|
 |
IPA diacritics: consonants realisation | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Advice Center |  | |
| Sarnek Diglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4206 days ago 308 posts - 414 votes  Speaks: Italian*, English Studies: German, Swedish | Message 1 of 5 08 December 2013 at 12:28pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Hello everyone,
I was reading a book about German phonetics and phonology and I came across a diacritic I have never seen before: the voiced diacritic. Now, I'm familiar with most of the IPA, but I was wondering why would one use a voiced diacritic with a voiceless consonant rather than just transcribing a voiced consonant i.e.: why transcribing "Jäger" [jεk̬ɐ] instead of [jεgɐ]? Or again, Fieber [fi:p̬ɐ] instead of [fi:bɐ]? Other examples might include wieder [vi:t̬ɐ] instead of [vi:dɐ] and logisch [lo:k̬ɪʃ] instead of [lo:gɪʃ]? There must be a difference here which I (obviously) can't figure. Therefore I was hoping there would be an expert amongst you who could shed light on this mistery. Edited by Sarnek on 08 December 2013 at 12:28pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| daegga Tetraglot Senior Member Austria lang-8.com/553301 Joined 4512 days ago 1076 posts - 1792 votes Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Swedish, Norwegian Studies: Danish, French, Finnish, Icelandic | Message 2 of 5 08 December 2013 at 1:05pm | IP Logged | ||
|
There is not only the voiced-voiceless difference, but also lax-tense. Usually, voiced
consontants are lax, voiceless consonants are tense, but this doesn't need to be the case for all speakers. A devoiced lax consonant is not necessarily tense, a voiced voiceless consonant not necessarily lax. You could obviously use tense/lax diacritics instead if there were such. edit: Are those examples taken from the book? Those pronunciations don't seem very likely to me, but maybe in some dialect... Edited by daegga on 08 December 2013 at 1:09pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sarnek Diglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4206 days ago 308 posts - 414 votes Speaks: Italian*, English Studies: German, Swedish | Message 3 of 5 08 December 2013 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Are you suggesting that these diacritics represent the difference lax-tense?
Also, yes, they are taken from the book. What pronunciation would you instead use? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| daegga Tetraglot Senior Member Austria lang-8.com/553301 Joined 4512 days ago 1076 posts - 1792 votes Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Swedish, Norwegian Studies: Danish, French, Finnish, Icelandic | Message 4 of 5 08 December 2013 at 1:24pm | IP Logged | ||
|
No, but [d] is lax, [t] is tense. If you want a voiced tense alveolar plosive, you
gotta take [t] because there is no tense diacritic in standard IPA (there might be one in extended IPA, I don't remember...) I would use the voiced plosive for Standard German or the devoiced plosive for certain speakers (it's often used in colloquial German, but probably not everywhere), maybe even the voiceless plosive without aspiration for some regions, but not a voiced voiceless plosive. Edited by daegga on 08 December 2013 at 1:34pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Sarnek Diglot Senior Member Italy Joined 4206 days ago 308 posts - 414 votes Speaks: Italian*, English Studies: German, Swedish | Message 5 of 5 08 December 2013 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | ||
Exactly! That's where my doubts come from. It can't mean the same thing: there must be a difference between [g] and [k̬]. Also, if you look up those words on wiktionary, they are transcribed with voiced plosives, which suggested me that the book's transcription was a bit more thorough (hence the difference between [g] and [k̬]). Edited by Sarnek on 08 December 2013 at 1:30pm 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
