LL-L: "Phonology" LOWLANDS-L, 27.JAN.2000 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.JAN.2000 (06) * 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>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================

From:  "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Phonology" LOWLANDS-L, 27.JAN.2000 (05) [E]

Ron,

Yes, what you say is quite right. I remember vaguely hearing that the name for
the Polish currency is in fact linked to the German "Geld" (considering
metathesis), just to mix in the Slavic and the Germanic!

Some members newer to this may be thinking that the occasional Irish and
Scottish insertion is words such as "kiln" or "film" (often written in Irish
dialect "fillum") would be an example of the insertion you talk of. However,
what little phonological knowledge I have leads me to believe that, in fact,
this is merely a case of a vowel being inserting due to the pronunciation of
the preceding /l/, which in most of Ireland and parts of Scotland is always
pronounced light. But I'm open to correction on that, as I am on any
phonological matter!

Best,
-------------------------------
Ian James Parsley
http://www.gcty.com/parsleyij
"JOY - Jesus, Others, You"

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Phonology

Ian wrote:

> Some members newer to this may be thinking that the occasional Irish and
Scottish insertion is
> words such as "kiln" or "film" (often written in Irish dialect "fillum")
would be an example of the
> insertion you talk of.

Yes, Ian, Irish and Scottish Gaelic are good examples for this particular type
of vowel epenthesis (insertion), namely where two consonants coincide at the
end of the syllable and the first of these is not a fricative.  (This happens
with /r/ also, e.g., Irish _gorm_ ['gOr at m] ~ ['gOrUm] 'blue')  Like in Dutch
and Afrikaans, it is not represented orthographically.  From what you said  I
understand that this phonological rule has been transferred to Irish and
Scottish English (and Scots?).  Is that correct?

> However, what little phonological knowledge I have leads me to believe that,
in fact, this is merely
> a case of a vowel being inserting due to the pronunciation of the preceding
/l/, which in most of
> Ireland and parts of Scotland is always pronounced light. But I'm open to
correction on that, as I
> am on any phonological matter!

I am not too sure if "lightness" or "darkness/thickness" of the /l/ is
important here.  I remember hearing epenthesis after both types of /l/ in
Irish and Scottish Gaelic.  However, all this may vary in different dialects
and also in Irish and Scottish English.

Each language variety has its own set of rules as to which segments may be
pronounced in sequence and how to solve the problem if a non-permissible
sequence occurs (which is common in loanwords).  Usually, (1) a vowel is
inserted between two consonants that are non-permissible or "awkward" to
pronounce in sequence (e.g., Dutch _melk_ ['mel at k] 'milk', _Russian
_programma_ > Uyghur _purograma_ 'program'), (2) one of the segments is
dropped or assimilated (e.g., some Low Saxon dialects _Aaft_ [?Q:f] 'fruits'),
or (3) the articulation of one of the segments is changed (e.g., e.g., Arabic
_waqt_ > Uyghur _waqit_ ['vaq at t] 'time' -> _waqtim_ ['vaXt at m] 'my time').

Of course, in the case of Dutch _wrat_ and Low Saxon _Wratt_ for _wart_ 'wart'
we don't quite know why metathesis had to occur, since both languages ought to
be able to cope with the sequence /art/.  (E.g., Dutch has _swart_ 'black').
However, Low Saxon in particular does not seem to like this sequence very
much, unlike the /a/ is long.  Remember that this language vocalizes
non-initial /r/ (to something like an [a] sound, much like many southern
English and all Australian dialects do).  In a word like /baard/ 'beard' there
is no problem because of the long vowel: [bQ:at].  When the /a/ is short, the
/r/ tends to be deleted; e.g., (/svart/ >) /svat/ _swatt_ 'black', (/hart/ >)
/hat/ _Hatt_ 'heart'.  Theoretically then, _wart_ should have become *_Watt_,
but it is either _Wart_ or _Wratt_ in the modern dialects.  I can only assume
that metathesis occured in the affected dialects when non-initial /r/ was
still pronounced as [r], and that would have been quite some time ago.
Perhaps also, *_Watt_ was not an option because it would be homophonous with
_wat_ 'what', 'something', 'somewhat' and _Watt_ 'tideflats'.  I think it is
an interesting problem for those who are into phonology.

Best 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
 =========================================================================