# Austrian German and German German



## Smithy73

I have never studied German (sorry) but I was wondering what are the main differences between Austrian German and German German (in terms of both written and spoken). I understand that there will be different slang in the respective languages; but are there, like in US and UK English, spelling differences (e.g. color and colour).


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

From what I've been told by my former instructor, Austrian German drops the -ch sound in many of the pronouns, ich --> ie, dich --> die, etc.  

Other than that I have no real qualifications to comment.


----------



## Erick404

Smithy73 said:


> I have never studied German (sorry) but I was wondering what are the main differences between Austrian German and German German (in terms of both written and spoken). I understand that there will be different slang in the respective languages; but are there, like in US and UK English, spelling differences (e.g. color and colour).



I've read and even heard in some learning examples that in Austria the letter R is pronounced as a trilled alveolar consonant, like in Russian, while in most of Germany it's a uvular fricative (But whenever I hear an Austrian talking in a movie or song, I hear the German version. Maybe they do this on purpose). The Germans and Austrians here can explain about differences in  pronounciation.

Regarding writing, I doubt there are differences. Unlike English, German is a regulated language, that is, there is a body that decides which forms and grammar constructions are right and which aren't.


----------



## sokol

Smithy73 said:


> I have never studied German (sorry) but I was wondering what are the main differences between Austrian German and German German (in terms of both written and spoken). I understand that there will be different slang in the respective languages; but are there, like in US and UK English, spelling differences (e.g. color and colour).


There are also different slangs in Germany and Austria - but slang only refers (rather inexactly) to "colloquial language" of all kinds, so I prefer not to use this term.
Apart from that, there's a whole set of dialects and sociolects in Austria which are quite distinct even from neighbouring Bavarian speech (the closer you get to the border the smaller the difference is, obviously); but I'd rather not talk about this either - let's just keep it more basic here. 

Austrian German and German German (or let's use for simplicity, and just in this thread, the terms "Austrian" and "German" - mind, this use would be unclear and misleading but it is impractical to use those long versions, so I won't below ) differ on all linguistic levels - on some more, on others less; I'll pick out a few:

*Phonetics:*
- Prosody: The "melody of speech" of Austrian and German differs hugely; Austrians usually can tell at once by this alone if the speaker is AT or DE.
- Quantity: Austrians usually do not produce quantity like it is done in Germany (even in standard language); rather, they produce vowels long in an open syllable, half-short in a closed syllable, and short in a closed syllable with a "heavy" consonant cluster at its end.
- Plosives: Austrians only aspirate /k/ while /p t/ are not aspirated if compared to German /p t/ (aspiration is a "relative" concept, see our phonetics sticky about VOT ). Thus, /p t b d/ are not distinguished in Austrian, while they're clearly distinct in German.
When speaking standard language, Austrians didn't even try to aspirate plosives 30-40 years ago - but in recent years some educated speakers have switched to trying to do so, while others stick to the "traditional" non-aspirated Austrian pronunciation.

*Phonology:*
- Voiced [z] does not exist in Austrian, and even educated speakers trying to learn this sound usually only manage to produce it correctly in standard language, by a (usually) rather low percentage - and many (even professional) speakers don't even try. In colloquial language, this never is produced as a phoneme (it might occur as an allophone). Resulting from this (and also the quantity mentioned above), the re-defining of <ß> as a phoneme in the German spelling reform does not make sense from an Austrian standard language point of view.
- Austrians know to produce more vowel qualities than exist in German standard language, and when speaking standard language they substitute German vowels by what they think is the closest equivalent phonetically. So German vowel phonemes (which are closed when long, and open when short) become re-defined: German /bʊnt/ becomes Austrian /bunt/, German /bɪtə/ becomes /bitɛ/, etc. (Note - I didn't write the plosives phonetically, see above phonetics - plosives).

*Morphology:*
- Diminutive suffix: -erl is preferred; in some cases this is also standard language, like "Leiberl".
- -ieren is preferred in verbs like (AT) "kontaktieren" vs. (DE) "kontakten".
- The so-called "Fugen-s" is Austrian: "Schwein*s*braten" vs. German "Schwein*e*braten".

*Syntax:*
Modal verb constructions in subordinate clauses:
(1) hat hingehen müssen
(2) hingehen hat müssen
(3) hingehen müssen hat
In Germany it _*seems*_ most only will accept (1) - see this thread; in Austria all three are used in standard language (also in literature and quality newspapers).
So this is a case where it seems that Germany only applies a stricter norm while in Austria varieties considered colloquial in Germany are acceptable as standard language.

*Lexicon:*
There's a huge list of words which have different meanings in German and Austria, or words which are only Austrian respectively only German, or words which overlap; a list would be ridiculously long; just a few examples:
- Tomate (DE + AT) vs. Paradeiser (only AT)
- Samstag (DE + AT) vs. Sonnabend (only DE)
- Pickerl (only AT) vs. Vignette (DE + AT)
- Leiberl (only AT) vs. Trikot (DE + AT)
etc. etc.

*Pragmatics:*
Extensive studies have shown that Austrians and Germans follow different discussion strategies:
- Austrians prefer to talk about this and that before coming to the point, especially if they want something (if they're in the weaker position). They also use much more "Konjunktiv" (which is not really a subjunctive but more a politeness formula, or depending on context an optative).
- Germans prefer to come to the point quickly, whether they're in the stronger or in the weaker position.
Of course, Austrians which are used to having negotiations with Germans over time will come to learn their strategies (or else they'll be out of business pretty soon, as the Austrian strategy is more defensive).



Meyer Wolfsheim said:


> From what I've been told by my former instructor, Austrian German drops the -ch sound in many of the pronouns, ich --> ie, dich --> die, etc.


This is the case in colloquial speech and dialects; however in Austrian standard language "ch" isn't dropped here.


Erick404 said:


> I've read and even heard in some learning examples that in Austria the letter R is pronounced as a trilled alveolar consonant, like in Russian, while in most of Germany it's a uvular fricative (But whenever I hear an Austrian talking in a movie or song, I hear the German version. Maybe they do this on purpose).


Your source was wrong.
Alveolar trilled [r] is spoken in Austria, however only insular - you will find speakers of alveolar trilled "r" everywhere in Austria but they're a tiny minority, except for small Vorarlberg where the vast majority uses alveolar "r".
In Austria voiced fricative "French" [ʁ] is the most common variety, followed by uvular trill [ʀ], followed by alveolar trill [r] (except for Vorarlberg).

Most likely your source mixed up Bavarian and Austrian German; Baviarians predominantly use alveolar [r] (or more precisely,_ speakers of Bavarian dialects, _and not people living in Bavaria - as most northerners who live there prefer fricative [ʁ]).



Erick404 said:


> Regarding writing, I doubt there are differences. Unlike English, German is a regulated language, that is, there is a body that decides which forms and grammar constructions are right and which aren't.


Austria accepted and adopted the spelling reform and thus in all respects, in theory, we write "the same" as Germans do (while the Swiss substitute "ß" with "ss").
However, there are indeed a few spellings which are _*specifically*_ Austrian, like (AT+DE indicates that they're used in both countries):
- Kücken (AT) vs. Küken (AT+DE)
- Szepter (AT) vs. Zepter*) (DE)
- Tunell**) (AT) vs. Tunnel (AT+DE)

*) This one hardly ever is used in Austria as Austrians usually don't pronounce it "Zepter" but rather "Szepter".
**) This once was very widespread but nowadays is slowly becoming dated.


All this is of course only a short selection of the differences.


----------



## berndf

I'd like to add to Sokol's description that Austrian German shares many of its traits with Bavarian (dialect or dialect-influenced standard language) from which it is descendant. The linguistic borders do not always precisely match the political ones.


----------



## koniecswiata

I can add that some of the differences, especially vocabulary, are because Germany and Austria are two separate politcal units.  Therefore, there are some differences in political and educational terminology, too.  This was even true with the now, non-existent "GDR" (DDR).
In some other aspects, such as phonology, Austrian German dialects (there's more than one) belong to the same general grouping as the dialects in Southern Germany:  Bavarian and Swabian.  They are all "High German dialects".  Therefore, Bavarian German may have more in common with Austrian German than with German from Hamburg--despite Hamburg and Bavaria being in the same country.
Curiously, my grandfather, who was from Hamburg, trilled his "r" as some people from Austria, or as is done in Spanish or Russian.  I believe, however, that this was something called "Bühnendeutsch"--a kind of theater German, but at one time considered a proper pronunciation.  And, among older people from Hamburg (who are dying off) was very common.  He wasn't an actor, though.


----------



## sokol

koniecswiata said:


> Curiously, my grandfather, who was from Hamburg, trilled his "r" as some people from Austria, or as is done in Spanish or Russian.  I believe, however, that this was something called "Bühnendeutsch"--a kind of theater German, but at one time considered a proper pronunciation.


Just some food for thought.

The trilled alveolar [r] is not really a dialect marker, it was used over the whole area where German dialects are spoken (and it is considered to be the original variety of "r" in Germanic languages); and yes, it was once considered obligatory for "Bühnenaussprache" (your "Bühnendeutsch") - which however is no longer the case -, but it was by no means restricted to that: it was used by many dialect speakers of different, not closely related dialects.

And to a degree, it still is.
This is the case in Bavaria, also in Austria in Vorarlberg (Alemannic dialects!), and it is the case in Switzerland, and also some parts of the rest of Germany.

In Austria, as said, alveolar trilled "r" is only used by a small _*minority*_ (except for Vorarlberg), and even though you may find speakers using it all over the country they're insular and not distributed according to the dialect regions of Austria (again, except for Vorarlberg): in some families nobody will use trilled "r", in others all will use it, and in others its use is mixed, and those where it isn't used at all dominate by far, here in Austria.

So while it is of course true that Bavarian and Austrian speech share a great many things there are also huge differences:

- Bavarian speakers (at least those with dialect background) still tend to use alveolar trilled "r" (and _*only*_ this variety) in both standard language and dialect; Austrian speakers generally _don't _do this except for Alemannic Vorarlberg speakers and the odd "alveolar r speakers" distributed in an insular way all over Austria.

- Bavaria once had its own standard variety which however is already close to extinction (Karl Valentin still used it, many Bavarian intellectuals still use it, but in Munich the vast majority uses a more or less "neutral southernish German standard language" which is not anymore this old Bavarian standard). Or more precisely, when used it is usually considered "Bavarian dialect" by Non-Bavarians (which of course it isn't; Bavarian dialect is something entirely different, and differs greatly from standard language).
This standard language had (has, as it still exists ) some featuers making it quite distinct from Austrian standard language, like - most noticeably - the "dark a" (spelling-a): the letter "a" is in this Bavarian standard a dark [ɒ], most obvious this is with proper names, so "Anna" becomes [ɒnna] while in Austria it is always [anna].

- In Bavaria plosives /p t/ are not aspirated in dialects; however, Bavarian dialect speakers aspirate them very strongly when speaking standard language /ph th/ (obviously this is a case of hypercorrection), and in some words loaned from standard language to dialect they also aspirate in dialects, like the word for "tea" = "Tee": in Austria non-aspirated "Tee" (which Bavarians would write "Dee"), in Bavaria this is strongly aspirated "Thee".

To learners of German or German Northerners Bavarian and Austrian standard language and dialects might sound "very similar" or even "identical"; but that's not accurate at all - in fact, Bavarian and Austrian accents are very different and easily to differentiate even right on the border - which is where I grew up (on the border between Upper Austria and Lower Bavaria), so I should know.


----------



## koniecswiata

Sokol,
Yes, I knew that the trilled "r" was the "original" "r" in German, before around 300 (?) years ago the uvular "r" spread--French influence, Western European Pronunciation Sprachbund?  
True, being more used to Northern German pronunciation patterns, it is hard to hear differences among Southern German pronunciations--though, this is due to lack of experience basically (the same happens to English speakers who never having heard Australian English will think it is London English).  I have, however, been able to notice the difference between Vorlarlbergers and the rest of Austrians, as the Vorarlbergers sound somewhat Swiss (the Alemanic, I suppose), also Tyrolians sound different from Vienese.  I didn't mean to "throw you all into one pot" with the Bavarians.!


----------



## sokol

As you mention Tyroleans, they have also a very specific, very typical kind of "r" sound - even though they use [ʁ] (which is the variety dominating throughout Austria, except for Alemannic Vorarlberg), they also pronounce it post-vocalic and before consonant clusters, so for example "r" is pronounced in "de[ʁ]", and also in "do[ʁ]t" (Austrians east from Tyrol vocalise "r" in this position).

So actually both Tyroleans and Vorarlbergers are easily singled out by their use of "r" while the rest of Austria more or less uses the same mixture (predominantly [ʁ], with other "r" pronunciations only being insular).


----------



## berndf

The most distinctive feature of Tyrolean I find the occurrence of the phoneme /kx/. This does not exist in other German dialects except in Swiss German where it is is used in rendering of foreign or standard German /k/ (Swiss German has no native /k/). Like in other South-Bavarian dialects, /s/ often becomes /ʃ/ in Tyrolian, e.g. "das ist" becomes "des isch" rather than "des is" as in other Austrian dialect.

Back to Austrian peculiarities in general: A very typical feature is the non-distinction of the two German "ch" allophones /ç/ and /χ/, also called the "ich" and "ach" sounds. Austrians use an in-between sound, /x/, for both. Bavarian also lacks this distinction but when speaking standard German, Bavarians generally try to distinguish while it is perfectly acceptable and natural in Austria to use the common in-between /x/ also when speaking Standard German.


----------



## Ben Jamin

sokol said:


> Thus, /p t b d/ are not distinguished in Austrian, while they're clearly distinct in German.


 
Could you elaborate this? Isn't there any difference in pronunciation of voiced plosives b d and unvoiced p t? This sounds similar to Chinese, where the LETTERS P and T denote aspirated and B and D unaspirated plosives, but all are pronounced either unvoiced or very slightly voiced. 

By the way, staying once in Leipzig I heard people pronouncing D as T (for instance in the name Dieter becoming Tieter). The French used to represent a German accent in French by changing all voiced consonants to unvoiced. So maybe there is something in it?


----------



## Frank78

Ben Jamin said:


> By the way, staying once in Leipzig I heard people pronouncing D as T (for instance in the name Dieter becoming Tieter). The French used to represent a German accent in French by changing all voiced consonants to unvoiced. So maybe there is something in it?



Yes, in Saxionian all "hard" consonants like p,t,k become "soft": b, t and k. The only exception is at the beginning of words where it is sometimes opposite. Soft ones become hard but nevertheless it's rare and does not work with every word begining with b,g or d.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Could you elaborate this? Isn't there any difference in pronunciation of voiced plosives b d and unvoiced p t? This sounds similar to Chinese, where the LETTERS P and T denote aspirated and B and D unaspirated plosives, but all are pronounced either unvoiced or very slightly voiced.


*Germans* pronounce plosives like in Chinese: fortis (/p/, /t/ and /k/) = unvoiced aspirated, lenis (/b/, /d/ and /g/) = unvoiced unaspirated. When Germans distinguish between fortis and lenis plosives they listen to aspiration, not to voicing. Voicing is unimportant. Most Germans *never ever* voice plosives.

Austrian as well as some dialects in Germany do not aspirate fortis plosive or the aspiration is so faint that the fortis and lenis plosives become practically indistinguishable. There are many jokes about this. E.g.: A British car drives through a small village in Saxony and two villagers who have never seen one before wonder what "GB" means. Says one of them: "Vielläischt *G*enischräisch *B*oulen?" (in Standard German: "Vielleicht *K*önigreich *P*olen?"="maybe *K*ingdom of *P*oland?").


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> *Germans* pronounce plosives like in Chinese: fortis (/p/, /t/ and /k/) = unvoiced aspirated, lenis (/b/, /d/ and /g/) = unvoiced unaspirated. When Germans distinguish between fortis and lenis plosives they listen to aspiration, not to voicing. Voicing is unimportant. Most Germans *never ever* voice plosives.
> 
> Austrian as well as some dialects in Germany do not aspirate fortis plosive or the aspiration is so faint that the fortis and lenis plosives become practically indistinguishable. There are many jokes about this. E.g.: A British car drives through a small village in Saxony and two villagers who have never seen one before wonder what "GB" means. Says one of them: "Vielläischt *G*enischräisch *B*oulen?" (in Standard German: "Vielleicht *K*önigreich *P*olen?"="maybe *K*ingdom of *P*oland?").


Is this correct for the standard German, or only for dialects? If it is so in standard German, then it is a big surprise for me! These things are never taught to foreign students of German. I learned basic German many years ago, I have been to Germany several times, and I can make a simple conversation in this language, but I have never noticed this phonetical feature.


----------



## Ellis91

Is the simple past used in Austrian German?


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Is this correct for the standard German, or only for dialects? If it is so in standard German, then it is a big surprise for me! These things are never taught to foreign students of German. I learned basic German many years ago, I have been to Germany several times, and I can make a simple conversation in this language, but I have never noticed this phonetical feature.


Yes, this is so in Standard German. In practice, this is less of a problem than you might think because when you learn a foreign language you adjust intuitively to the phonology of that language. I am German native speaker from Northern Germany speaking with a fairly neutral Northern-style Standard German accent living in a French speaking area and I seldom confuse "d" and "t", "b" and "p" or "g" and "k" in actual words. But if a French native speaker e.g. spells individual letters it might still happen that I hear "g" when he means "k", etc. I had also problems with American English (not with British English; BE speakers generally aspirate all fortis plosives while most AE speakers do this only in certain contexts). I remember a colleague speaking English with a General American accent once told me he had to "write a letter" and I was very astonished because I understood he wanted "to ride a ladder". Knowing this difference I can adjust but I have to do this consciously.


----------



## berndf

Ellis91 said:


> Is the simple past used in Austrian German?


Not in colloquial speech and many speakers never use it at all. This applies to all Upper-German varieties, including Austrian German and Swiss German. The grammars of Upper-German dialects (as opposed to Upper-German varieties of Standard German) lack the simple past completely. The only exception is the verb "sein" where the simple past is used.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> Yes, this is so in Standard German. In practice, this is less of a problem than you might think because when you learn a foreign language you adjust intuitively to the phonology of that language. I am German native speaker from Northern Germany speaking with a fairly neutral Northern-style Standard German accent living in a French speaking area and I seldom confuse "d" and "t", "b" and "p" or "g" and "k" in actual words. But if a French native speaker e.g. spells individual letters it might still happen that I hear "g" when he means "k", etc. I had also problems with American English (not with British English; BE speakers generally aspirate all fortis plosives while most AE speakers do this only in certain contexts). I remember a colleague speaking English with a General American accent once told me he had to "write a letter" and I was very astonished because I understood he wanted "to ride a ladder". Knowing this difference I can adjust but I have to do this consciously.


Yes, I am very concious of this American voicing of the "t"-s, it is almost impossible not to hear it, but I can not recollect voicing of the "k"-s and "p"-s. Maybe devoicing of b, d and g in German is more difficult to notice, if one does not listen vert much to the language. Anyway, this is not taught at ordinary courses of German for foreigners, but it should be.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, I am very concious of this American voicing of the "t"-s, it is almost impossible not to hear it, but I can not recollect voicing of the "k"-s and "p"-s.


Again, Germans don't listen to voicing they listen to aspiration. E.g. the first syllables in *hiber*nate and *hyper*thermia pronounced with an General American accent sound almost identical to a German ear obviously but not to a Polish ear.



Ben Jamin said:


> Maybe devoicing of b, d and g in German is more difficult to notice, if one does not listen vert much to the language. Anyway, this is not taught at ordinary courses of German for foreigners, but it should be.


Indeed. Good French teachers explain German students how to correctly pronounce "d", "g" and "b" in French as German lacks these sounds but there are not so many good teachers.
 
The distinction between voiced and unvoiced and between aspirated and unaspirated are not two separate black and white type distinctions but voiced/unaspirated, unvoiced/unaspirated and unvoiced/aspirated of plosives are points in a continuum. Different languages place the fortis/lenis border in different positions in this continuum. Have a look here. German is not contained in the list; it is roughly like in Cantonese.


----------



## trbl

berndf said:


> Again, Germans don't listen to voicing they listen to aspiration. E.g. the first syllables in *hiber*nate and *hyper*thermia pronounced with an General American accent sound almost identical to a German ear obviously but not to a Polish ear.



This is news to me. I've never heard of a German not being able to distinguish between /b/ and /p/ in American English (or /g/ and /k/, for that matter). Unvoiced plosives are generally aspirated in American English. 

The pronunciation of /t/ as /d/ in certain positions is a different matter, but that isn't universal (nor is the resulting confusion limited to Germans). For instance, pronouncing "terrible" or "autonomy" with an unaspirated t would sound very odd.


----------



## berndf

trbl said:


> Unvoiced plosives are generally aspirated in American English.


Word-initially and in stressed syllables. Otherwise unaspirated in most American accents.


trbl said:


> The pronunciation of /t/ as /d/ in certain positions is a different matter, but that isn't universal (nor is the resulting confusion limited to Germans).


My example with "write a letter" was probably not a wise choice; I agree, "t-flapping" is yet a different matter.


trbl said:


> For instance, pronouncing "terrible" or "autonomy" with an unaspirated t would sound very odd.


Yes, because in both cases "t" is the onset of a stressed syllable. American speakers sometimes mistake aspiration in unstressed syllables by Brithish speakers as a stress marker.

You might be interested in reading this thread.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> *Germans* pronounce plosives like in Chinese: fortis (/p/, /t/ and /k/) = unvoiced aspirated, lenis (/b/, /d/ and /g/) = unvoiced unaspirated. When Germans distinguish between fortis and lenis plosives they listen to aspiration, not to voicing. Voicing is unimportant. Most Germans *never ever* voice plosives.


 
Look what I found in Wikipedia about aspiration in the article "Aspiration":

_"In der deutschen Standardaussprache sind die stimmlosen Plosive p, t, k am Wortanfang aspiriert, z. B. kalt [kʰalt]. Im Deutschen ist die Aspiration aber ein adjungiertes Merkmal, also nicht distinktiv."_

Shouldn't this article be revised?


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Look what I found in Wikipedia about aspiration in the article "Aspiration":
> 
> _"In der deutschen Standardaussprache sind die stimmlosen Plosive p, t, k am Wortanfang aspiriert, z. B. kalt [kʰalt]. Im Deutschen ist die Aspiration aber ein adjungiertes Merkmal, also nicht distinktiv."_
> 
> Shouldn't this article be revised?


In my mind this is not correct. Word initial fortis plosives are more strongly aspirated than others. This is probably what the author ment.

PS: There is already a critical comment in the discussion page of that article.


----------



## mark85

I found that when I was living in Kärnten (south-east Austria), the locals definately pronounced vowels more. For example 'danke' was pronounced 'daarnke', and when using 'schlafen' in the past perfect, they would say 'Ich bin geschlaft' insead of 'Ich habe geschlaft'. Other differences I noticed between Austrian German and standard German, was 'Erdäpfeln' instead of 'Kartoffeln' etc. But one thing that stood out was the borrowing of foreign words such as servus from Hungarian (meaning hello and goodbye, much like ciao in Italian which was also used) and in Kärnten, everyone would say Na zdrowie instead of Prosst (cheers).

Hope you found this useful! I know that I found all the other posts on this topic useful.


----------



## sokol

Carinthian dialects lengthen vowels - this is called the "Kärntner Dehnung". 

As for sleeping, I think you must be mistaken with "ich bin geschlaft"; it should be equally "ich habe geschlafen" in Carinthia too (of course, different phonetics in dialect pronunciation). And the "na zdravje" saying indicates that your contacts there (or some of them) were either Carinthian Slovenes or Carinthians being friendly with Slovenes.  It is not a Russian loan but a Slovene (and thus native) phrase; there's a native Slovene minority in Carinthia.


----------



## berndf

mark85 said:


> they would say 'Ich bin geschlaft' insead of 'Ich habe geschlaft'.


You were probably thinking of southern German "ich bin gestanden" vs. Northern "ich habe gestanden" and "ich bin gesessen" vs. "ich habe gesessen". "Schafen" is not one of the verbs where this regional difference appies. And it is not specifically Austrian.


----------



## mark85

I knew it was Slovene, not Russian (did I spell it wrong?). I did have some Carinthain Slovene and some native Slovene friends there. I wrote a project on the Slovene minority there, it's a very interesting subject. Anyway, back on topic! ;-)


----------



## Maybud

A bit off topic and late to the party, but I think American English is more similar to German, aspiration-wise, than you're giving it credit for. Even though we technically have a voiceless/aspirated voiced/unaspirated distinction, we rely much more heavily on the aspiration than on the voicing to distinguish. Ex. "pit" [pʰɪt] vs "bit" [bɪt], but if you said [pɪt] we'd probably understand it as "bit."

American English also has unaspirated voiceless stops, but there we depend more on other cues to decide if it's "voiced" or "voiceless." Unaspirated stops occur after fricative (ex "steel," but there's no voiced equivalent "sd..." to distinguish between. They also occur syllable-finally, but there we depend on the preceding vowel to distinguish. For example in "rider" vs. "writer," the stop is essentially the same, but the [aɪ] is longer and more pronounced before the "voiced" stop. Same deal with "pot" [pat] vs. "pod" [pa:d]. The voicing distinctions are there, but there not nearly as salient as aspiration, position, and vowel length.


----------



## berndf

Maybud said:


> A bit off topic and late to the party, but I think American English is more similar to German, aspiration-wise, than you're giving it credit for. Even though we technically have a voiceless/aspirated voiced/unaspirated distinction, we rely much more heavily on the aspiration than on the voicing to distinguish. Ex. "pit" [pʰɪt] vs "bit" [bɪt], but if you said [pɪt] we'd probably understand it as "bit."


Yes, absolutely. British English is even close to German in this respect. E.g. aspiration is optional in AmE on the /t/ in _hef*t*y_ while it isn't in BrE, nor would it be in German.



Maybud said:


> For example in "rider" vs. "writer," the stop is essentially the same


Flapping of intervocalic /d/-/t/ with neutralization of the phonemic contrast does not occur in BrE nor in Standard German but, interestingly, there is a dialect group that has this phenomenon too. Interestingly it is Low-German, the dialect group (some prefer to call it a language) that developed out of Old Saxon, closest relative to Old English within the German dialect continuum.


----------



## merquiades

Germans aspirate quite noticeably and this aspect seems paramount to being understood.  Indeed I've tested that out.  A friend and I went looking for a "supermarket" in Frankfurt, a cognate word that should be readily understandable, but it was impossible to be understood until a lady finally got what we meant and repeated slowly several times with the p-k-t highly aspirated and stressed.  A similar situation happened with me in Germany when I ordered a kaffee (coffee) in a bar.  I had to repeat several times before they understood me.  It was frustrating as I was speaking very slowly concentrating on the vowels. They answered with a very strong exploding k-f combination.  I learned my lesson.  



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Alveolar trilled [r] is spoken in Austria, however only insular - you will find speakers of alveolar trilled "r" everywhere in Austria but they're a tiny minority, except for small Vorarlberg where the vast majority uses alveolar "r".
> In Austria voiced fricative "French" [ʁ] is the most common variety, followed by uvular trill [ʀ], followed by alveolar trill [r] (except for Vorarlberg).
> 
> Most likely your source mixed up Bavarian and Austrian German; Baviarians predominantly use alveolar [r] (or more precisely, speakers of Bavarian dialects, and not people living in Bavaria - as most northerners who live there prefer fricative [ʁ]).



Could we maybe say that the alveolar trill is the traditional pronunciation in Austria but it is being replaced slowly but surely by the uvular fricative as dialects give way to standard German which only has [ʁ]?  This is the process that occurred in French and Portuguese.  The process is almost complete in the former.


----------



## Frank78

merquiades said:


> Germans aspirate quite noticeably and this aspect seems paramount to being understood.  Indeed I've tested that out.  A friend and I went looking for a "supermarket" in Frankfurt, a cognate word that should be readily understandable, but it was impossible to be understood until a lady finally got what we meant and repeated slowly several times with the p-k-t highly aspirated and stressed.  A similar situation happened with me in Germany when I ordered a kaffee (coffee) in a bar.



I'm not sure if aspiration was the problem in your case. The word starts with /z/ in German and /s/ in English, the ending is /-kɪt/ in English and /-kt/ in German, the total time to pronounce the word seems to be longer in German, too. I've tried it out but I don't know why.

There are some dialects in German without many aspirated, e.g. Saxon. They would say "Subbormargt" and "Gaffee" and most people would still understand it.


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> I'm not sure if aspiration was the problem in your case. The word starts with /z/ in German and /s/ in English, the ending is /-kɪt/ in English and /-kt/ in German, the total time to pronounce the word seems to be longer in German, too. I've tried it out but I don't know why.
> 
> There are some dialects in German without many aspirated, e.g. Saxon. They would say "Subbormargt" and "Gaffee" and most people would still understand it.



Now that I think of it we probably did say /s/.  When I don't think about it I don't voice at the beginning of the word.  Plus I always assume that the vowel is wrong not the consonant.
The "kaffee" problem was more frustrating.  I had the impression they were understanding "automobile" "moon" "shirt" or anything but "coffee"


----------



## berndf

Wrong allophonic [s]-[z] distribution almost never creates a phoneme recognition problem. About a third of the German speaking community (in the South) lack the sound [z] completely and I can't remember a single instance where this has created a misunderstanding. There are minimal pairs where the [s]-[z] distinction is phonemic, viz. where /s/ is realized [z] in Standard German and [s] would be a realization of a former de-affricated /ts/*, e.g. _weise_ and _weiße_. In this case speakers who never use [z] distinguish between the two phonemes by length (_weise_=[vaɪsə] and _weiße_=[vaɪs:ə]). Since also speakers who distinguish between [s] and [z] tend to pronounce [s] longer than [z], they normally understand each other.
____________________
*The former distinction between de-affricated /z/ (as in _das _or _ganz_) and /s/ (as in _Maus_ or _Gans_)) is lost in modern German.


----------



## Outsider

As one who is not a native speaker of either language, I must say I don't think the plosives are pronounced quite the same way in English and German. I've noticed many times in pop songs sung in English by German speakers, whose English was otherwise flawless, a noticeable tendency to devoice certain plosives.
Since the topic is Austrian German, I have a question: are the "Sissi" films starring Romi Schneider a faithful representation of Austrian German?


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> I've noticed many times in pop songs sung in English by German speakers, whose English was otherwise flawless, a noticeable tendency to devoice certain plosives.


This implies you think in English it would be wrong to devoice plosives. While there are certain places where this true for General American, I strongly contest that voicing of plosives should be mandatory *anywhere *in RP English (which most Germans are taught). It does occur but is never mandatory nor is it relevant for phoneme identification.


Outsider said:


> Since the topic is Austrian German, I have a question: are the "Sissi" films starring Romi Schneider a faithful representation of Austrian German?


In line with general habits at the time, the actors use stage pronunciation. There are occasional passages in Schönbrunner Deutsch (the accent of the Austrian aristocracy) and in dialect but they are rare.


----------



## Sepia

... but basically it is still High German with some regional differences. I don't think this very crucial piece of information was very clear in any of the posts.
Only two days ago I actually saw a job offer from company in an anglophone country, where applicants should be fluent in "Austrian".


----------



## merquiades

Sepia said:


> ... but basically it is still High German with some regional differences. I don't think this very crucial piece of information was very clear in any of the posts.
> Only two days ago I actually saw a job offer from company in an anglophone country, where applicants should be fluent in "Austrian".



It's unfortunately widely believed by laymen that Austrian and Swiss German differ quite a bit from the variety/ varieties spoken in Germany.


----------



## Ben Jamin

merquiades said:


> It's unfortunately widely believed by laymen that Austrian and Swiss German differ quite a bit from the variety/ varieties spoken in Germany.


I think that they don't understand the extent of diglossia in the Germanophone area, as diglossia in the Anglophone countries is disaapearing rapidly.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> It's unfortunately widely believed by laymen that Austrian and Swiss German differ quite a bit from the variety/ varieties spoken in Germany.


This is basically due to confusion between differences in standard languages and dialects. German dialects are really heavy and they are heavy within Germany as well; in this respect, this is no a peculiarity related to countries. One difference, though, is that dialectal or dialect influenced speech is much more common in Austria and even more so in Switzerland than in Germany. In Switzerland, dialect is even used on Radio and TV this is often "fake", i.e. it is basically standard German transformed into dialect, i.e. some characteristic pronunciation, morphology and word order shifts are applies. These are so transparent that after a while you don't understand how you could ever have had difficulties with it but as a German with no experience in Swiss German you understand next to nothing.

There are differences in the standard languages in vocabulary and grammar. These differences are similar to those between British and American English including false friends like _to table_ which mean to put on the agenda in British English and exactly the opposite in American English. E.g. _zügeln _means _to moderate, to bridle_ in Germany and _to move residence_ in Switzerland. The biggest difference is probably in some professional languages. I had to learn the basics of German legalese at university but Austrian legalese is completely unintelligible to me (and to my wife as well who is native Austrian). I am working in the financial industry and I learned the vocabulary first in English and then in French and then in Swiss standard German. When I started to work with German customers I had to ask for the most elementary terms what they meant which created some strange situations as I am a native German and an expert in the field so nobody thought I wouldn't know those terms and only understood them when translated into English or Swiss Standard German.

EDIT: Crossed with Ben Jamin


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> This implies you think in English it would be wrong to devoice plosives. While there are certain places where this true for General American, I strongly contest that voicing of plosives should be mandatory *anywhere *in RP English (which most Germans are taught). It does occur but is never mandatory nor is it relevant for phoneme identification.



Could you give some examples for usual devoicing in English?

By the way I was taught that devoicing does not exist in Norwegian, but listening to people, especially on the radio, I can hear occasional devoicing, mostly  due to assimilation to the following consonant.


----------



## merquiades

Ben Jamin said:


> Could you give some examples for usual devoicing in English?
> 
> By the way I was taught that devoicing does not exist in Norwegian, but listening to people, especially on the radio, I can hear occasional devoicing, mostly  due to assimilation to the following consonant.



The only devoicing I can think of is when preterit verbs ending in /d/ become /t/:  walked, talked, washed... etc.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> The only devoicing I can think of is when preterit verbs ending in /d/ become /t/:  walked, talked, washed... etc.


What about _*d*o_? Studies show that 80-90% of speakers devoice initial /b/, /d/ and /g/ in any variety of English and close to 100% in German. Speakers generally don't recognize as aspiration would be mandatory to distinguish_ do _from_ to_.

The lack of aspiration in Austrian German and other dialects leads to a loss of phonemic differentiation between voiced and unvoiced stops and causes minimal pairs like _Bass_ and _Pass_ to merge. There are many jokes about this. E.g.: After the fall of the Berlin wall a British motorist visits Saxony (a dialect area where this merger occurs) and passes through a small village. Two villagers see the car and wonder what the sign "GB" meant. Says one of them: "Maybe _*K*riminal*p*olizei"_. Says the other: "Or maybe _*K*önigreich *P*olen_".


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> What about _*d*o_? Studies show that 80-90% of speakers devoice initial /b/, /d/ and /g/ in any variety of English and close to 100% in German. Speakers generally don't recognize as aspiration would be mandatory to distinguish_ do _from_ to_.



For me they are clearly voiced at the beginning:  _do, girl, bit_ compared _to, curl, pit_.   In other positions they is more of a gray area.  
The fourth person (babrocks) seems to devoice the /b/ in bar, here.  The other speakers pronounce it rather voiced.

When my German colleague from Bonn pronounced "paper", the /p/ is very strongly aspirated.  
Her name is "Barbara".  I don't hear /Parpara/ when she pronounces her name.
Do you hear people pronounce Berlin as Perlin?


----------



## berndf

Of course not. I am a German native speaker and my auditory system is not conditioned to notice voicing of plosives unless it is grotesquely exaggerated. The /p/ /b/ separation is based on energy and aspiration and not on voicing or unvoicing. Through my knowledge of foreign languages I have achieved some ability to distinguish voiced from unvoiced unaspirated plosives in those languages though it is still imperfect. /p/-/b/ confusions still occasionally happen to me in French or Italian and to a lesser extent in American English. But when listening to German I hear with the ears of a native speaker, i.e. ignoring voicing completely.

This all happens unconsciously. Before I learned phonetics I was completely unaware I didn't voice my  /b/s and I was completely convinced the Italian word for "pay" was "bagare" as I knew at the time the word only from Italian restaurants and had never seen it written.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

mark85 said:


> I found that when I was living in Kärnten (south-east Austria), the locals definately pronounced vowels more. For example 'danke' was pronounced 'daarnke', and when using 'schlafen' in the past perfect, they would say 'Ich bin geschlaft' insead of 'Ich habe geschlaft'. Other differences I noticed between Austrian German and standard German, was 'Erdäpfeln' instead of 'Kartoffeln' etc. But one thing that stood out was the borrowing of foreign words such as servus from Hungarian (meaning hello and goodbye, much like ciao in Italian which was also used) and in Kärnten, everyone would say Na zdrowie instead of Prosst (cheers).
> 
> Hope you found this useful! I know that I found all the other posts on this topic useful.



This comes late, but...

"Servus" is known not only in Austria, but also in Southern Germany in regions where there never ever could possibly be a significant Hungarian influence. Moreover, it's more probable that servus (being a Latin word and meaning "(your) servant") was borrowed from German into Hungarian (servusz). "Ciao" (originally Venetian) is akin to Standard Italian "schiavo" (slave).
Prost (a contraction of "prosit", with long closed "o") is another Latinism.
By the way, "Kärnten" is known in the English-speaking world as "Carinthia".


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

mark85 said:


> I knew it was Slovene, not Russian (did I spell it wrong?). I did have some Carinthain Slovene and some native Slovene friends there. I wrote a project on the Slovene minority there, it's a very interesting subject. Anyway, back on topic! ;-)



The way you spelled it, it was evidently Polish.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

berndf said:


> Yes, absolutely. British English is even close to German in this respect. E.g. aspiration is optional in AmE on the /t/ in _hef*t*y_ while it isn't in BrE, nor would it be in German.
> 
> Flapping of intervocalic /d/-/t/ with neutralization of the phonemic contrast does not occur in BrE nor in Standard German but, interestingly, there is a dialect group that has this phenomenon too. Interestingly it is Low-German, the dialect group (some prefer to call it a language) that developed out of Old Saxon, closest relative to Old English within the German dialect continuum.



There is a recognised minority language spoken here, but I'm not sure if the language in case is (Eastern) Frisian or Plattdeutsch as a whole.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

merquiades said:


> It's unfortunately widely believed by laymen that Austrian and Swiss German differ quite a bit from the variety/ varieties spoken in Germany.


Standard German is called "Schriftdeutsch" in Switzerland... if the people really speak heavy dialect in Southern Germany, you will understand nothing, especially the older generations in rural areas even if your Standard German listening comprehension skills are fully developed.


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> There is a recognised minority language spoken here, but I'm not sure if the language in case is (Eastern) Frisian or Plattdeutsch as a whole.


I don't quite understand what you are trying to tell us here. Anyway, Frisian is not Low-German (Plattdeutsch). These are quite different things. My comment pertained to Low-German only. I don't know enough of Frisian phonology to make any statements whether t-flapping exists in that language.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Only this.
The part of your message I was referring to was this:


> the dialect group (some prefer to call it a language)


----------



## berndf

Oh, I see. No, Low-German is not a recognised minority language. It is an academic debate if it is best referred to as language or a dialect. I personally don't think there is much to be learned from that debate. In the Middle Ages, when Low-German was the lingua franca of the North and Baltic Sea areas, there was probably useful to regard it as a separate language. Today there is not much reason in doing so. The question isn't too interesting today.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

My question would be: why don't they teach it at school?
A language has better chances to be taught at school than a dialect. Today, if you don't happen to know any native speakers (most of them are older persons, anyway), the only way to learn it is in adult education centres.


----------



## berndf

This discussion is taking us to far away from the topic.


----------



## Sepia

Angelo di fuoco said:


> My question would be: why don't they teach it at school?
> A language has better chances to be taught at school than a dialect. Today, if you don't happen to know any native speakers (most of them are older persons, anyway), the only way to learn it is in adult education centres.



Because it is not very popular in densely populated areas - at least not up north. Until the 17th century the native languages in my area - Danish, North-Frisian and Plattdeutsch - were predominant and began loosing their importance in the cities as High German began spreading. I rural areas the languages remained the native languages of a lot of people although at times it was forbidden by law to use them in public. Why the Plattdeutsch-speaking people generally did not stick to their culture - good question. The Danish and Northfrisian speaking population did and run their own schools. (And their own political party - yes, PARTY, not parties.)




merquiades said:


> ..
> Do you hear people pronounce Berlin as Perlin?




When I am absolutely 100% tuned in on listening to and speaking French it might in fact sound a bit like "Perlin" when spoken by a German or native English speaker. But normally it doesn't.


----------



## merquiades

Reviving this thread a little bit to comment on two phonological aspects. 
I heard a speaker from Salzburg, Austria nasalize their vowel sounds in a way that "kind of" sounded a bit like French, but it was more generally before any nasal consonant.  _Information_, _strand_, even the -en of _gehen_ sounded a bit nasal.  The same person also pronounced the final l like y [j]:  _voll_ [foj].
Is this typical of Austrian German, just that of Salzburg, or is it just a personal idiolect in this case?  This person was very young and was not speaking dialect.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> I heard a speaker from Salzburg, Austria nasalize their vowel sounds in a way that "kind of" sounded a bit like French, but it was more generally before any nasal consonant. _Information_, _strand_, even the -en of _gehen_ sounded a bit nasal.


That is typical of "Schönbrunner Deutsch", traditionnell upper class accent of the Imperial era. It has become very rare.

Is it this kind of accent? 




Alternatively, is could also be Pinzgau/Pongau rural dialect. Then pronounce an much like French en while, e.g., in adjacent Upper Bavarian [ɒ̃:] is de-nazalized and raised to [o:].

I don't know it that is something you could judge: Was it an urban or a rural accent?


----------



## Red Arrow

merquiades said:


> Do you hear people pronounce Berlin as Perlin?


Of those 11 audio files, 3 say Berlin (Firmian, Frikoe and Sherinni) and the other 8 say Perlin. (in my non-linguistic opinion)


----------



## berndf

Red Arrow said:


> Of those 11 audio files, 3 say Berlin (Firmian, Frikoe and Sherinni) and the other 8 say Perlin. (in my non-linguistic opinion)


German contrasts only only aspirated vs. non-aspirated stops. Voicing is irrelevant and is not perceived. In accents where aspiration does not regularly occur, among them most Austrian accents, minimum pairs like _Dorf_ and _Torf_ can practically not be maintained.

If voicing is perceived at all then as an overarticulation. E.g., Russian has rather strong voicing (except at the end) and initial /b-/ in Russian sounds to a German ear a bit as if the person is about to vomit.

In Bavarian dialects (which includes most Austrian dialects), voicing practically never occurs. It is a particularity of these dialects that they completely lack voiced stops and fricatives.


----------



## Red Arrow

berndf said:


> German contrasts only only aspirated vs. non-aspirated stops. Voicing is irrelevant. In accents where aspiration does not regularly occur, among them most Austrian accents, minimum pairs like _Dorf_ and _Torf_ can practically not be maintained.


Yes, I know (I read the thread  ), but it is still interesting to know that some Germans do voice their unaspirated plosives, at least sometimes.

I can only conclude that pronouncing Berlin with an actual [b] is acceptable when speaking German.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> That is typical of "Schönbrunner Deutsch", traditionnell upper class accent of the Imperial era. It has become very rare.
> 
> Is it this kind of accent?
> 
> I don't know it that is something you could judge: Was it an urban or a rural accent?


Ok I will link the video.  Listen at 0.54 "Ganz besonders".  0.56 "schön". There are many other examples thoughout the video.
He also consistently says Soizburg.  L is often y.
He doesn't give the impression to be of the imperial era type.  I guess he's from Salzburg but now lives in Vienna.


----------



## berndf

Red Arrow said:


> I can only conclude that pronouncing Berlin with an actual * is acceptable when speaking German.*


Possible, but as I said, it sounds overarticulated. I doubt the person would say it like that in more natural speech contexts than recording for Forvo. That is why linguists normally don't ask people to pronounce certain words but let them talk about anything and wait until they happen to say certain sounds in a natural environment and without knowing what the experimentor is after.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Ok I will link the video.


Zell am See.  




berndf said:


> Alternatively, is could also be Pinzgau/Pongau rural dialect.


Zell am See is the capital of Pinzgau.

But the guy speaks a mixture of Austrian accents and he clearly overarticulates. I which they wouldn't do that but most youtubers think they are doing learners a favour while in reality it only gives them a wrong impression how a language or dialect sounds.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Zell am See.
> 
> 
> 
> Zell am See is the capital of Pinzgau.
> 
> But the guy speaks a mixture of Austrian accents and he clearly overarticulates. I which they wouldn't do that but most youtubers think they are doing learners a favour while in reality it only gives them a wrong impression how a language or dialect sounds.


Yes, I know he's speaking slowly but did you hear the nasalization and vocalization?


----------



## berndf

I explained the nasalisation before and yes it is there. L-vocalisation is a typical feature of Middle Bavarian (north  and south Bavarian don't have it). Eastern Middle Bavarian (that is about East of Wels in Upper Austria) has a particular twist: it has developed its own i-mutation with it. E.g. _Milch_ is in Western Middle Bavarian _Muich_ and in Eastern Middle Bavarian _Müch_. This is particularly interesting because all of Bavarian has reverted umlauting but Eastern Middle Bavarian has reinvented it. So, standard German _viel Gefühl_ (_much feeling_) gets _vul gfuhl_ in Northern and Southern Bavarian,  _vui Gfui _in Western Middle Bavarian and _vü Gfü_ in Eastern Middle Bavarian.


----------



## Awwal12

Erick404 said:


> I've read and even heard in some learning examples that in Austria the letter R is pronounced as a trilled alveolar consonant, like in Russian





koniecswiata said:


> curiously, my grandfather, who was from Hamburg, trilled his "r" as some people from Austria, or as is done in Spanish or Russian.


Spanish contrasts the trill [r] (e.g. in "burro") and the flap [ɾ] (e.g. in "corazón"), the latter being more widespread.
The modern Russian hard /r/ is actually a flapped [ɾ] in all positions but after vowels, where it's represented by a rather short trill (2, 3 contacts tops). When American actors attempt to imitate a thick Russian accent they always overdo the R-s.


----------



## berndf

It should be noted that due to the wide range of regional and dialectal variation of /r/ with a map that looks like a quilt, there are many different realizations that are used freely and perceptually, the differences are ignored. When I was young, I recognized that [r] and [ʁ] are different sounds only when learning foreign languages. The only realization that sticks out because it is so rare is [ɹ]. That sounds "English" to a German ear.


----------



## Red Arrow

I think it is typical for all West-Germanic languages (+ Danish) to have multiple R sounds and also differences between Rs in onsets and coda.

I tend to say an alveolar tap at the start of a syllable and a uvular fricative at the end of a syllable, although the onsets gr-, chr- and schr- also have a uvular fricative.

I had speech therapy as a child to "correct" my R to an alveolar trill.


----------



## berndf

Red Arrow said:


> I think it is typical for all West-Germanic languages (+ Danish) to have multiple R sounds and also differences between Rs in onsets and coda.


True. The advance of the French uvular R has compounded this phenomenon in the 18th and 19th centuries.


Red Arrow said:


> I had speech therapy as a child to "correct" my R to a trill.


That is maybe the difference. In German this wouldn't happen.


----------



## Red Arrow

I should be more specific. My R was very variable as a child. It could be a tap, a uvular fricative, an American R, a j, a w or even dropped. A second problem I had was that I was always speaking loudly (like an American  ). So I had to go to speech therapy, however, the speech therapist didn't allow anything but an alveolar trill. We stopped after one year because I had started speaking with just taps and alveolar fricatives, and my speech volume had become lower, so everyone was satisfied except the speech therapist.

I would say the main difference between Germany and Flanders is that German linguists are more willing to admit how rare and exotic an alveolar trill has become.


----------



## berndf

Red Arrow said:


> I should be more specific. My R was very variable as a child.


That what I understood. In German nobody would care. It is totally normal to vary your Rs. Completely dropping is rare, though. The only exception is that the vocalized R after /a/ or /a:/ may merge to /a:/. E.g. it is difficult for Germans to differentiate, e.g., _amare _and _armare _in Italian.

The only difference between Bavarian/Austrian and other German R in the syllable coda is that the vocalization is much more complete. In the coda it is always [ɐ] while in other accents it can be anywhere between an approximant [ʁ̞] and [ɐ]. This is because in Bavarian (which includes all Austrian dialects except the dialect of Vorarlberg) there was an earlier r-vocalization before the introduction of the French R and is not a weakening of [ʁ] in modern accents elsewhere.


----------



## Dymn

berndf said:


> The only exception is that the vocalized R after /a/ or /a:/ may merge to /a:/.


Is it possible that this happens with other vowels too? Listening to the various recording of Berlin on Forvo, some clearly sound "ea" while others sound to me like "eh" with no diphthong at all.


----------



## berndf

Dymn said:


> Is it possible that this happens with other vowels too? Listening to the various recording of Berlin on Forvo, some clearly sound "ea" while others sound to me like "eh" with no diphthong at all.


Yes, in clusters _-erC_ this may happen but in this case I hear [bɛɐ'liːn] or in some [beɐ'liːn] in all recordings. The difference between the two vowels in sometimes small but still clearly audible to a trained ear. In case of [aɐ]>[aː] the merger is so complete that not even native speakers, in fact not even the speakers themselves, can tell the difference any more.

I must admit that in some less frequently used words I have to rely on the help of a spelling checker to know where to put a <r> after <a> and where not.


----------



## Frank78

Dymn said:


> Is it possible that this happens with other vowels too? Listening to the various recording of Berlin on Forvo, some clearly sound "ea" while others sound to me like "eh" with no diphthong at all.



I've also heard "ur" turning into "ua" in some regions (Ostwestfalen, I think). They really overpronunced it that it was really striking.

Blubbel comes close to what I mean.


----------



## berndf

Frank78 said:


> I've also heard "ur" turning into "ua" in some regions


That is normal almost everywhere as well as in standard pronunciation (_Urlaub_). The question was if the vowel (r) can completely merge with the vocalized r as in _Arm _being pronounced as if written _Ahm_.

What is typical of Westfalian is that the short and long u and i in front of vocalized r is neutralized, i.e. /u:r/ and /ʊr/ are both realized [uɐ] and /i:r/ and /ɪr/ are both realized [iɐ]. This also occurs in Bavarian (including Austrian) but for a different reason (vowel length is generally non-phonemic in Bavarian).


----------



## Sepia

berndf said:


> That is typical of "Schönbrunner Deutsch", traditionnell upper class accent of the Imperial era. It has become very rare.
> 
> Is it this kind of accent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatively, is could also be Pinzgau/Pongau rural dialect. Then pronounce an much like French en while, e.g., in adjacent Upper Bavarian [ɒ̃:] is de-nazalized and raised to [o:].
> 
> I don't know it that is something you could judge: Was it an urban or a rural accent?



I know what you mean - I regularly have customers form Vienna calling in who speak very much like that. But wouldn't you say that the two gentlemen in the video sound a bit fake - or was that the way they spoke back then.


----------



## berndf

Sepia said:


> I know what you mean - I regularly have customers form Vienna calling in who speak very much like that. But wouldn't you say that the two gentlemen in the video sound a bit fake - or was that the way they spoke back then.


It is of course a parody, like all Graf Bobby & Baron Mucki jokes and sketches. But it gives a an idea of how upper class Viennese of the late k&k era sounded.


----------



## Sepia

berndf said:


> It is of course a parody, like all Graf Bobby & Baron Mucki jokes and sketches. But it gives a an idea of how upper class Viennese of the late k&k era sounded.



Sure, but I have no idea of their cultural background except that one is Austrian. You can also make a parody of a dialect you master completely or is native to you. I often do that when I make parodies of relatives of mine.

But you seem to aggree that it sounds a bit fake, right.

And in fact - I often have people on the phone speaking in this "high-class" Vienna/Austrian-Posh accent - usually people who are contemplating spending 5-10 k on a one or two week vacation. And they sound to me like the real thing as far as I can tell.


----------



## berndf

Sepia said:


> Sure, but I have no idea of their cultural background except that one is Austrian. You can also make a parody of a dialect you master completely or is native to you. I often do that when I make parodies of relatives of mine.
> 
> But you seem to aggree that it sounds a bit fake, right.


Peter Alexander and Gunther Philipp were without a shadow of a doubt capable of pronouncing authentic Schönbrunner Deutsch. The characteristics of the accent are just a bit exaggerated as it is, as I said, a parody. Plus, film actors of that time still used stage pronunciation, which is always exaggerated and over-articulate for better understandably in a theater.



Sepia said:


> And in fact - I often have people on the phone speaking in this "high-class" Vienna/Austrian-Posh accent - usually people who are contemplating spending 5-10 k on a one or two week vacation. And they sound to me like the real thing as far as I can tell.


"Upper class" is not a question of money but of social status. This was a _very_ different era.


----------

