Help talk:IPA/Danish/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:53, 6 May 2020

Revision as of 05:38, 11 September 2020

Line 330:

{{reflisttalk}}

== Aspirated alveolar plosive ==

I don't know why we're transcribing it with {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}}, not {{angbr IPA|tˢ}} or {{angbr IPA|ts}}. Both Basbøll and Grønnum transcribe it phonetically as {{IPA|[d̥͡s]}}, so the reason it's described as "aspirated" in addition to affrication is clearly phonologically motivated—so that it's in line with {{IPA|/pʰ, kʰ/}}—not phonetically. {{angbr IPA|ˢ}} has the advantage of looking similar to {{angbr IPA|ʰ}}, but given it's non-IPA and now that we're transcribing {{IPA|/tʰj/}} with {{angbr IPA|tɕ}}, {{angbr IPA|ts}} seems the most logical choice to me. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 15:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|Nardog}} Because {{angbr IPA|ʰ}} denotes devoicing of the following sonorant consonant or vowel, which does occur (see e.g. Basbøll). {{angbr IPA|ts}} doesn't, and {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}} is at the same level of narrowness as {{angbr IPA|tɕ}}, which is mostly transcribed with {{angbr IPA|tˢj}} or {{angbr IPA|tj}} in the literature (AFAIK). [[User:Kbb2|Kbb2]] <small>(ex. Mr KEBAB)</small> ([[User talk:Kbb2#top|talk]]) 16:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

::Oh right, I didn't think of [t.s], which I assume does occur intervocalically and contrast with [tsʰ]. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

:::{{re|Nardog}} I don't think that contrast is very common, but yes, they do contrast (maybe in subminimal pairs?). [[User:Kbb2|Kbb2]] <small>(ex. Mr KEBAB)</small> ([[User talk:Kbb2#top|talk]]) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|Kbb2}} Where does Basbøll say it's aspirated? On p. 60 it's only described as affricated, but not aspirated. I know [ʁ] gets devoiced when preceded by it, but that to me is all the more reason to regard the aspiration as something phonological, not phonetic. Or does one see a hiatus between the frication and a vowel in [tsʰa] etc. in waveforms? [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 04:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

::{{re|Nardog}} On pages 213 and 259. But on page 32 he says otherwise, I think. Grønnum (2005) also seems to say that varieties that affricate {{IPA|/tʰ/}} do it ''instead'' of aspirating it. {{IPA|/sj/}} becomes {{IPA|[ɕ]}} just like {{IPA|[tɕ]}} is used instead of {{IPA|[tsj]}}. This is also a feature of Dutch, which doesn't aspirate the fortis stops. So I think you're right, the aspiration diacritic is superfluous if not "wrong". The fricatives seem to devoice sonorants as well, e.g. in ''flaske'' {{IPA|[ˈfl̥æskə]}}. [[User:Kbb2|Kbb2]] <small>(ex. Mr KEBAB)</small> ([[User talk:Kbb2#top|talk]]) 11:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

::And while we're at it, isn't {{IPA|/ts/}} a better phonemic transcription if the affricate is really unaspirated? After all, the phonemic close-mid and mid vowels are also kinda messy when it comes to transcription. If we're not gonna use {{angbr IPA|tʰ}} anywhere in phonetic IPA, maybe we should get rid of it, like we got rid of {{angbr IPA|r}}. [[User:Kbb2|Kbb2]] <small>(ex. Mr KEBAB)</small> ([[User talk:Kbb2#top|talk]]) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

:::{{re|Kbb2}} I don't think so. Didn't we just establish it can contrast with [t.s]? Anyway, I was in the wrong to think it wasn't aspirated: {{tq|The fricative noise is followed by a real aspiration...}} ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/44705403 Fischer-Jørgensen 1954]:52). You can indeed hear it in ''tak, tal'' on [https://sproghistorie.dk/lydsystem/ this page] (but not in ''tirsdag'', so it might still depend on speech rate/carefulness/vowel height/etc).

:::So my only remaining concern over using {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}} is its appropriateness when used before a consonant (which I believe can only be [ʁ] or [v]). Now that I think about it, Basbøll and Grønnum are probably using the tie bar in narrow transcription to distinguish it from [t.s]. And when linguists use {{angbr IPA|tˢ}} instead of {{angbr IPA|ts}}, {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}}, or what have you, I think they're trying to kill two birds with one stone: it's aspirated, both phonetically and phonologically, forming a natural class with /pʰ, kʰ/; it's affricated before a vowel, but not before a consonant (or coalesced before /j/), further indicating that it's underlyingly one segment. So I'm circling back to favoring {{angbr IPA|tˢ}}, in both IPA-da and phonemic transcriptions. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 01:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

::::It is affricated before {{IPA|/ʁ/}} (listen to ''træt'' and ''traktor'', which feature an alveolar affricate followed by a voiceless uvular fricative), and apparently also before {{IPA|/v/}} ([https://forvo.com/word/tvetydig/#da]). If {{IPA|/v/}} is devoiced here then this follows the behavior of {{IPA|/v/}} (or {{IPA|/ʋ/}}) in Swedish and Dutch (Polish too :P), which is also devoiced after {{IPA|/t/}}. So, the way we analyze it on [[Danish phonology]], this is an affricate, in all positions. It's just that it has a dialectal realization as an aspirated stop.

::::Perhaps - but note that we don't differentiate between affricates and stop-fricative sequences in [[Help:IPA/Polish]] and a few other guides. ({{ping|Aeusoes1}}, what do you think?)

::::If we switched back to {{angbr IPA|tˢ}} then we'd use two rather similar diacritics: the affrication diacritic in {{angbr IPA|tˢ}} and the aspiration diacritic in {{angbr IPA|pʰ}} and {{angbr IPA|kʰ}}. {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}} conveys the same information (save for aspiration, which isn't covered in {{angbr IPA|tˢ}}) and it's probably a better choice.

::::Danish doesn't feature phonemic affricates, that's true - the fortis counterpart of {{IPA|/t/}} belongs to the aspirated series. Phonetically though, the contrast ''is'' between a plain stop and an affricate, and in that sense it's way more similar to the contrast between {{IPA|/d/}} and {{IPA|/ts/}} in Standard German. Danish {{IPA|/tsʰ/}} is just like SG (or Polish, Russian, Italian) {{IPA|/ts/}} in that affrication is mandatory (AFAICS). [[User:Kbb2|Kbb2]] <small>(ex. Mr KEBAB)</small> ([[User talk:Kbb2#top|talk]]) 07:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

:::::If {{angbr IPA|tsʰ}} is phonetically representative even preconsonantally like you say, then I have no problem. As for phonemic notation, I'd drop {{angbr IPA|s}} before I would {{angbr IPA|ʰ}}, again because of its relation to /pʰ, kʰ/. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)