# What is an allophone?



## Wilma_Sweden

*Mod note:
To make it easier to discuss the topic "allophones" these posts were split of from this thread.
*


Alxmrphi said:


> I'm not sure I understand exactly what allophones are, but if they are variations on the same sound then I was just wondering if it would still count if they were slightly different..
> 
> I know a bit of Icelandic and know that thorn þ is '*th*' like '*th*en' , and ð is '*th*' like in '*th*istle'. so the same thing just a voiced difference I think, would that still make them allophones?


Allophones are variants of a sound (phoneme) within a specific language and era. If you exchange one for the other without changing the meaning of a word, then the two sounds are allophones. I don't know enough Icelandic, but in English, the two 'th' sounds of then and thistle are different phonemes, not allophones, while Scottish R and English R are allophones - a rat is still a rodent whatever type of R sound you use to pronounce it.

Thanks to berndf for the link about the D development in Swedish.

/Wilma


----------



## berndf

Allophones appear as variants in different phonetic environments. E.g. German phoneme /ch/ has two allophones, [x] and [ç]. Their use depends in the preceding sound, _ich _[Iç] and _ach_ [ax].

In Old Norse it was apparently as it partially still is in Modern Danish that [ð] was an Allophone of /d/ used word-finally. I.e. a "d" at the end of a word automatically becomes [ð].

E.g. the Danish word _rød_ (_red_) has the phonemes /rø:d/ and is realized as [ʁœð], i.e. the final "d" becomes "ð".


----------



## phosphore

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Allophones are variants of a sound (phoneme) within a specific language and era. If you exchange one for the other without changing the meaning of a word, then the two sounds are allophones. I don't know enough Icelandic, but in English, the two 'th' sounds of then and thistle are different phonemes, not allophones, while Scottish R and English R are allophones - a rat is still a rodent whatever type of R sound you use to pronounce it.
> 
> Thanks to berndf for the link about the D development in Swedish.
> 
> /Wilma


 
That is not completely true: you cannot substitute one allophone for another because they never occur in the some phonetic context and that is exactly why these sounds are considered to be allophones. The example with the Scottish and English realisation of the phoneme /r/ you gave is an example of free variation. The right example would be with the light and dark /l/ in _leaf_ [li:f] and _feel_ [fi:ɫ].


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> That is not completely true: you cannot substitute one allophone for another because they never occur in the some phonetic context and that is exactly why these sounds are considered to be allophones. The example with the Scottish and English realisation of the phoneme /r/ you gave is an example of free variation. The right example would be with the light and dark /l/ in _leaf_ [li:f] and _feel_ [fi:ɫ].


Well - not quite; true, many times allophones are restricted to certain phonetic contexts, but there also exist free allophones.
(In German there exist four varieties of "r" in free variation - they can all appear in all phonetical contexts and never differentiate meaning.)

But this is not an allophone discussion; for this thread it should suffice to define allophones as non-distinctive sounds.


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> Well - not quite; true, many times allophones are restricted to certain phonetic contexts, but there also exist free allophones.
> (In German there exist four varieties of "r" in free variation - they can all appear in all phonetical contexts and never differentiate meaning.)
> 
> But this is not an allophone discussion; for this thread it should suffice to define allophones as non-distinctive sounds.


 
I see what you mean but I consider it misuse of the term _allophone, _since there is an adequate term for it, and that is _free variation_, which you apparently use as well.

But you are right, what is important for this thread is that allophones are variants of a single phoneme and it is said that people do not perceive them as different sounds, although they are acoustically undoubtly different.


----------



## berndf

phosphore said:


> I see what you mean but I consider it misuse of the term _allophone, _since there is an adequate term for it, and that is _free variation_, which you apparently use as well.


What you are referring to are "complementary allophones". The term "allophone" is defined exactly as Sokol wrote: "non-distinctive sounds". *Within* this definition lingustic terminology distinguishes between "complementary allophones" and "free variations".

But you are right in that "complementary allophones" is what we are concerned with in this thread. In the original question, Alxmrphi was wondering how to explain the difference between "word" and "orð". The explanation of the different final character is that "ð" is a complementary allophone of "d" in ON it is therefore normal to find "orð" and not "ord".


----------



## phosphore

berndf said:


> What you are referring to are "complementary allophones". The term "allophone" is defined exactly as Sokol wrote: "non-distinctive sounds". *Within* this definition lingustic terminology distinguishes between "complementary allophones" and "free variations".
> 
> But you are right in that "complementary allophones" is what we are concerned with in this thread. In the original question, Alxmrphi was wondering how to explain the difference between "word" and "orð". The explanation of the different final character is that "ð" is a complementary allophone of "d" in ON it is therefore normal to find "orð" and not "ord".


 
I have already said, I understand what you mean but not all the phoneticians or phonologists would agree with you.


----------



## CapnPrep

phosphore said:


> I see what you mean but I consider it misuse of the term _allophone, _since there is an adequate term for it, and that is _free variation_, which you apparently use as well.


Free variation in all contexts is one possible way for the allophones of a given phoneme to be distributed in a language. Or you may find free variation in only some contexts, and conditioned alternation in other contexts. Or you may find conditioned alternation in all contexts — i.e., the allophones are in complementary distribution (if there are just two of them).

It looks like you restrict the notion of allophony to the last case, but not everyone follows this terminological practice.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> In the original question, Alxmrphi was wondering how to explain the difference between "word" and "orð". The explanation of the different final character is that "ð" is a complementary allophone of "d" in ON it is therefore normal to find "orð" and not "ord".



I am so utterly massively confused right now it's unbelievable..

So Icelandic "orð" and Swedish "ord" ..... are these normal allophones then?
If so, then how can there be a 'complementory allophone' in ON (ð,d), I just don't get why there'd be a connection at all, surely they were just different letters, they have different sounds, I don't see how they're related or could be considered related in orð ...

As we move down and I can see [ð] remains in Icelandic and is replaced with [d] in Swedish, so I can definitely see how there is a link here...
Because we're talking about two separate languages.. it makes sense, but with..



> the different final character is that "ð" is a complementary allophone of "d" in ON


If it's the same language, I don't understand how it would be an allophone.
I've just gone through an explanation on what a phoneme is, and then an allophone.. and my doubt is this...

I think if I draw a comparison to how I see it in English it might help...
To me it's basically saying "*th*" is an allophone of "*d*", when they're completely different sounds (_therefore 'different phonemes_')..


----------



## phosphore

It seems you do not understand what a phoneme is.

Take a look on the English words _pit _[pʰɪt], _spit_ [spɪt], _tip_ [tʰɪp]. You pronounce differently /p/ in _pit_ and /p/'s in _spit_ and _tip_, but you consider them to be the same sounds; similarly, you pronounce /t/ in _tip_ and /t/'s in _pit_ and _spit_ differently, but they seem to be the same sound to your ears if you do not pay very much attention. The point is that [pʰ] and [p], on one side, or [tʰ] and [t] on the other, are allophones *in English*. But there is no sense to ask if [pʰ] in English and [p] in French are allophones.

Now, I know nothing about Icelandic but the phoneme /d/ could have two realisation: [ð] in the end of words, [d] in all other positions. The native speakers of Icelandic do not perceive these sounds as different, although the really are, that is why these sounds are allophones *in Icelandic*.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah so when we're talking about [ð] and [d] we're talking about sounds and not letters?
I was only ever thinking about letters you see, no wonder I didn't understand

(And yes, I hadn't really come across the word _phoneme_ before this thread...) Everyone seems to be quite qualified and very skilled linguists that have come here with a lot of knowledge, this is something that I've only picked up in the last 2 weeks.... but I'm trying!



> The native speakers of Icelandic do not perceive these sounds as different, although the really are, that is why these sounds are allophones *in Icelandic*.


Ok, stepping back into the confusion, but maybe it's not my confusion, (as you said, you know nothing of Icelandic) they are completely different sounds, they aren't allophones (like you described before with the same letters but said differently between different words.
But Old Norse is a different story, I guess as we're talking about sounds and not letters then it's very possible in Old Norse the SOUNDS [ð] and [d] might have been close..

So allophones can only exist within the context of one language, I understand! (I think)

I think before I ask another question I need to brush up on my phonetic alphabet as well, it really wasn't obvious when we stopped talking about letters and when we started talking about sounds..


----------



## CapnPrep

phosphore said:


> Now, I know nothing about Icelandic but the phoneme /d/ could have two realisation: [ð] in the end of words, [d] in all other positions. The native speakers of Icelandic do not perceive these sounds as different, although the really are, that is why these sounds are allophones *in Icelandic*.


As an abstract example, this is fine, but you might want to wait for someone else to provide the actual details about Icelandic.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I've just gone back to read berndf's link on page 1, it's very interesting...

Can I confirm a phoneme is the sound correlating to each unit of sound in the phonetic alphabet? If that's true then I think I'm beginning to understand!!

(then we're talking about how different letters in language are written, but the way that the speakers say the written word, can result in different sounds, so different letters can produce the same sound (phoneme) and this is what makes them allophones, and allophones can exist between certain words, it's not a direct relationship for all occurances of those letters in a language?)


----------



## phosphore

Again, I know nothing about Icelandic; that was only my guess after few things I had read about it on this topic, but I did not pay very much attention, so I could easily be wrong. I have just made an illustration for you.

Do not get disappointed, it is not true that everyone here is an extraodinary competent linguist, it is only that phoneme (along with allophones) is a key concept in phonology and I think you really need to understand it if you want to proceed.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> I think before I ask another question I need to brush up on my phonetic alphabet as well, it really wasn't obvious when we stopped talking about letters and when we started talking about sounds..


The conventions is:
"d" or <d> or just d: the letter d
/d/: the phoneme d
[d]: the sound d

Remember my example from Danish? 
The spelling is _rød. _The phonemes are /rø:d/ and the sounds are [ʁœð].
Why:
The word spelled _rød_ consists of the phenemes /r/, /ø:/ (i.e. a long /ø/) and /d/.
The individual phonemes are "realized" using the following sounds:
1) In this position (word initial), the phoneme /r/ it realized as [ʁ] in modern Danish.
2) For /ø:/, i.e. a long /ø/ the allophone [œ] is used after /r/
3) For a final /d/ following a vowel, the allophone [ð] is used.


----------



## ninjalj

From Wikipedia:

In human phonology, a phoneme is the smallest linguistically distinctive unit of sound.

In phonetics, an allophone is one of several similar speech sounds (phones) that belong to the same phoneme.

So, the speakers of a language may unknowingly use two different allophones (maybe depending on surrounding sounds) for the same phoneme. To them, it's the same sound.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf you're amazing
That made perfect sense, I had no idea about the conventions, and you've helped me realise in my book what the colon-like thing is after some words, it just makes it a long sound, and also that within the []'s, when ð is used, it's representing a sound from the phonetic alphabet, not necessarily the same sound as the Icelandic letter.

My 31 page introduction to Icelandic pronunciation now makes sense as I've never been able to understand it before, but I can see all those conventions and it makes a lot more sense now!


----------



## phosphore

Alxmrphi said:


> Ok, stepping back into the confusion, but maybe it's not my confusion, (as you said, you know nothing of Icelandic) they are completely different sounds, they aren't allophones (like you described before with the same letters but said differently between different words.
> But Old Norse is a different story, I guess as we're talking about sounds and not letters then it's very possible in Old Norse the SOUNDS [ð] and [d] might have been close..


 

It is not really relevant how different two sounds seem to you, they could still be perceived as the same sound in another language.

Let me put it this way: if you enregistered some words with /p/ in them as you pronounce them, for example _pit, pot, spit, spot, tip, top,_ and compared the spectrograms of /p/ in these words you would see they are all different; in fact, if you said twice a same word, for example _pot_, and compared the spectrograms of /p/ in these two versions, they would be very likely to be different. But you do not hear these differences at all, do you? In your mind there is a finite set of "sounds" that you recognise, and every sound you hear when someone talks you try to interpret as one of them. These "sounds" are called _phonemes_.

Each _phoneme_ as an _abstract_ unit has a set of _concrete_ _realisations_, that we call _phones _or_ sounds_. These _realisations_ are usually very similar in their articulatory and acoustic features, but sometimes they are not, and even an ordinary native speaker could see that if he was told to pay a little more attention. That is the case with the clear and dark /l/ in English in _leaf _and _feel_ respectively, for example. That is, sometimes a phoneme has two or more sets of almost same realisations. But these two sets that are considered to be the realisations of a single phoneme in one language could be the realisations of two different phonemes in another. For example, [d] and [ð] are allophonic realisation of the phoneme /d/ in Spanish, but they are realisations of two different phonemes, /d/ and /ð/, in English.

Now go back to Icelandic _orð_ and see if I helped you. I would be glad if I did.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I tried to learn Spanish ones, I did notice the funny sound at the end of words, and it was sort of like the [ð] sound, that makes sense to me, that in Spanish [d] [ð] are realisations of the SPANISH phoneme /d/ (correct so far?)

So [ð] and [d] in English, are different, but not so in Spanish?
In Icelandic they would be different as they are in English..

Comparing the alphabet, with IPA next to it, 

[d] = the letter 'd'
[ð] = the letter 'ð'

As I expected...

In English this'd be

[d] = the letter 'd'
[ð] = the letter 'th' (let's just call it a letter for simplicity)

So from your last post.. you said that [ð] in Spanish is the same as the phoneme /p/..
In the context of English am I to understand there is no difference between [ð] and /ð/ ?

(By the way *orð* [_ɔr.ð_] ... and Swedish *ord* [_o:r.d_])
So the ending of the words 'word' (orð + ord) have different phonemes in Icelandic and Swedish?


----------



## phosphore

Alxmrphi said:


> So from your last post.. you said that [ð] in Spanish is the same as the phoneme /d/..
> In the context am I to understand there is no difference between [ð] and /ð/ ?


 
There is. These are all conventions but you should follow them in order not to get confused.

For example, the phonemic transcriptions of the Spanish words _dar_ (to give) and _nada_ (nothing) would be /dar/ and /nada/, but the phonetic ones would be [dar] and [naða].


----------



## Alxmrphi

phosphore said:


> There is. These are all conventions but you should follow them in order not to get confused.
> 
> For example, the phonemic transcriptions of the Spanish words _dar_ (to give) and _nada_ (nothing) would be /dar/ and /nada/, but the phonetic ones would be [dar] and [naða].



Interesting! So for the phonemic ones, you'd really need to know the individual phonemes for that specific language, but that's why IPA is handy because it allows someone who doesn't know all the phonemes in Spanish, to be able to pronounce the word?

Ahh I realised you didn't read when I edited my post, I meant to say "In the context of English".... but I left it out, and added it in later on.
But now I realise I should have put* /th/ [ð]*, shouldn't I? As [ð] is the IPA for the phoneme /th/ in English, right?

A


----------



## phosphore

Alxmrphi said:


> (By the way *orð* [_ɔr.ð_] ... and Swedish *ord* [_o:r.d_])
> So the ending of the words 'word' (orð + ord) have different phonemes in Icelandic and Swedish?


 
You cannot compare the phonemes in different languages in that way; the term phoneme makes sense only while considered in one particular (language) system.


----------



## Alxmrphi

phosphore said:


> You cannot compare the phonemes in different languages in that way; the term phoneme makes sense only while considered in one particular (language) system.



Everything is making more and more sense now!


----------



## phosphore

Alxmrphi said:


> But now I realise I should have put* /th/ [ð]*, shouldn't I? As [ð] is the IPA for the phoneme /th/ in English, right?


 
I might be mistaken, but I think that the correct symbol is /ð/, since the digraph <th> represents both /ð/ as in _this_ and /θ/ as in _think_.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I checked the dictionary.......... for 'this' and 'think' ...

When I click "Show IPA" it is giving me in the format of /ðɪs/ and /θɪŋk/ ..

I thought it should have been in []'s to show it was IPA, what's going on here?
Ok I'm taking a sleep break, I'll look into it more tomorrow.

Maybe I got it mixed up and IPA should appear inside / / .... and not inside []'s

(sorry for driving you mad)


----------



## Forero

this ....... /ðis/ ..... [ðɪs]
then ...... /ðen/ ..... [ðɛn]
thin ....... /θin/ ..... [θɪn]


----------



## Alxmrphi

Forero said:


> this ....... /ðis/ ..... [ðɪs]
> then ...... /ðen/ ..... [ðɛn]
> thin ....... /θin/ ..... [θɪn]



Thanks!
Now may I ask the differences within the vowel sounds in the []'s ? (normal letters within /these/ but different in [thɛɛse] )
Which part of that would you call IPA Forero?


----------



## Forero

The symbols for phonemes (between //) depend on the language and the author's personal taste, usually influenced by the standard orthography of the language (if such a standard exists). But the IPA symbols (for international phonetics, not language-specific phonemics) are used between [].


----------



## Athaulf

Alxmrphi said:


> Everything is making more and more sense now!



You might find this cartoon instructive:
http://specgram.com/CLIII.1/09.parenchyma.cartoon.e.html




Alxmrphi said:


> I thought it should have been in []'s to show it was IPA, what's going on here?
> Ok I'm taking a sleep break, I'll look into it more tomorrow.
> 
> Maybe I got it mixed up and IPA should appear inside / / .... and not inside []'s



IPA symbols can appear both between slashes and between brackets - the difference is in what they represent. 

An individual phoneme can have multiple allophones that are represented using different IPA symbols. In a phonemic representation, one of them is usually chosen customarily to represent the phoneme in all environments, even if it doesn't correspond accurately to all its allophones. Thus, for example, in a phonemic transcription of some Spanish dialect you'd write /d/ in places where a phonetic representation might show either [d] or [ð], these two being allophones. In English, however, a phonemic representation must show both /d/ and /ð/ explicitly, since they are different phonemes (as witnessed by e.g. the contrast of _then_ vs. _den_). 

In a dictionary, you'd like to see a (more or less) exact representation of the actual pronunciation, so it should show the phones pronounced within each word. Thus, the dictionary pronunciations should be in brackets. 

Also, a phonetic transcription can be adorned with all sorts of diacritic marks that show fine details of the exact pronunciation of each phone. Since the pronunciation can never be specified with perfect accuracy in writing, the level of details shown using these marks may vary depending on what details are relevant in a given context.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Thanks you both...

I had understood IPA was between []'s, but when I looked on dictionary.com it showed it between //'s, so that was just to confuse me I guess, but the combined explanation of the previous 2 posts are very helpful, I can see that maybe at times I might see IPA between //'s or []'s, but mainly []'s .. so I'm happy.

Also with the degree of specific information changing, it makes sense.
I think the issue is solved now.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Forero

berndf said:


> Allophones appear as variants in different phonetic environments. E.g. German phoneme /ch/ has two allophones, [x] and [ç]. Their use depends in the preceding sound, _ich _[Iç] and _ach_ [ax].
> 
> In Old Norse it was apparently as it partially still is in Modern Danish that [ð] was an Allophone of /d/ used word-finally. I.e. a "d" at the end of a word automatically becomes [ð].
> 
> E.g. the Danish word _rød_ (_red_) has the phonemes /rø:d/ and is realized as [ʁœð], i.e. the final "d" becomes "ð".


I think /x/ and /ç/ are two phonemes that are both spelled "ch".  I am not sure this is a minimal pair, but  if a little cow might be called a _Kuchen_, that would be with ich Laut (/ç/), and the verb _kuchen_ is with ach Laut (/x/).  Some words even begin with /ç/ or /x/, so the sound does not always follow from the preceding sound.

I have not heard many Danish speakers, so it may be regional, but I have heard _rød_ pronounced with a much closer vowel than [œ], something like a rounded [e], almost an [y], and the [ð] sometimes lost its voicing.


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> I think /x/ and /ç/ are two phonemes that are both spelled "ch". I am not sure this is a minimal pair, but if a little cow might be called a _Kuchen_, that would be with ich Laut (/ç/), and the verb _kuchen_ is with ach Laut (/x/). Some words even begin with /ç/ or /x/, so the sound does not always follow from the preceding sound.


You are confusing _Kuchen_ (_=cake_, with [x]) and _Kuhchen*_ (_=little cow_, with [ç]). [ç] is also used after consonants and not only after "light vowels". The "h" in _Kuhchen_ is all but mute but nevertheless phonemic. E.g. _Kühe_ consist of two syllables and not of one with a diphthong _üe_. No word ever begins with /x/ (the only exceptions possible are foreign words). Initial _ch_ (which does not exist in native words except for a hand-full of place names) is [ç] in standard German and [k] in Bavaria and Austria (Swiss phonology is so different in this respect, I won't even mention it). Austro-Bavarian, by the way, does not have these complementary allophones; [x] and [ç] can be used in free variation. Most speakers most of the time use a realization between the two but closer to [x], even when speaking Standard German.

But there is indeed a point with the diminutive suffix_ –chen_: Because it is suffixed directly to the stem and causes umlauting of dark stem vowels (e.g. the diminutive of _Wolke_ is _Wölkchen_ and not _*Wolkechen_) it is theoretical impossible to find _–chen_ is a context where it should be pronounced [xɛn]. Hence the realization [çɛn] is so firmly associated with this suffix that even the rare exceptions do not cause the pronunciation to change. There are indeed exceptions and there are better examples than _Kuhchen_, Those are irregular constructs like _Frauchen_ instead of the to-be-expected _Fräuchen_ which is not used any more (but cf. e.g. _Fräulein_ or Low German_ Föken_) or loanwords where the normal morphological rules are not applied, e.g. _Sofa_ and _Sofachen_ rather than _*Söfchen_.

Another clear indication of the allophonic nature of [x] and [ç] is the fact that realization of _ch_ changes as a consequence of umlauting in declinded forms. E.g. the singular_ Dach (=roof) _is pronounced [dax] while the plural _Dächer_ is ['dɛçɐ].



Forero said:


> something like a rounded [e]


Well, [ø] *is* a rounded [e] and [œ] *is* a rounded [ɛ]. The phoneme certainly is /ø:/; to my knowledge /ø:/ and /ø/ after /r/ are allophonically pronounced [œ] and the length becomes indistinctive. But I am not really an expert on Danish so I won't inist; I can only refer you to here and here.



Forero said:


> [ð] sometimes lost its voicing.


The small "?" in the IPA for _rød_ means that the /d/ ends in a glottal stop and does not "die slowly" as it does in English final /d/. Could it be that what you are hearing? If Danes really unvoiced final /d/s I probably wouldn't notice as a German because we unvoice *all* final cononants anyway.

-------------------------------------
_*The -chen diminutive also forces umlauting of dark stem vowels. Hence the regular diminutive is not Kuhchen but Kühchen. The form Kuhchen indeed exists (together with Kühchen) but it is an irregular formation. Cf. e.g. Bach-Bächchen Hund-Hündchen, Ort-Örtchen._


----------



## dinji

phosphore said:


> Now, I know nothing about Icelandic but the phoneme /d/ could have two realisation: [ð] in the end of words, [d] in all other positions. The native speakers of Icelandic do not perceive these sounds as different, although the really are, that is why these sounds are allophones *in Icelandic*


 


CapnPrep said:


> As an abstract example, this is fine, but you might want to wait for someone else to provide the actual details about Icelandic.


 
I can confirm that there is no independent phoneme /ð/ in Icelandic. The problem is though that the sound [ð] has a complementary distribution both with [θ] and [d]. On the other hand there are minimal pairs (word initially) for [θ] and [d] so both the phoneme /θ/ and /d/ must be assumed independently.
Synchronically it is therefore a matter of taste or convention if you regard [ð] as an allophone of /θ/ or of /d/ (historically the realisation of both phonemes have merged in a postvocalic environment =_after vowel_ already in Old Norse). I do not know what the convention that Icelandic linguists use is, but I am sure either may be more established than the other.

As has already been pointed out it is quite irrelevant what an English native speaker perceives as similar or different here since we talk about phonetically relatively similar sounds. Yet the criteria of phonetic similarity is used in phonemic analysis:  and <ng> are not considered allophones in English regardless of the fact that they are in complementary distribution. Merging them into one phoneme would go contrary to the criteria of phonetic similarity and to the intuitive analysis of native speakers, I have heard.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I can confirm that there is no independent phoneme /ð/ in Icelandic. The problem is though that the sound [ð] has a complementary distribution both with [θ] and [d]. On the other hand there are minimal pairs (word initially) for [θ] and [d] so both the phoneme /θ/ and /d/ must be assumed independently.



Hi! 

How do you think the letters ð and þ would go into IPA?
Are they both represented by [θ], if so, how do you explain the differences with IPA, if not, then can you let me know what the differences are?

(You seem to know a lot about Icelandic as I've noticed in other threads so I think you're possibly in the best position to give advice on it)

Ta


----------



## dinji

Alxmrphi said:


> Hi!
> 
> How do you think the letters ð and þ would go into IPA?
> Are they both represented by [θ], if so, how do you explain the differences with IPA, if not, then can you let me know what the differences are?
> 
> (You seem to know a lot about Icelandic as I've noticed in other threads so I think you're possibly in the best position to give advice on it)
> 
> Ta


In modern Icelandic
<ð> is realized as IPA [ð] 
<þ> is realized as IPA [θ]

PS. If I recall my IPA correctly.

Note that In Old Norse times the grapheme <þ> could be used postvocalically for [ð]. And since the sounds (or more precisely "phones") were in complementary distribution everybody knew to pronounce the letter as [ð] in this environment.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Can I ask what you mean by complementary distribution? I saw you mentioned it a few times in your last post but wasn't sure what you meant.
When you say 'in this environment' are you talking about it being postvocalically?

Thanks.

I might be completely grasping the wrong end of the stick here but is it something like...
*
Þú talar*

Then if we invert it, then we're putting* þ *past the verb (post-vocalic?) and it then becomes

*Talarðu*

So in this sense, *þ *would be pronounced like *ð*, when it's after the verb, is that what you mean when it's used postvocalically? If so, that might explain where that spelling rule came from, if it happened in Old Norse!  (If that's not the case, ignore me! )

Thanks for your help.


----------



## dinji

May be you could glance through these articles as a starter 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology 
I hope this hint might be helpful.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'll try, wikipedia is never written in any language I can understand (unless it has a translation in 'Simple English' as it sometimes does)

That link makes a lot of sense! What about my question about *þ* being used postvocalically? Is the example I used, a correct (possible) interpretation of what is going on..
Is it correct to say

*þ*, when used postvocalically becomes an allophone of the sound [ð], which can be illustrated when we look at* þ* being used in a post verbal position (talarðu instead of talar þú)

If that is correct, that's probably the most complicated sentence I have ever written.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> *þ*, when used postvocalically becomes an allophone of the sound [ð], which can be illustrated when we look at* þ* being used in a post verbal position (talarðu instead of talar þú).


Very close.  _Phonemes_ *have* _allophones_ and _allophones_ *are* _sounds._


----------



## dinji

Alxmrphi said:


> I'll try, wikipedia is never written in any language I can understand (unless it has a translation in 'Simple English' as it sometimes does)
> 
> That link makes a lot of sense! What about my question about *þ* being used postvocalically? Is the example I used, a correct (possible) interpretation of what is going on..
> Is it correct to say
> 
> *þ*, when used postvocalically becomes an allophone of the sound [ð], which can be illustrated when we look at* þ* being used in a post verbal position (talarðu instead of talar þú)
> 
> If that is correct, that's probably the most complicated sentence I have ever written.


You are entering into a yet more complicated field here called morphophonemics, that is the conditioning of phonemes by morphemes and morpheme boundaries.

(Modern) Icelandic has the suffixed form talarðu (from talar+þú) but kanntu (from kann+þú) (also note the weakening of the vowel reflected in the loss of the accent originally marking length). 

Now <t> representing /t/ on the one hand and <ð> representing /d/ or /þ/ (depending on your phonemic analysis) are definitely different phonemes. Therefore the endings -ðu and -tu are typical examples of so called *allomorphs*, that is morphemes which change their phonological shape according to the environment in which they appear. In this case there is a rule that -ðu appears after more sonoric sounds and -tu after less sonoric ones.

I hope I did not confuse you utterly! Take one step at a time, you will be fine.


----------



## dinji

dinji said:


> In modern Icelandic
> <ð> is realized as IPA [ð]
> <þ> is realized as IPA [θ]
> 
> PS. If I recall my IPA correctly.
> 
> Note that In Old Norse times the grapheme <þ> could be used postvocalically for [ð]. And since the sounds (or more precisely "phones") were in complementary distribution everybody knew to pronounce the letter as [ð] in this environment.


 
I will make a new attempt to explain with example words and a historic (diachronic approach), may be it will help to understand:

In most old Germanic languages (I exclude Old High German here since it had different obstruents than the rest) there was one series of voiced stops/fricatives /b/ /d/ and /g/. The realisation of these phonemes was fricative except for word initially and after nasals. This rule is AFAIK exactly the same as in modern Spanish and Catalan, for those of you who have studied those. So we had:

*[beuðan] = */beudan/ (cf. Icelandic _bjó_ð_a_, Old English <_beodan>=__[beoðan]_ > English _to (for)bid_ _etc.)_
*[geβan] = */geban/ (cf. Icelandic _gefa_, English _give_ _etc.)_
*[daɣa-] = */daga-/ (cf. Icelandic _dag_, English _day_ _etc.)_

[β], [ð] and [ɣ] were in complementary distribution with *, [d] and [g] respctively (as in Spanish today) and thus allophones of a single series of phonemes interpreted as /b/, /d/ and /g/.

There was another set of phonemes which were voiceless fricatives: 
/f/ = [f] < *[ɸ]
/þ/ = [θ]
/h/ = [x]

This series was originally separate from the voiced series by the distictive feature of voicing (in some words there was morphophonemic alternation due to Verners law but for the purpose of clarity of this present illustration let's forget about morphophonemics here).

In Old Norse this series of phonemes survived as distictive phonemes mainly word initially, as in 
Icelandic fjór- cf. English four '4'
Icelandic þing cf. English thing
Icelandic hér cf. English here

In other positions they dissappeared/merged in two stages:
1) The phoneme /h/ = [x] became mute but causing the preceding vowel to become long as in <átta> [a:tta] ~ German acht [aχt] Old English eahta, æhta [ɛxta] 'eight'
2) The two remaning phonemes /f/ = [f] and /þ/ = [θ] became voiced in most other enviroments > [β], [ð]

After the rule described in 2) had worked these originally voiced allphones of /f/ and /þ/ merged in Old Norse with the allophones of /b/ and /d/. After this a new phonemic system appeared where it became ambiguous which phoneme these voiced fricative sounds belonged together with = were allophones of. 

In Old Swedish ortography it was conventional to write 
[β] with the letter <f> as in gifa = [giva] < *[giβan]
[ð] with the letter <þ> as in biuþa = [bju:ða]

In Icelandic the first convention is still valid meaning that the letter <f> is used for [v] (except word initially were [v] originates from older */w/). 
Historically the <f> may in these non initial positions stand for a Proto Norse */f/ as well as Proto Norse */b/.

The second convention is no longer upheld in Icelandic but a new letter <ð> has been introduced, which is nice for us foreigners because it helps with the pronounciation, but it is totally redundant in the sense that it does not represent any independent phoneme.*


----------



## Forero

dinji said:


> You are entering into a yet more complicated field here called morphophonemics, that is the conditioning of phonemes by morphemes and morpheme boundaries.


I believe this is what makes _Kuhchen_ have the ich Laut. The _uh_ is just a long _u_ sound with no _h_ sound, right?

And this is also a factor in keeping English _ng_ separate from _n_ + _g_ in English.


----------



## sokol

Forero said:


> I believe this is what makes _Kuhchen_ have the ich Laut. The _uh_ is just a long _u_ sound with no _h_ sound, right?


You might want to re-read berndf's post concerning this where he explained the phenomenon very well (here a shortened quote):


berndf said:


> You are confusing _Kuchen_ (_=cake_, with [x]) and _Kuhchen*_ (_=little cow_, with [ç]).
> ...
> But there is indeed a point with the diminutive suffix_ –chen_: Because it is suffixed directly to the stem and causes umlauting of dark stem vowels (e.g. the diminutive of _Wolke_ is _Wölkchen_ and not _*Wolkechen_) it is theoretical impossible to find _–chen_ is a context where it should be pronounced [xɛn]. Hence the realization [çɛn] is so firmly associated with this suffix that even the rare exceptions do not cause the pronunciation to change. There are indeed exceptions and there are better examples than _Kuhchen_, Those are irregular constructs like _Frauchen_ instead of the to-be-expected _Fräuchen_ which is not used any more
> ...
> -------------------------------------
> _*The -chen diminutive also forces umlauting of dark stem vowels. Hence the regular diminutive is not Kuhchen but Kühchen. The form Kuhchen indeed exists (together with Kühchen) but it is an irregular formation. Cf. e.g. Bach-Bächchen Hund-Hündchen, Ort-Örtchen._


In this case the [çɛn]-pronunciation is firmly associated with the suffix, the vowel preceding <ch> in this case is irrelevant to pronunciation.
Still, the case is interesting because <Kuhchen> and <Kuchen> could be considered a minimal pair distinguished by [x] and [ç] only. But if you go deeper in phonological analyse and discover that usually both those sounds are distributed complementary except for the suffix <chen> it is more logical to analyse this as:
- /x/ is a phoneme of German with allophones [x] and [ç], both sounds are distributed complementary;
- notwithstanding, the suffix <-chen> always has [ç] by morphological definition, and may lead to minimal pairs with [x].

Usually, phonological analysis of German ignore this fact and just define [ç] as an allophone of /x/ (I know of no analysis claiming that [ç] were a phoneme).

In any case this [ç] here is _*not *_an *archiphoneme *- because an archiphoneme is a phoneme containing elements of two phonemes: it is defined as the sum of all common distinctive features of two phonemes, and it is used in case a phonemic distinction is neutralised in certain contexts.
For example, in English there is no sound [n] before the plosives <g k>; */nk ng/ is not possible, this would be pronounced [ŋg ŋk] (or only [ŋ] in word-final position). Thus, it is impossible to decide (and also irrelevant) wether in <finger> we do have phoneme /n/ or phoneme /ŋ/; if you analyse this as archiphoneme /N/ then this would stand both for /ŋ/ and /n/ before velar plosive.

The case of [çen] however is different - here, no phonemic distinction is neutralised, but on the contrary a new "pseudo-phonemic" distinction is made.
Also, it is *not *a *morpho-phoneme* - because this would be a phoneme used for a neutralised opposition which will become apparent in case a word takes an ending, like German <Kind> = /kɪnt/, plural /kɪndə/: in singular, /d = t/ become neutralised through devoicing in word-final position, but in plural the original phoneme /d/ becomes apparent, thus phoneme /d/ still exists at a morphological level in /kɪnt/, represented through morpho-phonemic notation /kɪnD/.
(This though makes phonological analysis clumsy, and usually such cases are resolved by analysing as /kind/ and simply define a devoicing rule = "Auslautverhärtung" in German.)

So, what *is* it, this [çen]? I think no term for this has been invented yet; probably "morpho-allophoneme" would do: it is not quite phonemic because it can only appear with certain morphemes and may only be distinctive or "pseudo-distinctive" with a very few minimal pairs, but still such cases *might *prompt a shift in the phonological system of a given language towards developping a formerly allophone to a phoneme.



Forero said:


> And this is also a factor in keeping English _ng_ separate from _n_ + _g_ in English.



Edit - see posts below: the following analysis of English <ng> is not quite accurate, but I leave the post unchanged nevertheless as it explains the principle.

This is a different case. In English <ng> may be pronounced either [rɪ*ŋ*] or [fɪ*ŋɡ*ə], but there is no English word pronounced *[fɪ*ŋ*ə] (in standard language). Phonemical analysis still makes clear that [ŋ] has to be analysed as a phoneme which however has certain restrictions concerning distribution - it can't appear word-initial, and intervocalic [ŋ] also is not possible, in this case the nasal is pronounced with a plosive release [ŋg]. Phonologically, [g] is redundant here and you could (and should) analyse English <finger> as /fɪŋə/ where it is clear (due to this rule) that pronunciation has to be [fɪ*ŋɡ*ə].
(Other Germanic languages by the way do have intervocalic "ŋ" without "g" following, German for example has, and maybe even some English dialects do - just a thought, I don't know any that have but there might be some.)


----------



## Forero

Intervocalic [ŋ] is common in English: _singing_, _stinger_, _tangy_, etc. But I have not been able to think of a word with intervocalic [ŋ] except at the end of a morpheme. Nor have I found a case of morpheme final [ŋg].


----------



## sokol

Forero said:


> Intervocalic [ŋ] is common in English: _singing_, _stinger_, _tangy_, etc. But I have not been able to think of a word with intervocalic [ŋ] except at the end of a morpheme. Nor have I found a case of morpheme final [ŋg].


Oh, right you are! What on earth led me into believing it were not ... 
So what I wrote above concerning "finger" is not quite accurate. 
(And sorry for the confusion.)

I'll let it still stand - it is still a valid "thought experiment", but I edit in a note that the analysis is, in fact, wrong.

But as you say that [ŋ] intervocally only exists at morpheme boundaries the case is somewhat similar to German "chen": if you do your phonological analysis without regard to morpheme boundaries phenomenons like this one then [ŋ] indeed would be [ŋg] in intervocalic context and [ŋ] in morpheme-final position, thus it could be analysed as a phoneme /ŋ/ with two phonetic realisations, [ŋ] morpheme-final plus before /g k/ and [ŋg] intervocalic.

As there are plenty of words where [ŋ] comes to exist between vowels through suffigation of morphemes this case is a little bit different from German ich-Laut which only is morpheme-initial with "chen" and thus creates rather few "unusual" phonetic realisations like the one in "Frauchen" or "Kuhchen". So the German case is "weakly attested" while the English case is "strongly attested", and also phonemic for other reasons:

It is not possible to explain the sound as an allophone of <n> as [ŋ] is attested as a phoneme in word-final position. If this would not be the case, that is if [ŋ] only ever would occur before [g k], then [ŋ] should not be analysed as an English phoneme but rather an allophone of /n/, and <finger> would be analysed /finger/.
However, as [ŋ] is attested morpheme-final and word-final, there's no doubt about [ŋ] being a phoneme of English.

So yes, you have discovered a similarity between German ich-Laut and English [ŋ], but no, both cases are not quite identical.


----------

