zompist bboard

1) What is the 'ch' in each of the following words. (Is it [x], [C], or [k]?)
a) sprechen - [C]?
b) sprichst - [k]?
c) spricht - [C]?
d) gesprochen - [x]?

-----

2) What type of noun can use 'wo-' or 'da-' forms with? The professorin introdued it as things vs people, but that obviously doesn't cover all nouns! What about abstract nouns? animals? robots that walk around and interact with humans? robots that are simply part of an assembly line? Is the distinction actually animate vs inanimate?

-----

3) 'an' is the preposition used for hanging things on walls where English would use 'on'. 'auf' is used for things 'on' a table though. What about something that's stuck (like with glue) to a wall? what about something that's hanging or stuck to a ceiling?

Erde wrote:1) What is the 'ch' in each of the following words. (Is it [x], [C], or [k]?)
a) sprechen - [C]?
b) sprichst - [k]?
c) spricht - [C]?
d) gesprochen - [x]?

1b) is [C] for me and, I believe, for most German-speakers I've heard. There are some words in which chs represents /ks/, but in these are just orthographical quirks. That is, I don't think sechs was ever pronounced with /xs/. (Although I had an acting teacher in Germany who insisted on the pronunciation [ˈzɛçs], it's not something I actually heard in ordinary conversation.)

Erde wrote:2) What type of noun can use 'wo-' or 'da-' forms with? The professorin introdued it as things vs people, but that obviously doesn't cover all nouns! What about abstract nouns? animals? robots that walk around and interact with humans? robots that are simply part of an assembly line? Is the distinction actually animate vs inanimate?

I've seen them used with reference to animals, e.g. "Ponys mit Kindern darauf reiten durch den Schnee." I guess, as with the choice between it or he bzw. she in English, it might depend on the degree to which one individualises them.

Erde wrote:3) 'an' is the preposition used for hanging things on walls where English would use 'on'. 'auf' is used for things 'on' a table though. What about something that's stuck (like with glue) to a wall? what about something that's hanging or stuck to a ceiling?

I would still use an. "Keine Plakate an die Wand kleben!" Auf simply sounds wrong here. It sounds a little better with Zimmerdecke, but I would still prefer an in that context.

Caveat: IANANS.

linguoboy wrote:

Erde wrote:3) 'an' is the preposition used for hanging things on walls where English would use 'on'. 'auf' is used for things 'on' a table though. What about something that's stuck (like with glue) to a wall? what about something that's hanging or stuck to a ceiling?

I would still use an. "Keine Plakate an die Wand kleben!" Auf simply sounds wrong here. It sounds a little better with Zimmerdecke, but I would still prefer an in that context.

What about a fly on the wall? I would suppose one should use auf here.

What about a fly on the wall? I would suppose one should use auf here.

'an', I think actually.

Now, a *true* test would be what to use in strange situation involving anti-matter...

Erde wrote:

What about a fly on the wall? I would suppose one should use auf here.

'an', I think actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXwn-2f9xY

The general rule of thumb* is that you use "an" for vertical surfaces and "auf" for horizontal surfaces.

*There are exceptions. There are always exceptions.

linguoboy wrote:

Erde wrote:

What about a fly on the wall? I would suppose one should use auf here.

'an', I think actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXwn-2f9xY

Okay, that's different from Dutch, then. It's definitely 'een vlieg op de muur' (not aan, which sounds like someone has pricked it onto the wall with a pin).

GreenBowTie wrote:The general rule of thumb* is that you use "an" for vertical surfaces and "auf" for horizontal surfaces.

*There are exceptions. There are always exceptions.

I guess in a similar vein, I had always learned it that "an" means something like "at" and "auf" means "on top of". Thus "an dem Tisch" means "at the table" (i.e. sitting at the table) vs. "auf dem Tisch" means "on the table" (i.e. something that's sitting on the table).

That still kind of leads to weird "direct" translations of "an der Wand" > "at the wall" rather than "on the wall." But at least I never said "auf der Wand" to mean "on the wall," because I knew that "auf" implied being on top of something.

(edit: Yes, I know, prepositions are one of the hardest things to simply assign a 1-1 correspondence between languages, but it still works in a lot of cases)

I was taught something along the lines of 'auf' being specifically physically over-and-on, as in pressing down upon, while 'an' is the general preposition for contact with a surface. That could be wrong, though.

For 1): I've learnt [C] for b and c, and [X] for d. For a... I'm not sure. I think I may be saying something between the two - after all, [C]~[x] is a continuum.


Caveat: I don't speak German so these answers are worthless.

Asking the professorin agrees with what's been said here: a, b, c are [C], and d is [x] (or [X]). I note that she was rather aggressive right since the beginning in getting the class to at least hear the difference between the two. Of course, there's still some that can't say either, and opt for [S] and [k] instead.

The general rule of thumb* is that you use "an" for vertical surfaces and "auf" for horizontal surfaces.

She said the same, though admitted that 'an' is used for something on the ceiling, so perhaps it's more that 'auf' is used where the object's sitting or standing, and 'an' otherwise.

As for antimatter... what if one had a floor made out of antimatter, and then a antimatter ball thrown into the room. The ball would rise to the top until it hit the ceiling. Then, would it be "'an' oder 'auf' der Decke"? I suspect 'an'.

Erde wrote:since the beginning in getting the class to at least hear the difference between the two. Of course, there's still some that can't say either, and opt for [S] and [k] instead.

Not able to tell the difference between [ç] and [χ]?! IME, foreigners have more problems telling [ç] and [ʃ] apart, and often they struggle quite a bit until they can produce something that sounds like [ç] intentionally. Sprichst can't have [k] because chs is [ks] only within morphemes. And in the case of that word, sprich forms a unit and -st does. A sort-of minimal pair for chs [ks] : chs [çs~xs] is der Dachs [daks] 'the badger' : des Dachs [daχs] 'the roof's' (though I'd prefer Daches).

I suspect 'an'.

Most probably. Lamps hang an der Decke, and so do helium balloons that float on the ceiling. Flies can sit an der Decke, too.

Since I've never learnt German grammar systematically, the way a foreigner would, I can't say whether there's anything special to keep in mind about which kinds of nouns go with wo- and da- and which don't.

Guitarplayer wrote:

Erde wrote:since the beginning in getting the class to at least hear the difference between the two. Of course, there's still some that can't say either, and opt for [S] and [k] instead.

Not able to tell the difference between [ç] and [χ]?!

I never noticed the difference in my speech until I read this thread. Perhaps that was what was meant rather than unable to distinguish them?

I find generally anglophones have difficulty telling the difference between [ç] and [χ], pronouncing them both as [x] or even [k] whereas francophones have more problems telling [ç] and [ʃ] apart, saying both as [ʃ].

My problem is that I can't hit [ç] very well, probably because of the vowel-backing part of my dialect; it's a lot harder to say [ɨç] than [iç].

jmcd wrote:whereas francophones have more problems telling [ç] and [ʃ] apart, saying both as [ʃ].

IME anglophones commonly pronounce [ç] as [ʃ] as well – which is apparently Sound Awareness Stage II then

Also, for the record *looks into Nort's general direction*, the word ich is pronounced with a lax i at least in Standard, so it's [ɪç], not *[iç].

Guitarplayer wrote:Also, for the record *looks into Nort's general direction*, the word ich is pronounced with a lax i at least in Standard, so it's [ɪç], not *[iç].

That is interesting in a way in that I actually initially picked up Standard German /ɪ/ as being [i], since indeed it seems to map closer to my native /i/ than it does to my native /ɪ/, which even when stressed seems to be significantly more central than Standard German /ɪ/, and likewise I tend to easily miss length contrasts in language varieties other than my native English dialect.

Erde wrote:1) What is the 'ch' in each of the following words. (Is it [x], [C], or [k]?)
a) sprechen - [C]?
b) sprichst - [k]?
c) spricht - [C]?
d) gesprochen - [x]?

It's basically [C] after front vowels, [x] otherwise, unless you're trying to put on a Swiss accent, in which case it's pretty much always [x].

-----

2) What type of noun can use 'wo-' or 'da-' forms with? The professorin introdued it as things vs people, but that obviously doesn't cover all nouns! What about abstract nouns? animals? robots that walk around and interact with humans? robots that are simply part of an assembly line? Is the distinction actually animate vs inanimate?

I would argue that abstracts, animals, and robots all fall under "things".

Travis B. wrote:

Guitarplayer wrote:Also, for the record *looks into Nort's general direction*, the word ich is pronounced with a lax i at least in Standard, so it's [ɪç], not *[iç].

That is interesting in a way in that I actually initially picked up Standard German /ɪ/ as being [i], since indeed it seems to map closer to my native /i/ than it does to my native /ɪ/, which even when stressed seems to be significantly more central than Standard German /ɪ/, and likewise I tend to easily miss length contrasts in language varieties other than my native English dialect.

I have the same thing. All front vowels IMD are significantly backed compared to German vowels, except /e/ and /æ/. But /e/ is diphthongized and /æ/ doesn't appear in German. (I don't have anywhere near as much of a problem with [e] as I do with , though.)

Erde wrote: As for antimatter... what if one had a floor made out of antimatter, and then a antimatter ball thrown into the room. The ball would rise to the top until it hit the ceiling. Then, would it be "'an' oder 'auf' der Decke"? I suspect 'an'.

No, this is not how antimatter works. (Due to relativity, you can actually easily show that antimatter will be affected by gravity the same way as matter, or it would behave very weird when accelerated or when something accelerates towards it.)

No, this is not how antimatter works. (Due to relativity, you can actually easily show that antimatter will be affected by gravity the same way as matter, or it would behave very weird when accelerated or when something accelerates towards it.)

What if we assumed an Earth made out of antimatter?, or perhaps we use a more powerful force like electromagnetism instead? (though the example was trying to simulate gravity upside-down).

linguofreak wrote: It's basically [C] after front vowels, [x] otherwise, unless you're trying to put on a Swiss accent, in which case it's pretty much always [x].

*startled*
My experience in Switzerland is that everybody seemed to say [S] after front vowels: so [IS], not [IC] - and I had that confirmed by a (non-native) german speaker who lived there.

Then again, my understanding was that saying "a Swiss accent" in German was like sayin "a British accent" in English.

Erde wrote:

No, this is not how antimatter works. (Due to relativity, you can actually easily show that antimatter will be affected by gravity the same way as matter, or it would behave very weird when accelerated or when something accelerates towards it.)

What if we assumed an Earth made out of antimatter?, or perhaps we use a more powerful force like electromagnetism instead? (though the example was trying to simulate gravity upside-down).

Matter and antimatter have the exact same gravity and act exactly the same on it.

Go and learn.

Salmoneus wrote:Then again, my understanding was that saying "a Swiss accent" in German was like sayin "a British accent" in English.

Yes. Still, your stereotypical Swiss German speaker will say [ɪχ] rather than [ɪç]. People from around Frankfurt, the Rhineland and the Palatinate will typically pronounce [ç] as approximately [ʃ~s̠], though, as far as my personal experience goes. I suppose DTV Atlas Deutsche Sprache has isogloss maps, but I'm too lazy (and busy with homework) to look it up right now.

EDIT: There are audio examples from various regions of Switzerland here.

Matter and antimatter have the exact same gravity and act exactly the same on it.

Go and learn.

Antimatter does not repel other antimatter?

linguofreak wrote: It's basically [C] after front vowels, [x] otherwise, unless you're trying to put on a Swiss accent, in which case it's pretty much always [x].

Actually, it is [x] after back-vowels and [ç] otherwise, except in certain loanwords and if a non-affix [s] is following in the same syllable (then it is [k]).

Thats why /ch/ is synchronically analyzed as being /ç/ with allophone [x], not the other way around.