Talk:Bernese German phonology

No citations
If you have time, please read "Berndeutsch-Grammatik" and see if any of the claims from this article could be backed up by that book. I'll do that if and when I have time. Peter238 (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently I can't access it, so somebody else needs to do that... — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 10:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Separate lines for fortes and lenes or not?
Thanks Peter238 for all your edits. I am not sure whether I like the separate lines for fortis and lenis consonants, though.


 * The fortis-lenis distinction can be analyzed not at a segmenatal level, but at a suprasegmental level. In that case, there are just phonemes like /n/, /t/ and /s/, whereas length is added on a separate level. While I do not know of such an analysis having been published for Bernese German, there is such an analysis for the Thurgovian German, a very similar dialect, especially with regards to the consonant system.


 * There is no reason why the distinction should only be mentioned for obstruents, and not for continuants. The distinctions /m – mː/, /n – nː/ and /l – lː/ are no different from the fricative pairs (/f s ʃ x – fː sː ʃː xː/). The stop pairs are slightly different, because in Central and Southern Bernese German, their opposition is also possible at the beginning of words.

I therefore suggest restoring the previous table layout where the two members of each pair share the same table cell. Also, expliciting in the section Fortis and lenis consonants that different phonological analyses are possible. I will also mention an unusual analysis whereby Bernese German distinguishes three grades of obstruents. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'd rather leave this table as it is, as it looks more like the contemporary 'standard' WP table of consonants (see e.g. French phonology or German phonology). I can add to the table, and make another 'hidden' table with no fortis-lenis distinction (see Modern Greek phonology to see what I mean). Peter238 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * French and German are different. In Bernese German, it is possible to analyse the obstruent pairs in terms of a suprasegmental feature. In such an analysis, words such as /ʃatə/ ‘damage’ and /ʃatːə/ ‘shadow’ would have the same phoneme /t/, but differ in consonant length. So the phonology would have no fortis-lenis pairs at all. This is no mere sophistery but has an evident benefit: The neutralization in case of adjacent obstruents is no longer a segmental oddball, but easily explained by a constraint for consonant length. For French or German, where such an analysis is not possible.


 * Having seperate table cells for fortis and lenis consonants means strongly taking the point of view that they differ on a segmental level. Having single table cells with dual entries leaves room for some ambiguity towards other points of view, for instance the point of view where consonant length is a suprasegmental feature. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, restored. Peter238 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Inline citations
Hi. Could you provide inline citations for the following statements?

In southern Bernese German (not in the city of Bern), the closing diphthongs merge with the near-close monophthongs to, for instance  instead of  ('cloth').

and

In northern Bernese German, a following triggers rounding of the preceding vowel, for instance instead of  ('because').

I assume they're from Marti (1985), but I'd rather be sure of that.

Also, could you tell me whether these phenomena also occur in other Alemannic dialects? Thanks in advance. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)