On 28/03/06, Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi! > > "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > OK, pardon my ignorance, but what is this "vocalized r" you keep > > talking about? > >... > > In standard pronunciation, closed syllables in -/r/ will use a vowel > , thus forming a diphthong, instead of [R], which is only used > prevocalically. I don't know what exactly are the phonemes -- it > probably depends on what you want to stress and how abstract you want > to be. Probably there is a common standard for phonemes. However, > /6/ is probably not a phoneme, but /r/ is and  is an allophone of > /r/. It makes interesting pairs when you add endings starting with > vowels that make a closed syllable open, e.g. for my dialect: > > _leer_ /le:r/ [lE:6] 'empty' (predicative or citation form) > _leere_ /le:r@/ [le:R@] 'empty' (attributive e.g. m.pl.nom.def.) > > (I treat /@/ as a phoneme here, because it's more clear, but maybe you > could treat it more abstractly as /e/ in unstressed position, but I usually > write short [E] that way.) Wikipedia writes /E/ for short e and suggests that [e] exists, at least, as an allophone of /e:/. Would you consider that an exaggeration? (In any case, it seems to me that if a language has both /e:/ and /E:/, and a short equivalent of both that's pronounced [E], the logical phonemic representation of it would be /E/. Is there any particular reason why you don't?) ... > > As far as we were taught, |r| always means /R/ (or whatever) in > > German orthography. Replacing it with  is mighty strange, > > especially from the perspective of a native speaker of a decidedly > > rhotic variety of English. > > As Roger says, it's similar to [@] allophone of /r/ in non-rhotic > English, I think. In many accents (tho not apparently for most non-rhotic speakers) it's not an allophonic alternation, probably largely determined based on whether the standard dialect of the area is rhotic or not. Most Australians and Englishpeople, I get the impression, wouldn't know whether a [@] was spelt with or without an <r>. (Obviously morpheme-internally, e.g. in "sURprise", this is because the r never resurfaces; morpheme-finally many dialects have historically unjustified intrusive [r\] inserted.) Does it ever get to the stage in German where you'd be thinking that it's actually not just an allophone? Does  ever mean anything else except for /(@)r/? On the other hand me and most Australians use  or something like it as an allophone of /@/ (regardless of its origin) in word-final open syllables, at least in certain parts of a phrase (predominately the end of it). In fact, the most common diphthongal pronunciation I have of /I@/ is [i:6]. (I also find [e:6] a lot easier to say than [e@], but I say neither; it's always /e:/ for me.) I have no idea how one would go about articulating either [a6] or [a@], though. I've heard from somewhere that (some non-standard varieties of) German also have an "intrusive r"---unhistorical [r] ([R], , [r\], whatever) inserted after vowels that a phonetically the same or similar as ones that have an etymologically-justified following /r/ re-inserted. Is that common? Do you know anything more of that? I was about to ask also if German  and [R] ever alternated in a single morpheme when affixes were added---but you've already answered it :) -- Tristan.