Re: Stød and rising tone

In scandinavian monosyllabic words tend to be avoided. The most
standard word structure is disyllabic consisting of a root plus an
ending. In a text, you will find many monosyllabic words, but in
dayly speach these are often transformed into disyllabic units in
several ways. Maybe the stød began as a means of making
monocyllabic roots disyllabic by making the root wovel disyllabic.

In Norwegian, transforming monysyllabic units into disyllabic words
often results in a structure with tune 2 (falling-raising over two
syllables)

An example:

Ja -yes, very often pronounced jaa (falling-rising over two
syllables)

Another example.

Standard: Gå ut (Go out) (1. word: Low stress high or high stress
rising - 2. word: high stress rising)

In dayly speach Gåut (high stress falling - low stress raising over
2 syllables) This is a stress and tune pattern of a disyllabic word.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > This might be the way to explain the correspondence between
> > > > Danish stød and Swedish tone 1 (rising tone). What do you
> > > > think?
> > >
> > > Your description is right, I speak that way myself. The
> > > second part may have a falsetto tone. Maybe the stød was
> > > once just subphonemic, being merely an exaggeration helped
> > > on its way by a creaky voice.
> > > Creaky voice is very common in Southern Sweden.
> > >
> >
> > The reason I asked was that most descriptions I see of it,
> > the authors are puzzled why Danish stød should correspond
> > to Swedish tone 1, since it's more phonologically similar
> > (the authors think) to tone 2 (falling-rising). I thought
> > my above observation might account for the correspondence
> > between stød and tone 1.
> > What do you think?
>
>
> It occurred to me that perhaps one could use this analysis
> in the general case:
> a long vowel consists of two morae with level tone,
> when rising, the first one is low, the second high,
> when falling, the first one is high, the second low.
>
> Does anyone analyse that way now?
>
>
> Torsten
>