Four-in-One reply.
So let's see what we have there:

#1
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:29:26 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>You have a very strange dictionary.  Ärger is pronounced
>[E6g6], where [6] is the "a-flavored schwa".  Phonemically,
>I guess it's [log in to unmask]  Clearly, the [E] is distinct from the
>schwa, but that has nothing to do with the spelling, only
>with stress placement.

Strange? It's a normal Langenscheidt dictionary. It also includes the Ipa
pronunciation at the beginning.

>Consider this: When the new orthography writes "behände"
>rather than "behende", does the pronunciation change?  In
>standard High German, it doesn't, which is why they could
>pull off that kind of change in the first place.

It clearly DOES. Perhaps there is no difference in your dialect, but
normally, there IS. That's one reason why so many oppose the spelling
reform, because the pronunciation DOES change, encouraging MISpronunciation.


>BTW: Sorry if I came off unfriendly in my first post.  Your
>comments struck me as rather arrogant, but now I see that
>they simply come from misinformation.

#2
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 19:54:17 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>You know, I was wrong in my second post.  You *do* make
>a rather arrogant impression.

You apparently can't make up your mind...
Besides, just pointing out the differerence you fail to notice makes me
arrogant? very interesting...

>You're the only speaker
>of German on this list to claim such a difference,

The only one? Just because you fail to notice the difference, you
automatically conclude that everyone else wouldn't notice it either? Oh my...

>and all the dictionaries agree with us.  If |Sätze| and
>|setze| sounded different, the distinction would be
>phonemic, and it would be downright sloppy not to include
>it in the Duden.

"You have very strange dictionaries..."
(nah, just joking)
The Ipa spelling in the dictionaries was created by native English speakers
who generally can't hear a difference, so of course the dictionaries won't
list one either.

>My impression is that you are referring to a feature of
>your local dialect, rather than standard Hochdeutsch.

It's rather the very opposite. Apparently your local dialect is influenced
by English speakers, explaining why you can't hear a difference just like them.

>> It was only changed
>> from "aufwending" to "aufwändig" because they thought that this way, it
>> would be easier to notice that it is derived from "Aufwand"
>
>That is clearly the motivation, but they wouldn't have
>changed it if the pronunciation hadn't remained constant.

Of course they would, and they have, because they didn't care if the
pronunciation changes.

>For example, Schrift isn't written Schreift or Schriebt
>in order to show the connection to schreiben/geschrieben.

That would've gone a little too far, and the resistance would've been even
greater than now... but just you wait until the next reform. If they get the
current insane stuff forced upon us, stuff like that will be a quite
probable next step.

#3
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:24:42 +0200, Philippe Caquant <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Funny discussion. If I understand it all right, here
>we have two native speakers of German, one arguing
>that there is no audible difference between 'a umlaut'
>and e (in the examples given), the other one arguing
>that there is one, even if you can't hear it.

There is one, and you CAN hear it. But apparently some fail to notice it,
and then go and call others who do notice it "arrogant".

>Isn't it an evident conclusion that this is all
>subjective, that different native people of the same
>language will pronounce a different way, depending on
>plenty of parameters, and that the main thing is that
>they understand each other ?

That's a good point you got there.

>This is called "couper les cheveux en quatre" in
>French. Sometimes we replace the word "cheveux" by
>another expression, also meaning hair, but referring
>to a different body location (being a gentleman, I'm
>afraid I cannot mention it here).

Well, I can lively imagine what it would be :D

>(By the way, I repeated several times aloud the words
>'sätze' and 'setze', and I agree that under some
>conditions there might a faint difference, but so
>faint indeed that it's really not worth to fight about
>it. This after 8 years learning German at school, and
>talking with many German people in my youth).

See? Even you as a non-native speaker can hear the difference! That's pretty
good indeed. (thumbs up!)

No what was that crap again about me being the only one on the list to hear
it? :)

>There is also, supposedly, a difference between French
>"brin" and "brun". I even can understand which one if
>I try hard. But who cares ? Nobody, and me the last.

Sorry, but my French is a little rusty after long years of disuse...

#4
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:14:13 -0700, B. Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>When people write quickly they will often create ligatures or make a
>complex letter much more simplified. For instance, when I write the
>capital letter E out, I don't draw all four lines, I use the cursive
>variant (like a backwards 3). The problem with the Hebrew points is
>that when someone is writing fast, the various dots will get turned
>into lines. That's what people are saying when they mention they will
>become swooshes, they will get simplified. Especially for a script
>like yours where there are a lot of dots. People will come to find it
>tedious to carefully write them all out.

Ah, now I understand. So, as a handwriting, I guess I'll have to come up
with something different. No big problem, as the Latin script (and many
others) have different scripts for printing and handwriting as well.

>When I created the quick version of Kuraw, I did make the various
>vowel diacritics into "swooshes" because I knew that's how they'd end
>up in a fast script. I came across one problem with two of the
>swooshes, the diacritic for e and u in the quick version looked the
>same. In the "normal" handwritten version there was no problem, as e
>resembled a "curved 7"  and u was a vertical line. But reducing e to a
>line created a vertical line. Solution? Angling the e to the left and
>u to the right.

Well, with my script, there's no chance that one diacritic would be taken
for another if converted to "swooshes". Perhaps it would be a good idea to
integrate the diacritincs into the letter in handwriting to allow for faster
writing...

>I also suspect that the curves in your characters will get reduced,
>such as those on the final row of consonants.
>
>From a design aspect, I'd avoid the use of letters that look very much
>the same in base form. Yes, the dots do distinguish them, but it can
>get to the point where people start to see them all "blend at the
>seams". It's like the criticism of tengwar. It looks pretty, but it
>would be a nightmare for those with reading problems like Dyslexia.

There's a good amount of letters which look similar in Latin and many other
scripts, and apparently people can deal with it appropriately.

>Besides, it would also avoid the picket fence look (no, i'm not saying
>they look like sticks, that saying is in reference to a repetition of
>the same form). For ease of recognizeability, its easier on the eye if
>each glyph is distinct. It looks like you're going for either
>something tengwar (form, repetition) and hangul (use of the same base
>form for the articulation of the letter) inspired. Or at least if you
>want the same form, give a general form, but alter it enough each
>glyph looks distinct.

I'll see... I'll think about something there for the handwriting version.

>Of course if you have a script that has no use except just to be cool,
>you can be as unpractical as you'd like (such as my leaf script).

No, it should be useable.