LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 12.AUG.2000 (05) [E]
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 12 19:28:49 UTC 2000
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 12.AUG.2000 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
=======================================================================
From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Standardization
Henry wrote:
>[In Dutch] -a is also used for the plural of stadion (-> stadia).<
Van Dale, 10th edition, has "stadia" (or "stadiums") as the plural of
"stadium". It says that "stadion" [E. "stadium", pl. "stadia" or "stadiums]
has only the pl. "stadions". Do I need to buy a later edition? I don't want
to if I can avoid it because I believe that the next one was in 3 volumes
and my rotating lectern will only hold 2!
"Stadium" is, of course, the Latinized form of Gr. "stadion".
BTW, the "Dutch" pl. form in " 's" is much used by London greengrocers, who
write "potato's" and "tomato's".
Regarding Kent's comment on the Swedish letters ä, ö, å, the E. word
"vowel"
can mean either a sound or a letter. I can't see any logical reason for not
using the term "accented vowel" to mean a letter with an accent. That
apart,
German would have the option of writing "ae" for "ä", and Danes could
presumably revert to "aa" in order not to simply abandon "their" letter for
an international one. I guess Swedes don't have such options.
John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
----------
From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Standardization
Henry includes in his vowel classification:
>03 [a:] (e.g. Dutch _baas_ or Australian _part_)
04 [a:.] (extra-long version of 1)
08 [Q:] (or [O:], e.g. "posh" British/South African _part_)
09 [Q:.] (extra-long version of 4)
12 [oU] (e.g. _go_ in most English and American varieties)<
There's obviously a danger in trying to represent fine distinctions in one
language by reference to other languages.
Re 03: There are surely variations in the Dutch pronunciation of "baas" and
the Australian pronunciation of "part". To my ear, the vowel of Aus. "part"
is also more fronted.
Re 04: "Version of 3"?
Re 08: Presumably should be "posh English".
Re 09: Presumably "version of 8"
Re 12: I hear American "go" as distinctively different from English English
(Is there a better way to say this?) pronunciations, which in any case
differ very widely. I think the first element in AmE tends to be more
closed.
John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
----------
From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 11.AUG.2000 (11) [E]
on hef schreven:
>
>Henry, thanks for your feed-back.
>
>> work: wark 03 woark (14)
>> wharf: warf(t) 03 woarf (14)
>> church: kark 03 koarke (14)
>> part: part 03 deel --
>> market: markt 03 moark (14)
>> mountain: barg 03 boarg (14)
>> piglet: farken 03 foarken (14)
>> color/paint: farv(') 03 foarve (14)
>
>Your 14 is not the output of a single but of two /åår/; thus there is no
14.
>Note that all the words with 14 have the sequence _ar_. I assume that the
>final [a] sound in the sequence is the phonetic output of /r/.
>
>The difference in our two dialects is that where I have /ar/ you have
/åår/,
>hence _kark_ [ka:k] vs _koark_ [kQ:Ak] (or is it [kQ:Ark], i.e., is the
/r/
>sounded as [r]?).
>
Yes, the /r/ is pronounced and sounds like [r].
>> We have the sound sequence [Q:A] also:
>> pair,couple: paar 08 poar 14
>> beard: baard 08 board 14
>
>So it's simply 08 followed by /r/.
>
Yes, but the /r/ isn't being pronounced in those words.
>Your 15 is superfluous. It's actually 08. All the words in my dialect
>indicated by "08" have this [Q:] sound that you write as "åå".
>
Well, if they're pronounced differently in your dialect as well, then I
agree.
However, if where I use 08 and 15, your dialect doesn't make a distinction,
then I'm not sure.
>> to bathe: baden 08 baden 08
>
>My 08 is the [Q:] sound (your "å"), but you write "baden". Is this the
back
>rounded sound (08) or the sound in Standard Dutch -baden_ (03 [a:])?
>
Uhm, not quite sure anymore. It's certainly not 03, and not 08 either.
It's mure something like 4 I think.
>I do not know what sound 16 is and if it's really a separate phoneme or an
>allphone. I'd need to see more words with this sound.
>
Might be an allophone of 08, not sure. Remember, I'm not an expert, I can
only group words together that share the same sound. And to me, words
marked with 16 have a slightly different sound.
>> book: bouk 12 book (17)
>> cake: kouken 12 koken (17)
>> school: schoul 12/13 schole (17)
>
>How is your 17 different from 10 [(o:]) and 12 ([oU])?
>
Wouldn't have a clue how to explain that, it's really different from
English "go"
though. Maybe that it's a very low "oo", I don't know.
My "grooten"/"grouten" (greetings) has the same sound.
>> fog: daak 08 mist Dutch loan?
>
>We have _Mist_ [mIs(t)] too (not to be confused with _Mist_ [mIs(t)] ~
_Mest_
>[mEs(t)] 'dung', 'muck'!). _Daak_ [dQ:k] usually refers to 'fog' and may
be
>interchangeable with _Nevel_ [ne:vl] ~ [nE:vl] ~ [ne:bl] ~ [nE:bl], while
>_Mist_ refers to 'mist' or 'haze' (> _mistig_ ['mIstIC] 'misty', 'hazy').
>
Hmmmm to me that's all the same... Just scratch my input on that.
regards,
Henry
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Standardization
John wrote:
> Henry includes in his vowel classification:
>
> >03 [a:] (e.g. Dutch _baas_ or Australian _part_)
> 04 [a:.] (extra-long version of 1)
> 08 [Q:] (or [O:], e.g. "posh" British/South African _part_)
> 09 [Q:.] (extra-long version of 4)
> 12 [oU] (e.g. _go_ in most English and American varieties)<
>
> There's obviously a danger in trying to represent fine distinctions in
one
> language by reference to other languages.
It was I who started this. These are not meant to be accurate phonetic
descriptions that would hold up to phonetic measuring scrutiny but
*additional* notations in consideration of those who are not familiarr with
phonology and phonetic transcription. The exact phonetic output is of no
great importance as long as internal differentiation can be determined.
This is common practice. There is nothing wong with relating a sound in
one language to a sound in another language in approximation while
describing it. The distinctions above are by no means "fine".
> I hear American "go" as distinctively different from English English
Which American?
Henry wrote:
> >The difference in our two dialects is that where I have /ar/ you have
/åår/,
> >hence _kark_ [ka:k] vs _koark_ [kQ:Ak] (or is it [kQ:Ark], i.e., is the
/r/
> >sounded as [r]?).
> >
> Yes, the /r/ is pronounced and sounds like [r].
>
> >> We have the sound sequence [Q:A] also:
> >> pair,couple: paar 08 poar 14
> >> beard: baard 08 board 14
> >
> >So it's simply 08 followed by /r/.
> >
> Yes, but the /r/ isn't being pronounced in those words.
The above don't seem to be separate phonemes but are just allophones of
your /åå/ before syllable-final /r/: /åår/ -> åar. The /r/ is pronounced
as [r] except when word-final, in which position it seems to be either
dropped (/åår#/ -> åa) or converted to a vowel (/åår#/ -> åaA). Thus, you
14 is really 08.
> My "grooten"/"grouten" (greetings) has the same sound.
As an aside, in case you aren't already aware of it, let me add that as you
go east you will find more umlauting (vowel fronting) in the Low Saxon (Low
German) dialects. The dialects of Eastern Friesland, Oldenburg and Emsland
seem to be in between your dialects and ours, something like a linking
group. They have less umlauting than we do and seem to have more than you
do. Thus, for 'greeting' you say _groten_ [Xro:tn] or _grouten_ [XroUtn]*
while we say _groyten_ [gr{oe}Ytn] or [grOItn]. In the Eastern Friesland,
Oldenburg and Emsland dialects you get all of the above, I believe.
(* Im assuming your /g/ is fricative. Is it? Ours isn't.)
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
==================================END===================================
You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
as message text from the same account to
<listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
* Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list