44, edited 1 time in total.
"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."

~~Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)~~

User avatar
bender
Posts:996
Joined:2003-10-27, 5:40
Real Name:Ricardo Caputo
Gender:male
Location:São Paulo
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

The abscence of nasal vowels in Portuguese

Postby bender » 2003-10-27, 6:36

Hi

My name is Ricardo, I am a new member of Unilang and I have some words about this topic.

To support the assertion that there are no actual nasal vowels in Portuguese, consider these facts:

1) in Portuguese any vowel might be followed by another vowel in hiatus:
-reo
-ps
-sde
-cueca
-doer
-voar
-aonde
-hiato
-cca
-silhueta
-cuidado (maybe we've got a diphtong here...)
-proibir

But you'll never have a nasal vowel followed by another vowel. Why? Because it's actually a nasalized vowel... it BECOMES nasalized because in the speaker's mind it's a vowel followed by the archiphoneme /N/. So, when the rules of the Phonology of Portuguese are aplied to the case you have V /N/ V, you should have a consonant between the two vowels, which can be [m], [n] or [ñ].

2) another fact is that any vowel may be followed by the /r/ in Portuguese:
dar
puder [pudEr]
ter [ter]
vir
maior [majOr]
flor [flor]
Artur, curto

But you'll never have ~ar, ~er, ~ir, ~or, ~ur (~ = nasal)
Someone could bring up the example of the word 'honra', but here we don't have [~or], we have [~oR] instead, because Portuguese forbids /N.r/, but allows /N.R/

So, what do you think?

User avatar
Saaropean
Posts:8808
Joined:2002-06-21, 10:24
Real Name:Rolf S.
Gender:male
Location:Montréal
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Saaropean » 2003-10-27, 14:29

Pittsboy wrote:No contradiction here! Only phonemic vowles must count... vowels that are at the morphophonemic level!
Diphthongs are two sounds, not an entity, you do not produce two vowels as a single unit, but rather two! Diphthongs are phonemic in the sense that they appear in the morphophonemic level but they are not one whole... that's what I am trying to say... you can say that the phone which is a diphthong are two vowels and not one...

Of course a diphthong is two sounds. But isn't that the phonetic level that doesn't count, just like the difference between the vowels in "bad" and "bat" doesn't count? :!:
The question was whether the 3 diphthongs in German can be considered phonemic vowels. The word "Haus" [haUs] (meaning "house") derived from Old or Middle High German "Hûs" [hu:s], so at least it used to be one vowel.

Well, you could say etymology doesn't play a role, so let me show another approach. The plural of "Haus" [haUs] is "Häuser" ["hOI.z6]. Now what happens here? The consonant at the end is voiced, because S is pronounced [z], but [s] in final position. Umlauting and the ER [6] at the end indicate plural. What is umlauting? That's not just two dots placed on the stressed vowel, but a change of pronunciation of that vowel:
A [a] / [a:] :arrow: Ä [E] / [E:]
AU [aU] :arrow: ÄU [OI]
O [O] / [o:] :arrow: Ö [9] / [2:]
U [U] / [u:] :arrow: Ü [Y] / [y:]

That's quite a radical change for a diphthong, isn't it? If you tried to explain it with the "a diphthong is just two vowels" approach, it would at least be complicated. :P

Another example: What is the standard pronunciation of the English word "no"? [no]? No, it's [noU] or [n@U], a diphthong. How come people are not aware of that? How come many English-speakers can pronounce [oU], but are unable to say [o]? :shock:
There must be something about that diphthong that makes it phonemic... :roll:

Pittsboy wrote:There 'might' be the nasal written 'a', but I would assure you of that... and it is not my opinion about whether Portuguese has nasal vowels or not, it is a concensus among linguists...

Nasalized? But why does the nasal consonant disappear? When I say "singen" in German, the I is slightly nasalized due to the following consonant ["zI~N@n].
But in Portuguese, the nasal vowel is no longer pronounced. In fact it is obsolete, because the nasality is clearly shown in the vowel. Why do you call this "nasalized" and not a "nasal vowel"? :shock:

Pittsboy wrote:the nasal vowel is not etymological, for in Latin there were no nasal vowels either, they were nasalized as well!!

Actually I meant the opposite. What I wanted to say was the following: In Latin there was an ordinary (not nasalized) vowel preceding a nasal consonant ("mano"). During the course of time, the vowel became slightly nasalized, but it still preceded that nasal consonant. Even later, the vowel was fully nasal, so it was possible to distinguish it from a non-nasal vowel without looking at the following consonant. Thus the nasal consonant was dropped, and nasality was kept in the vowel ("mã").

The fact that nasal vowels can't form clusters or be followed by /r/ doesn't support your theory IMHO. In fact this has historical reasons (there were no vowel-N-R words, and in vowel-N-vowel words the nasal consonant was not dropped). I don't think it would be impossible for a new word in Portuguese (one that didn't experience the usual way from Latin) to have a nasal vowel followed by another vowel or a nasal vowel followed by /r/.

Other argument: If you say any two (non-nasal) vowels can form a cluster in Portuguese, and nasal vowels are actually a vowel followed by a hidden nasal consonant, then why don't you accept the German diphthongs as something special? You can have any sequence of two vowels with a glottal stop in between (naiv [na"?i:f], Kooperation [ko:?OpERa"tsjo:n], beeindrucken [b@"?aIndrUk@n], geachtet [g@"?axt@t]), but the only diphthongs are [aI], [aU] and [OI] (plus [EI] in recent loans from English). So, according to Bender's argumentation, those 3/4 diphthongs should be considered separately from the others...

User avatar
Pittsboy
Posts:1515
Joined:2002-06-28, 5:42
Real Name:Thiago do Nascimento
Gender:male
Location:Toronto, Canada
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Pittsboy » 2003-10-27, 16:43

Final remarks:

Saaropean wrote:Of course a diphthong is two sounds. But isn't that the phonetic level that doesn't count, just like the difference between the vowels in "bad" and "bat" doesn't count? :!:


Saar, when you talk about the quantity of vowels of a language you count what's at the phonemic level, what underlies phonetics... the difference between the [a] sound in 'bad' and 'bat' are caused by acoustics perception, and no language as I am aware makes this type of distinction, they are both the same vowel but one is like, miliseconds longer then the other.

The question was whether the 3 diphthongs in German can be considered phonemic vowels. The word "Haus" [haUs] (meaning "house") derived from Old or Middle High German "Hûs" [hu:s], so at least it used to be one vowel.


The diphthngos are only considered phonemic if they are a part of the word... what I mean: in /haUs/ (which is a one-syllable word - note for the slashes) yes, you do have a diphthong, because once you have ONE syllable, you MUST make a diphthong, because two vowels cannot be the nucleus inside a sylable, so one of the vowels must be a glide... the point I have been trying to say is that diphthongs can be phonemic but they are STILL two sounds and not a single entity... Is that clear?

Well, you could say etymology doesn't play a role, so let me show another approach. The plural of "Haus" [haUs] is "Häuser" ["hOI.z6]. Now what happens here? The consonant at the end is voiced, because S is pronounced [z], but [s] in final position. Umlauting and the ER [6] at the end indicate plural. What is umlauting? That's not just two dots placed on the stressed vowel, but a change of pronunciation of that vowel:


Yes, German devoices voiced sounds in word-final position.... it is a fact... then when you have the plural of Haus (s), it becomes Häuser (z) because that 's' is not between two vowels, so in orfder to accomodate pronunciation, the 's' is voiced so that it sounds 'z' (all vowels are voiced, and also, I believe, is there word-initial [s] in German?) - it is better to pronounce 3 voiced sounds than one voiced, then stop voicing, then starting it again, don't you agree? Umlaut is used in German for accomodating pronunciation, it makes sounds go front, once you have that 'er' ending, it makes articulations simpler to shift the [aU] into [OI] that are 'middlish' vowels and they are almost at the same level as that [6] is... do not confuse ortography... as you can see, written 'äu' is pronounced [OI], so the phonemic representation of Häuser is /hOIz6/ and has no /aU/ in it... understand now?

That's quite a radical change for a diphthong, isn't it? If you tried to explain it with the "a diphthong is just two vowels" approach, it would at least be complicated. :P


So what? both sounds change accordingly to German phonemic laws...

haUs > hOI.z6
a --> O ('a' which is a low vowel shift to a middle vowel 'O')
U --> which is a back vowel shifts to a front vowel, that's umlauting)

Another example: What is the standard pronunciation of the English word "no"? [no]? No, it's [noU] or [n@U], a diphthong. How come people are not aware of that? How come many English-speakers can pronounce [oU], but are unable to say [o]? :shock:
There must be something about that diphthong that makes it phonemic... :roll:


Again, you are taking ortography for phonetic transcription...and once again, English is not well known for having very 'pure' vowels, is it?... languages conditionate its speakers not to be very able to pronouncing certain vowel sounds pure, so they tend to alongate the vowels, creating these diphthong-like sounds... People are not aware of it because they were born speaking the language so all this process is automatic, no need for thinking... as I said, English speaking people have a hard time pronouncing pure vowels because the language does not have them isolated many times... same thing happens when you are learning a foreign language, as your language does not have some sounds you find it hard to pronounce... by the way, the phonemic representantion of 'NO' is probably [n@U] or [noU] and not [no]. NO is how you write it... please stop taking what's written for phonemic...

Nasalized? But why does the nasal consonant disappear? When I say "singen" in German, the I is slightly nasalized due to the following consonant ["zI~N@n].
But in Portuguese, the nasal vowel is no longer pronounced. In fact it is obsolete, because the nasality is clearly shown in the vowel. Why do you call this "nasalized" and not a "nasal vowel"? :shock:


In Portuguese, the nasal doesn't dissaoear completely, it nasalizates the vowel then it is dropped, however one can still hear a nasal ressonance (sound) just after the nasalized vowel... this is something natives can hear quite clearly but they are not aware of that too... and, if nasality is shown in the vowel why still pronounce the [n]? So it is dropped...

Actually I meant the opposite. What I wanted to say was the following: In Latin there was an ordinary (not nasalized) vowel preceding a nasal consonant ("mano"). During the course of time, the vowel became slightly nasalized, but it still preceded that nasal consonant. Even later, the vowel was fully nasal, so it was possible to distinguish it from a non-nasal vowel without looking at the following consonant. Thus the nasal consonant was dropped, and nasality was kept in the vowel ("mã").


So? I know that, I speak Portuguese and have studied Latim as well... what does that claim? When you are speaking a language you look nowhere, you rather listen to it :lol:

Latim: mano -> mãno -> mão: Portuguese (hand)

English itself... take the example 'half' as it is spoken by American, it does sound nasal... [hãef], however it is not even nasalized, what happens, is that people take it is a nasal [ae] but what happens in fact is that the [h] sound creates a ressonance when adjoined to [ae] (which is a very front vowel) and people hear it as a nasal ressonance, but in fact it is a tracheal ressonance...

The fact that nasal vowels can't form clusters or be followed by /r/ doesn't support your theory IMHO. In fact this has historical reasons (there were no vowel-N-R words, and in vowel-N-vowel words the nasal consonant was not dropped). I don't think it would be impossible for a new word in Portuguese (one that didn't experience the usual way from Latin) to have a nasal vowel followed by another vowel or a nasal vowel followed by /r/.


Attention here... it is not impossible that in some language that happens BUT in Portuguese that is impossible to happen... got it? Portuguese phonetic system doesn't allow such a thing to happen, so when you would have a cluster of nasals, they are not nasals... of course from Latim to Portuguese, in that V-N-V cluster, the nasal has been dropped (just take a look at MANO > MÃO, the nasal consonant nasalized the vowel and has been dropped!). Yes, it is impossible to Portuguese to have such a combination of Nasal+r.. when such a cluster happens, we pronounce /r/ as [R]...

Other argument: If you say any two (non-nasal) vowels can form a cluster in Portuguese, and nasal vowels are actually a vowel followed by a hidden nasal consonant, then why don't you accept the German diphthongs as something special? You can have any sequence of two vowels with a glottal stop in between (naiv [na"?i:f], Kooperation [ko:?OpERa"tsjo:n], beeindrucken [b@"?aIndrUk@n], geachtet [g@"?axt@t]), but the only diphthongs are [aI], [aU] and [OI] (plus [EI] in recent loans from English). So, according to Bender's argumentation, those 3/4 diphthongs should be considered separately from the others...


That nasal consonant is not HIDDEN, it is realized in the language as a nasal ressonance, so we perceive it to be there... In syllable theory, German allows only [aI], [aU] and [OI]... it is a restriction on diphthongs that German has for some particular reasons... Portuguese has different rules for diphthongs, each language has different rules for them... If you take the maximum dispersion principle into account, I believe (not sure, though) that German only allows diphthongs that are distant in the vocal tract... if you take a look at the IPA vowel chart, you will note that the [a] is a low vowel and [I] is very high and that [O] is a middle low vowel... what happens then is that German prefers to make diphthongs only with vowels of extremeties, so that it keeps a maximum distinctin and will not cause misunderstanding... what concerns to loans, even Portuguese has some that go astray the languages rules, but they are still new, so the language will either accomodate them inside the phonological system or will adapt itself to the new word.

Image
"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."

~~Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)~~

User avatar
Saaropean
Posts:8808
Joined:2002-06-21, 10:24
Real Name:Rolf S.
Gender:male
Location:Montréal
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Saaropean » 2003-10-27, 17:14

I'm sorry, but you haven't understood what I wanted to say. :(

Pittsboy wrote:
The question was whether the 3 diphthongs in German can be considered phonemic vowels. The word "Haus" [haUs] (meaning "house") derived from Old or Middle High German "Hûs" [hu:s], so at least it used to be one vowel.

No remark about that argument?

Pittsboy wrote:The diphthngos are only considered phonemic if they are a part of the word... what I mean: in /haUs/ (which is a one-syllable word - note for the slashes) yes, you do have a diphthong, because once you have ONE syllable, you MUST make a diphthong, because two vowels cannot be the nucleus inside a sylable, so one of the vowels must be a glide... the point I have been trying to say is that diphthongs can be phonemic but they are STILL two sounds and not a single entity... Is that clear?

Yes, it is clear, and I said it is clear:
Saaropean wrote:Of course a diphthong is two sounds.

Haven't you read everything I wrote in my reply? :shock:

Pittsboy wrote:Yes, German devoices voiced sounds in word-final position.... it is a fact... then when you have the plural of Haus (s), it becomes Häuser (z) because that 's' is not between two vowels, so in orfder to accomodate pronunciation, the 's' is voiced so that it sounds 'z' (all vowels are voiced, and also, I believe, is there word-initial [s] in German?) - it is better to pronounce 3 voiced sounds than one voiced, then stop voicing, then starting it again, don't you agree?

I shouldn't have mentioned that, it makes you get off topic. ;-)
Yes, it's true what you wrote here. And no, there is no word-initial [s] in German. But let's get back to the diphthong topic now.
Note that this is actually not a voicing, but a de-devoicing process following the simple rule "a word-final stop or fricative is always voiceless". Examples: "Tod" [to:t] (death), "tot" [to:t] (dead), "Tode" ["to:d@] (death, dative singular), "tote" ["to:t@] (dead, feminine nominative singular)

Pittsboy wrote:
Well, you could say etymology doesn't play a role, so let me show another approach. The plural of "Haus" [haUs] is "Häuser" ["hOI.z6]. Now what happens here? The consonant at the end is voiced, because S is pronounced [z], but [s] in final position. Umlauting and the ER [6] at the end indicate plural. What is umlauting? That's not just two dots placed on the stressed vowel, but a change of pronunciation of that vowel:

Umlaut is used in German for accomodating pronunciation, it makes sounds go front, once you have that 'er' ending, it makes articulations simpler to shift the [aU] into [OI] that are 'middlish' vowels and they are almost at the same level as that [6] is... do not confuse ortography... as you can see, written 'äu' is pronounced [OI], so the phonemic representation of Häuser is /hOIz6/ and has no /aU/ in it... understand now?

1) Umlauting is not related to that ER ending. The plural of "Vogel" ["fo:g@l] is "Vögel" ["f2:g@l].
2) Umlauting is not as simple as fronting. Yes, O /o/ becomes Ö /ø/ and U /u/ becomes Ü /y/, but A /a/ becomes Ä /ε/ and AU /aU/ becomes ÄU /OI/.
3) I don't confuse all of this with orthography.
4) Of course I understand that ÄU is pronounced [OI], which is by no means phonetic.

Pittsboy wrote:
That's quite a radical change for a diphthong, isn't it? If you tried to explain it with the "a diphthong is just two vowels" approach, it would at least be complicated. :P

So what? both sounds change accordingly to German phonemic laws...

haUs > hOI.z6
a --> O ('a' which is a low vowel shift to a middle vowel 'O')
U --> which is a back vowel shifts to a front vowel, that's umlauting)

Why does [a] shift to [O] in AU/ÄU if it shifts to [E] in A/Ä?
Why does [U] shift to [I.] in AU/ÄU if it shifts to [Y] in U/Ü?
Wouldn't it be more consistent to say the diphthong [aU] shifts to [OI]? :idea:

Pittsboy wrote:
Another example: What is the standard pronunciation of the English word "no"? [no]? No, it's [noU] or [n@U], a diphthong. How come people are not aware of that? How come many English-speakers can pronounce [oU], but are unable to say [o]? :shock:
There must be something about that diphthong that makes it phonemic... :roll:

Again, you are taking ortography for phonetic transcription

What makes you think so? The question whether "no" was pronounced [no] was rhetorical if you know what that means.

Pittsboy wrote:...and once again, English is not well known for having very 'pure' vowels, is it?...

That's a quite unscientific remark, isn't it?
My point was: The (orthographic) O in "no" is a (phonetic) diphthong [oU] that (naturally) consists of the vowel [o] and the off-glide [U], but the (pure) vowel [o] does not exist in English. Now can you still say that this [oU] should be regarded as two distinct vowels? :?:

Pittsboy wrote:languages conditionate its speakers not to be very able to pronouncing certain vowel sounds pure, so they tend to alongate the vowels, creating these diphthong-like sounds...

The O in "no" is a diphthong, not a long vowel.

Pittsboy wrote:
Nasalized? But why does the nasal consonant disappear? When I say "singen" in German, the I is slightly nasalized due to the following consonant ["zI~N@n].
But in Portuguese, the nasal vowel is no longer pronounced. In fact it is obsolete, because the nasality is clearly shown in the vowel. Why do you call this "nasalized" and not a "nasal vowel"? :shock:


In Portuguese, the nasal doesn't dissaoear completely, it nasalizates the vowel then it is dropped, however one can still hear a nasal ressonance (sound) just after the nasalized vowel... this is something natives can hear quite clearly but they are not aware of that too... (1) and, if nasality is shown in the vowel why still pronounce the [n]? So it is dropped... (2)

According to (1), there is still a short nasal consonant audible, but according to (2) the nasal consonant is completely dropped, because the nasal(ized) vowel makes it superfluous. Am I the only one who finds that contradictory?

Pittsboy wrote:
Actually I meant the opposite. What I wanted to say was the following: In Latin there was an ordinary (not nasalized) vowel preceding a nasal consonant ("mano"). During the course of time, the vowel became slightly nasalized, but it still preceded that nasal consonant. Even later, the vowel was fully nasal, so it was possible to distinguish it from a non-nasal vowel without looking at the following consonant. Thus the nasal consonant was dropped, and nasality was kept in the vowel ("mã").

So? I know that, I speak Portuguese and have studied Latim as well... what does that claim? When you are speaking a language you look nowhere, you rather listen to it :lol:

Latim: mano -> mãno -> mão: Portuguese (hand)

That example was supposed to show how the A became nasalized in Portuguese, and how the nasal consonant was dropped. The result is a clear difference between nasal and non-nasal vowels rather than just vowels preceding consonants.

Pittsboy wrote:That nasal consonant is not HIDDEN, it is realized in the language as a nasal ressonance, so we perceive it to be there...

Just like in French, where there is a clear difference between "mais" [mE] and "main" [mE~]. :!:

Pittsboy wrote:In syllable theory, German allows only [aI], [aU] and [OI]... it is a restriction on diphthongs that German has for some particular reasons... Portuguese has different rules for diphthongs, each language has different rules for them...

That's why I would say German diphthongs--in opposite to Portuguese ones--are phonemic, and more than just a combination of two vowels.

Pittsboy wrote:If you take the maximum dispersion principle into account, I believe (not sure, though) that German only allows diphthongs that are distant in the vocal tract... if you take a look at the IPA vowel chart, you will note that the [a] is a low vowel and [I] is very high and that [O] is a middle low vowel... what happens then is that German prefers to make diphthongs only with vowels of extremeties, so that it keeps a maximum distinctin and will not cause misunderstanding...

Maybe. On the other hand: If [OI] is such a maximum dispersion, why is [EU] unpronounceable for German-speakers?
So what? And what about my arguments for the phonemic character of the German diphthongs? Have you read them? Have you understood what I meant?

Pittsboy wrote:what concerns to loans, even Portuguese has some that go astray the languages rules, but they are still new, so the language will either accomodate them inside the phonological system or will adapt itself to the new word.

That happens in every language, doesn't it?

Pittsboy wrote:http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/linguistics/russell/138/sec3/vow-ipa.gif

Thanks for the picture, but I have an IPA chart in front of me (printed and in GIF form). :P

elgrande

Postby elgrande » 2003-10-27, 22:07

@Saaropean:

1.) I think what Pittsboy may mean is that in Portuguese nasal vowels are allophones of the corresponding non-nasal vowel followed by /n/, so [mE~] and [mEn] couldn't be different words, becuase [E~] is /En/ phonemically. Just an idea, I may be mistaken.

2.) I actually don't know whether I say [OI] or [OY]. Duden even gives [Oy] for this vowel, but that seems weird.

3.) About the "Ding" vowel: I think it's a bit more like [i] than the vowel in "Zinn", I'm not sure if one of the vowels is more nasal.

4.) Your arguments for German and English vowels being phonemic seem very convincing to me.



@ Pittsboy:
1.) The thing with nucleus etc. is very interesting, but this is a phonetic thing, not a phonemic one.

2.) You say syllable structure would differ. Then you have to consider "beginning/end of syllable" is something phonemic. I think you could theoretically describe German diphthongs this way, but what I see against it in practise is a) this phoemic feature would only exist when one of the three diphthongs in question is possible, b) umlautung is hard to explain this way and c) it's not what a diphthong is in German people's heads.

3.) If the diphthongs were just a number of phonemes following one another, shouldn't be easy for me to determine whether I say [OI] or [OY]? After all, [I] and [Y] are different phonemes in German, but actually I can't hear which one I use. In other contexts I never have such p
problems.

Just do a google search on English phonemes and you'll find that on those sites the diphthongs are always mentioned as separate phonemes.


For example, I found this page http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/ling210 ... owels.html
, where it says (last sentence is important):

"Diphthongisation

Diphthongs are essentially single vowel phonemes that consist of two pure vowel targets in sequence. In diphthongs it is often assumed that both targets have equal importance and one does not dominate the other in determining the identity of the vowel. When an initial brief vowel gesture is dominated by a following full target the initial gesture is referred to as an onglide. When a final brief vowel gesture is dominated by a preceding vowel target the brief final gesture is referred to as an offglide. Sometimes diphthongisation can be extended to three vowel targets in triphthongs.

Two identical sequences can be identified as a single diphthong phoneme in one language and as a monophthong phoneme plus a semi-vowel phoneme in another language. "

User avatar
Pittsboy
Posts:1515
Joined:2002-06-28, 5:42
Real Name:Thiago do Nascimento
Gender:male
Location:Toronto, Canada
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Pittsboy » 2003-10-27, 22:48

Saaropean wrote:I'm sorry, but you haven't understood what I wanted to say. :(

Pittsboy wrote:
The question was whether the 3 diphthongs in German can be considered phonemic vowels. The word "Haus" [haUs] (meaning "house") derived from Old or Middle High German "Hûs" [hu:s], so at least it used to be one vowel.

No remark about that argument?


All I want to say is that a diphthong can be phonemic if and only if both phonemes which contitute it figure as phonemes at the phonemic level... the fact that [hu:s] became [haUs] is not argument to say that the diphthong is one single sound...

1) Umlauting is not related to that ER ending. The plural of "Vogel" ["fo:g@l] is "Vögel" ["f2:g@l].
2) Umlauting is not as simple as fronting. Yes, O /o/ becomes Ö /ø/ and U /u/ becomes Ü /y/, but A /a/ becomes Ä /ε/ and AU /aU/ becomes ÄU /OI/.
3) I don't confuse all of this with orthography.
4) Of course I understand that ÄU is pronounced [OI], which is by no means phonetic.


a) Umlaut relates to the ending as well, that's one of the reasons why you umlaut the root of the word... so that you accomodate the ending with the vowels in the root too... there exist irregular plurals, of course... vogel is probably one of them, right? There are also ablaut cases...
b) OK, let's reformulate the umlaut concept then, the vowles become front and high, better? [aU] -> the semivowel (glide) [U] becomes [I]...

Why does [a] shift to [O] in AU/ÄU if it shifts to [E] in A/Ä?
Why does [U] shift to [I.] in AU/ÄU if it shifts to [Y] in U/Ü?
Wouldn't it be more consistent to say the diphthong [aU] shifts to [OI]? :idea:


There're probably some rules stating that:

- when /a/ (low front vowel) umlauts alone, the only possibility is to become higher, once it is already front, then it results in [E] (low-mid front)
- when /a/ has a glide adjoined (as in /aU/ = diphthong), /a/ shifts to a mid-back back position [O] and /U/ (high back) shifts front to [I]... in order to keep the constrast which naturally occurs in German and which is attested in the world languages, which is called 'maximum dispersion principle'.
- when /U/ stands alone and umlauts, it becomes front, once it is already a high vowel...

If you take a look at the vowel chart, this schem is quite symmetrical... but it is just an idea... There are papers on this matter...

Saar wrote:
Pittsboy wrote:...and once again, English is not well known for having very 'pure' vowels, is it?...

That's a quite unscientific remark, isn't it?
My point was: The (orthographic) O in "no" is a (phonetic) diphthong [oU] that (naturally) consists of the vowel [o] and the off-glide [U], but the (pure) vowel [o] does not exist in English. Now can you still say that this [oU] should be regarded as two distinct vowels? :?:


Why unscientific? That's true, English speakers have a hard time saying pure vowels because their language do not usually use them... Yes, the ortographic 'o' in NO is spoken as [oU], and phonemically this ortographic 'o' is /oU/... I can still say that this 'oU' is phonemic, and this does not infer that they are one single entity! And they are still two sounds, which happens to appear in English as a diphthong... see? they are two sounds and English has rules saying that they can only appear if they are combined... and this does not make them one single sound.

The O in "no" is a diphthong, not a long vowel.


Yes I do know that, but taking your example into account ([hu:s], which became [haUs]), I wouldn't wonder (I am not affirming that, though) that this diphthong appeared in German due to the fact the pure vowel [u] was long... then people started diphthonging it... it is possible...

According to (1), there is still a short nasal consonant audible, but according to (2) the nasal consonant is completely dropped, because the nasal(ized) vowel makes it superfluous. Am I the only one who finds that contradictory?


Pay attention here: 1) there's a nasal ressonance (call it nasal consonant if you want to, but it is not a consonant, it is an acoustic perception) and 2) the nasal consonat is dropped after it nasalizes the vowel... there's no contradiction whatsoever:
Look at this example-
Phonemic: /'kONto/ (N is an archiphoneme)
rules apply
Phonetic: ['kÕWtU] (W is a superscripted [w] which indicates a nasal ressonance and also a labialization, actually the nasal ressonance happens when the lips close=labialization)...
This ressonance is not a segment...

That's why I would say German diphthongs--in opposite to Portuguese ones--are phonemic, and more than just a combination of two vowels.


They are two sounds combined, for God's sake!

Maybe. On the other hand: If [OI] is such a maximum dispersion, why is [EU] unpronounceable for German-speakers?


Because German has no words containing [EU]. When I say maximum dispersion it is language specific, each language picks what is due to its phonological system. If Germans had learnt word in Germn with those, the phonological system would probably be different.
"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."

~~Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)~~

User avatar
Pittsboy
Posts:1515
Joined:2002-06-28, 5:42
Real Name:Thiago do Nascimento
Gender:male
Location:Toronto, Canada
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Pittsboy » 2003-10-28, 0:03

elgrande wrote:@Saaropean:

1.) I think what Pittsboy may mean is that in Portuguese nasal vowels are allophones of the corresponding non-nasal vowel followed by /n/, so [mE~] and [mEn] couldn't be different words, becuase [E~] is /En/ phonemically. Just an idea, I may be mistaken.


[m~E] and [mEn] are very different, even phonemically, the first one /m~E/ states that there is a nasal vowel int he language and the second /mEn/ states that /E/ when spoken may be nasalized, which is very common to happen...

@ Pittsboy:
1.) The thing with nucleus etc. is very interesting, but this is a phonetic thing, not a phonemic one.


Syllable structure is both phonetic and phonological... you cannot define only phonetically what's a syllable nor only phonologically...

2.) You say syllable structure would differ. Then you have to consider "beginning/end of syllable" is something phonemic. I think you could theoretically describe German diphthongs this way, but what I see against it in practise is a) this phoemic feature would only exist when one of the three diphthongs in question is possible, b) umlautung is hard to explain this way and c) it's not what a diphthong is in German people's heads.


According to the language, only specific segments can ocupy the onset, nucleus and coda positions, all other sounds occupy marginal positions which will be things like glides (right or left of the nucleus), for example...

3.) If the diphthongs were just a number of phonemes following one another, shouldn't be easy for me to determine whether I say [OI] or [OY]? After all, [I] and [Y] are different phonemes in German, but actually I can't hear which one I use. In other contexts I never have such p
problems.


Not really, because [O] is a rounded vowel and [I] is an unrounded vowel... it is common to keep rounding when pronouncing a following unrounded segment, or at least, start rounding and then unround it.
So it is no amazing it can happen, I do it a lot in Finnish...

Just do a google search on English phonemes and you'll find that on those sites the diphthongs are always mentioned as separate phonemes.


"Diphthongisation

Diphthongs are essentially single vowel phonemes that consist of two pure vowel targets in sequence. In diphthongs it is often assumed that both targets have equal importance and one does not dominate the other in determining the identity of the vowel. When an initial brief vowel gesture is dominated by a following full target the initial gesture is referred to as an onglide. When a final brief vowel gesture is dominated by a preceding vowel target the brief final gesture is referred to as an offglide. Sometimes diphthongisation can be extended to three vowel targets in triphthongs.[/quote]

If you take a close look it says that both vowels are targets, and also says that no one dominates the other, and take a look farther, it says that when one dominates the other it is either onglide or offglide... where is the weird thing about it? If you want I can post something on vowel structure theory for you... diphthongs bear on target and one glide... that's simply because two segments cannot occupy one nucleus place...

Two identical sequences can be identified as a single diphthong phoneme in one language and as a monophthong phoneme plus a semi-vowel phoneme in another language. "


Yes, Definition: A diphthong is a phonetic sequence, consisting of a vowel and a glide, that is interpreted as a single vowel. (cf. Summer Institute of Linguistics Glossary of Linguistics)... Pay very much attention when it says that "it is interpreted/identified as a single phoneme" BUT it is not a single phoneme... phonetically it may be "listened to" as a single sound BUT phonemically it is not a single phoneme, and this is attented in Syllable structure, both phonemes cannot occupy a nucleus... and the only reason speakers may interpret it as a single phoneme is because it is in one syllable.

Or even Webster's definition:
cf. F. diphthongue.] (Ortho["e]py)
(a) A coalition or union of two vowel sounds pronounced in
one syllable; as, ou in out, oi in noise; -- called a
{proper diphthong}.

One simple argument for diphthongs as two sounds combined is the fact that when representing them in syllable tress, the nucleus is branched into two... if they were one segment only then we would put both under one single slot.

[quote="]"If the syllable is open, its representation is CV. If the syllable is still open, but the vowel in its nucleus is long or is a diphthong, it will be called a heavy syllable. Its representation is CV: (we remember that the colon is conventionally used to mark long vowels) or CVV (for a diphthong). "[/quote]

Is that clear? If the diphthong were a single sound then we would represent it as a single V and not two.
"It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."

~~Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)~~

User avatar
bender
Posts:996
Joined:2003-10-27, 5:40
Real Name:Ricardo Caputo
Gender:male
Location:São Paulo
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Nasal Vowels X Nasalized Vowels

Postby bender » 2003-10-28, 5:07

About the nasal X nasalized vowels in Portuguese

Well, first of all, it would be rather difficult for a Brazilian Portuguese speaker to pronounce a nasal(ized) vowel followed by /r/. I myself can't imagine such a word in portuguese...
You are right when you say that this happens because Latin didn't have words with n+r, but then you are just justifying historically why Portuguese has no actual nasal vowels...
And what matters, anyway, is how the language is now. Portuguese could have changed in such a way that it would accept nasal vowels + r or nasal vowels + other vowels (in hiatus). But it didn't!

And we do need that ressonance that Pittsboy was talking about to perceive the nasalization.
In the middle of the word, this ressonace assimilates the place of articulation of the following consonant... So, 'vender' (to sell) is pronounced as [v~eNder], where 'N' is the superscripted 'n'.
An acoustic analysis could show that, but I can give you another argument:
In word final positions, we tend to make a diphtong with the nasal. Why? Because there's no following consonant! So, we tend to make this nasalized offglide to support the ressonance.
This does not need acoustic analysis... Any ear is able to perceive it. :)
So, 'alguém' (somebody) is pronouced [awg~e~j] and 'batom' (lipstick) is pronounced [batõ~w] (the ressonance assimilates the features of the preceding vowel)

So, the /N/ archiphoneme can have many allophones: [m], [n], [ng] (this is the sound in 'sing'), [~w], [~j], but all of them are predictable.

You see? If you consider the existence of this archiphoneme, you can explain everything in a simple way. If you consider the existence of nasal vowels, it becomes more difficult... So, isn't it reasonable to accept the first hypothesis?

The only vowel that does not need necessarily this ressonance is the [a]. When we say 'lã' (wool), we pronounce it as [lã], simply. Actually there is a change in the vowel quality. It becomes [3], like in English word "bird". It's better to transcribe it as [l~3].
So, [ã] in portuguese may be in the middle of the process of becoming a nasal vowel, but I believe it's soon to say that, because it still works phonologically as [aN].

One more argument:
When deriving words, the supposed nasal vowels behave, again, as nasalised vowels.
bom 'good' [bõ~w];
bom + íssimo = boníssimo [bo'nisimU] *[bõ'isimU], *[bõ~w'ísimU]
(I don't believe we say [bõ'nisimU], but acoustic analysis should confirm it or not; anyway, it doesn't matter here)
Suprasegments never become segments. This corroborates our claim that the N at the phonemic level is there and it nasalizes the vowel.

User avatar
alina
Posts:6
Joined:2003-02-27, 11:44
Real Name:Aurelia Iuliana SCORNEA
Gender:female
Location:CRAIOVA
Country:RORomania (România)
Contact:

Postby alina » 2003-10-28, 7:14

Hello! There are also 8 vowels in Romanian language which derives from Latin. I don't know if they will appear correctly on site but I will write them:
a / ă / â / e / i / î / o / u. You can put Romanian language in your classification. Good luck!
Alina Scornea

User avatar
Saaropean
Posts:8808
Joined:2002-06-21, 10:24
Real Name:Rolf S.
Gender:male
Location:Montréal
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Postby Saaropean » 2003-10-28, 9:22

Just a final remark about the complexity of noun plurals in German:
Pittsboy wrote:
Umlauting is not related to that ER ending. The plural of "Vogel" ["fo:g@l] is "Vögel" ["f2:g@l].

Umlaut relates to the ending as well, that's one of the reasons why you umlaut the root of the word... so that you accomodate the ending with the vowels in the root too... there exist irregular plurals, of course... vogel is probably one of them, right? There are also ablaut cases...

There are 10 ways to form a plural in German:
- no change at all (Zeichen ["tsaIC@n] > Zeichen ["tsaIc@n], "sign") for words ending in E/EL/EN/ER
- umlauting only (Vater ["fa:t6] > Väter ["fE:t6], "father") for words ending in E/EL/EN/ER
- E added (Weg [ve:k] > Wege ["ve:g@], "way")
- E added and umlauting (Maus [maUs] > Mäuse ["mOIz@], "mouse")
- EN added (Frau [fraU] > Frauen ["fraU@n], "woman")
- N added (Blume ["blu:m@] > Blumen ["blu:m@n], "flower") for words ending in E/EL/ER
- ER added (Kind [kInt] > Kinder ["kInd6], "child")
- ER added and umlauting (Mann [man], Männer ["mEn6], "man")
- S added (Auto ["aUto:] > Autos ["aUto:s], "car") for acronyms and foreign words
- as in the original language (Genus ["ge:nUs] / ["gEnUs] > Genera ["ge:nERa:] / ["gEn@Ra:], Mafioso [maf(i)"jo:zo:] > Mafiosi [maf(i)"jo:zi:], Baby ["bE:bi:] / ["bEIbi:], Babys/Babies ["bE:bi:s] / ["bEIbi:s])

And, as I said, umlauting means the stressed vowel becomes Ä [E] / [E:] if it was A [a] / [a:], ÄU [OI] if it was AU [aU], Ö [9] / [2:] if it was O [O] / [o:] and Ü [Y] / [y:] if it was U [U] / [u:]

User avatar
Saaropean
Posts:8808
Joined:2002-06-21, 10:24
Real Name:Rolf S.
Gender:male
Location:Montréal
Country:CACanada (Canada)

Summary

Postby Saaropean » 2003-10-28, 9:27

English: ca. 11 + 4
I, i:, U, u:, @, E, (O), {, v, A:, Q
diphthongs: oU, EI, AU, AI
written in very complicated ways...

French: ca. 16
a, (A), E, o, @, e, 2, 9, i, O, u, y, A~, o~, E~, (9~)
no diphthongs
written in general a, â, e/è/ai, o/au, e, é, eu, eu/oeu, i, o, ou, u, an, on, in, un

German: ca. 17 + 3
a, a:, E, E:, e:, @, I, i:, O, o:, 9, 2:, U, u:, Y, y:, 6
diphthongs: aI, aU, OI
written a, a(h)/aa, e/ä, ä(h), e(h)/ee, e, i, i(h)/ie, o, o(h)/oo, ö, ö(h), u, u(h), ü/y, y/ü(h), er; ai/ei, au, äu/eu

Panjabi: ca. 20
i, I, e, {, a, @, u, U, o, Q
+ nasal counterparts for all of them (according to Pittsboy)

Polish: ca. 7
a, a~, e, e~, i, o, u
written a, ą, e, ę, i/y, o, ó/u

Portuguese: ca. 14
a, 6, E, e, @, i, O, o, u, 6~, e~, i~, o~, u~
for diphthongs and triphthongs, see Luís' post

Romanian: ca. 7
a, @, 1, e, i, o, u
written a, ă, â/î, e, i, o, u

Spanish: ca. 5
a, e, i, o, u
written a, e, i/y, o, u

User avatar
Piroska
Posts:21
Joined:2003-10-27, 7:13
Real Name:Penny S. Tipper
Gender:female
Location:Victoria, CND
Country:CACanada (Canada)
Contact:

Canadian English and Hungarian

Postby Piroska » 2003-10-28, 9:48

Hello People/Hi Leute

Here's an inventory of the Canadian English vowels, with the word examples that my teacher always gives and have stayed with me:

teak - /i/
tick - /I/
take - /e/ [eI]
tech - /E/
tack - /ae/
tuck - /^/
tie - /aI/
tight - /^I/
how - /aU/
house - /^U/
toque - /u/
took - /U/
toke - /o/ [oU]
torque - /O/
talk - /handwritten small a/
about - /schwa/

Really, [^I] and [^U] are considered allophones of /aI/ and /aU/, but if you have a minimal pair /haUs/ and /h^Us/, well you'll know who the American is. Anyways, this was meant as a short introduction to the CE vowel system: carat-varians of diphthongs ([^I] and [^U]) are labelled Canadian Raising, and occur directly before voiceless obstruents. The term is actually inaccurate; while nearly the rest of the English speaking world was completing the latest vowel shift, the shift jammed up in Canada, and those mid-central part of these diphthongs never lowered.

Open-o only occurs before /r/, which is retroflex (upside down!). /e/ is always realized as /eI/, o as /oU/ schwa becomes carat in a stressed position /I/, /E/, and /U/ are never word-final; neither are /^U/, /^I/, /open-o/, and possibly /ae/ (not sure on this one). I'm not sure if a lot of this varies from General American, but hooray for Canadian Raising, which is never /ut/ and /@but/.

***

Back to the tally of phonemic vowels in a language...

Hungarian has 14 different orthographic vowels in their alphabet, all of which are phonemic:
a á e é i í o ó ö o" u ú ü u"

The fourth o and u are both long umlauts written with two dashes over top. The vowels written with dashes (either single or double), are generally simply longer than their shorter counterpart with the exception of short "a", which is slightly rounded. But this length is distinctive, as I found out in the menza at the Debreceni Nyári Egyetem when I asked for "váj" (not a word). The worker was very puzzled until after many of my complicated hand gestures he realized I wanted "vaj" (butter). I guess I was lazy and reverted to English-phones, and said a completely Englishy-sounding word like 'vie', as in a yuppy phrase "US Competitors will vie for Superiority of PC Maker".

Examples of minimal pairs:
agy - brain != ágy - bed
öt - five != o"t - her/him (ACC)
kör - circle != ko"r - heart
meg - and != még - still

or my class's favourite:
teve - camel != tévé - T.V.

Hungarian has no diphthongs to my knowledge, and resists consonant clusters as well.

Well, I will finish on an interesting note. Although Hungarian has relatively free word order, note the following:

Követ török. = I break a rock.
török követ = Turkish Ambassador

:idea: Thanks for reading...tschau for now! :D

P.S.
Umlauting is not related to that ER ending. The plural of "Vogel" ["fo:g@l] is "Vögel" ["f2:g@l].


Not to get too deep into this highly scientific and high-falutin "discussgument", I imagine that this specific example is a case where a former front-vowel (perhaps '-e')plural ending triggered umlaut. This ending could have been lost, but its umlaut result retained, thus retaining plural meaning. This is the case in English goose-geese. The old form of goose was "go:s" and the plural marker was "-i". "go:si" became "gösi" which went from /gös/ to /ges/ to /gis/. (Same goes for /fot/ /foti/ /feti/ /fit/ (foot, feet)). Nagel/Nägel seem to follow the same pattern, if there is one!

Is it just a coincidence that modern day German goose "Gans" has an overt ending in "Gänse", or a phonological rule?

Are Löffel, Stiefel, Hügel, and Fenster identical in form in the plural because their vowels can't go any further forward? Möbel and Regel both take "-e" in the plural, but they are foreign borrowings.

And how does Lager fit in?!

Later!
Last edited by Piroska on 2003-10-28, 10:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fenek
Posts:3332
Joined:2002-06-21, 20:15
Real Name:Paweł Penszko
Gender:male
Location:Warszawa
Country:PLPoland (Polska)

Postby Fenek » 2003-10-28, 10:06

Saaropean wrote:Polish: ca. 7
a, a~, e, e~, i, o, u
written a, ą, e, ę, i/y, o, ó/u


Two corrections:
1) i and y are separate phonemes in Polish. There are pairs of distinct words such as pisk (squeal) and pysk (snout).
2. The letter ą is sometimes pronounced as nasal o, never as nasal a.
Last edited by Fenek on 2003-10-28, 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
I'd appreciate any corrections to my messages!
Vi sarò molto grato per ogni correzione!
Zelo vam bom hvaležen za popravke!
Aş fi recunoscător pentru orice corectare!
Bio bih vam veoma zahvalan na ispravkama!

User avatar
ekalin
Posts:1850
Joined:2002-06-21, 11:02
Real Name:Eduardo M Kalinowski
Gender:male
Location:Curitiba, PR
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Re: Ranking : The language with more vowels

Postby ekalin » 2003-10-28, 10:10

Psi-Lord wrote:Thi, does EN in assento sound like EN in quente for you? What about you guys (the other Portuguese speakers here)?


To me, assento is quite different from quente. The latter follows the nasalization proccess explained, but the former does not. The e is not nasalized (or rather, it is just slightly nasalized because of the following nasal consonant, but no more than happens in similar cases in other languages). And this happens also with similar words, such as momento.

If the nasal e were just an allophone of the normal e when followed by n+consonant, then there could be no normal e followed by n+consonant, yet it happens with the words mentioned...

And what about "muito", where the diphtongue (or part thereof) is nasalized, even without an "n"?
This gubblick contains many nosklarkish English flutzpahs, but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context. – David Moser

User avatar
NulNuk
Posts:2116
Joined:2002-06-21, 11:12
Real Name:Nicolas
Gender:male
Location:the great NulKie empire on the Moon

Postby NulNuk » 2003-10-28, 10:12

Spanish: ca. 5
a, e, i, o, u
written a, e, i/y, o, u


two things: "i" and "y" are not the same vowel ,"y" sounds more like "LL"
not like "i" ,when its alone ,"y" sounds like an "i" (maybe a bit stronger),
but inside a word ,is a diferent vowel .
and you forgot "LL" ,wich is allso a vowel in Spanish ,and in most of the
Castillian dialects (I think only in Rio-Platence ,"LL" and "Y" are not vowels
but consonants ,exept for "y" if its standing alone .).
Every thing I write, wrote, or will write, its in my own opinion, for I have no other.
Release me from the duty of being polite and remind you, "I made use of my own brain".

User avatar
Fenek
Posts:3332
Joined:2002-06-21, 20:15
Real Name:Paweł Penszko
Gender:male
Location:Warszawa
Country:PLPoland (Polska)

Postby Fenek » 2003-10-28, 10:29

Numbers of phonemes in Slavic languages according to Istoričeskaja tipologija slavjanskih jazykov (Kiev, 1986):

Belarussian - 40: 34 consonants, 6 vowels
Bulgarian - 45: 39 consonants, 6 vowels
Czech - 35: 25 consonants, 10 vowels
Macedonian - 31: 26 consonants, 5 vowels
Polish - 44: 36 consonants, 8 vowels
Russian - 41: 35 consonants, 6 vowels
Serbocroatian - 35: 25 consonants, 10 vowels
Slovak - 41: 27 consonants, 14 vowels
Slovene - 35: 22 consonants, 13 vowels
Upper Sorbian - 39: 32 consonants, 7 vowels
Ukrainian - 47: 41 consonants, 6 vowels
I'd appreciate any corrections to my messages!
Vi sarò molto grato per ogni correzione!
Zelo vam bom hvaležen za popravke!
Aş fi recunoscător pentru orice corectare!
Bio bih vam veoma zahvalan na ispravkama!

User avatar
Psi-Lord
Posts:10081
Joined:2002-08-18, 7:02
Real Name:Marcel Q.
Gender:male
Location:Cândido Mota
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Re: Ranking : The language with more vowels

Postby Psi-Lord » 2003-10-28, 12:24

ekalin wrote:
Psi-Lord wrote:Thi, does EN in assento sound like EN in quente for you? What about you guys (the other Portuguese speakers here)?

To me, assento is quite different from quente. The latter follows the nasalization proccess explained, but the former does not. The e is not nasalized (or rather, it is just slightly nasalized because of the following nasal consonant, but no more than happens in similar cases in other languages). And this happens also with similar words, such as momento.

Ah, thanks, ekalin — I feel them as quite different myself, but I thought it was just me. :roll: I guess I can imagine Paulistanos pronouncing them the same way, but most people I know probably wouldn't.

ekalin wrote:And what about "muito", where the diphtongue (or part thereof) is nasalized, even without an "n"?

From Latin mihi we had Low Latin which, following the explicative ad, was kept as dative pronoun in Sursilvan, Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese. The Portuguese form shows nasal assimilation just like that which is present in multu > muito, which is pronounced nasally [muĩntu].

Source: Heinrich Lausberg's Romanische Sprachwissenschaft

Thread on nasalisation development in Portuguese at http://www.unilang3.org/main/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1147
português do Brasil (pt-BR)British English (en-GB) galego (gl) português (pt) •• العربية (ar) български (bg) Cymraeg (cy) Deutsch (de)  r n km.t (egy) español rioplatense (es-AR) 日本語 (ja) 한국어 (ko) lingua Latina (la) ••• Esperanto (eo) (grc) français (fr) (hi) magyar (hu) italiano (it) polski (pl) Türkçe (tr) 普通話 (zh-CN)

User avatar
Psi-Lord
Posts:10081
Joined:2002-08-18, 7:02
Real Name:Marcel Q.
Gender:male
Location:Cândido Mota
Country:BRBrazil (Brasil)
Contact:

Postby Psi-Lord » 2003-10-28, 14:00

Daniel wrote:Sursilvan?

What's that? :shock:

It's Silvah's language. :twisted:

Seriously though, it took me sometime to find out what exactly it was when I first heard of it. Though the name sounds a bit 'exotic', it's just a dialect of Romansch. Here's the (little) info about it from Ethnologue:

ROMANSCH: a language of Switzerland

SIL code: RHE
ISO 639-1: rm
ISO 639-2: roh

Population 40,000 or 0.6% of the population (1990 census).

Region Borders of Switzerland, Austria, Italy; Graubünden Canton, Grisons valley of Surselva, valley of Voderrhein; Engadin and Val Mustair, southeast Switzerland.

Alternate names RHETO-ROMANCE, RHAETO-ROMANCE, ROMANSH, ROMANCHE

Dialects LOWER ENGADINE (PUTER-LOWER ENGADINE, GRISONS), UPPER ENGADINE (VALLADER-UPPER ENGADINE), SURSILVAN (SURSELVA, SUTSILVAN-HINTERRHEIN), SURSILVAN-OBERLAND, SURMIRAN-ALBULA.

Classification Indo-European, Italic, Romance, Italo-Western, Western, Gallo-Iberian, Gallo-Romance, Gallo-Rhaetian, Rhaetian.

Comments Friulian, Ladin, and Romansch are separate languages (R. A. Hall, Jr., personal communication 1978). 78% lexical similarity with Italian and French, 76% with Catalan, 74% with Spanish, Sardinian, and Portuguese, 72% with Romanian. Speakers are bilingual. Standard German is the language of instruction in school. An official written language is in common use now, called Grischuna. Official language. All dialects taught in school. Newspapers. Bible 1679-1953.
português do Brasil (pt-BR)British English (en-GB) galego (gl) português (pt) •• العربية (ar) български (bg) Cymraeg (cy) Deutsch (de)  r n km.t (egy) español rioplatense (es-AR) 日本語 (ja) 한국어 (ko) lingua Latina (la) ••• Esperanto (eo) (grc) français (fr) (hi) magyar (hu) italiano (it) polski (pl) Türkçe (tr) 普通話 (zh-CN)


Return to “General Language Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests