Re: Non-English Orthography Reform
Posted: 15 Dec 2015 00:52
I don't think it ever does contrast, but it's a pretty big difference if a digraph is pronounced as a single vowel, or as another vowel plus a consonant. That's why I thought about introducing a separate sign.Sumelic wrote:Vowels:
How is "er" [ɐ] ambiguous? I thought German [ɐ] never contrasted with /əʁ/.
If you want a different way to represent [ɐ], it makes sense to use just <a> (are there any significant minimal pairs with [a]?) or <â> or <ă>.
ai, au and oi or oy, whichever you prefer.Sumelic wrote:Also, I don't see the diphthongs listed.
Because C is leftover as a letter and it doesn't serve any other purpose in the alphabet. It's a nice shorthand for /t͡s/, which occurs very often in German. /p͡f/ doesn't have a separate sign and it doesn't even exist in my vernacular.Sumelic wrote:Consonants:
Is there any theoretical reason why you distinguish /t͡s/ from /t/+/s/, but not /p͡f/ from /p/ + /f/?
True. But this doesn't change the meaning of the word and would be easy to memorize, as all instances of -chen are pronounced the same.Sumelic wrote:Also, there is the well-known case of words like Frauchen where the use of the ich-Laut rather than the ach-Laut cannot be explained completely by the phonetic environment.
I also wondered about this. But I decided not to for several reasons: First, it never changes the meaning of a word (as far as I know); second, it is often not realized or only realized as slight glottalization of a vowel; third, most German speakers are unaware that they produce it; and lastly, I'm not even sure about it's status in my own vernacular. I think it doesn't exist outside of stressed syllables.Sumelic wrote:I also wonder if the glottal stop should be included.