LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.11 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 11.JAN.2002 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Will Dion <wdion at ocln.org>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.10 (10) [E]

I've always heard it said about the farmer who had 3 daughters "Evil, Idle,
and Normal". We have a similar phenomenon in Massachusetts (Bristol County)
where most of the original settlers were from the Southwestern coast of
England. We're told that when we pronounce the words "code and told" it
comes out sounding like "code and toad" but soda comes as "soder". It's
interesting to see the different speech communities here reflecting what
seems to be 300 year old dialects. I wonder if any of dialects moved on
with Mass settlers when they went west? Will Dion

From: AEDUIN at aol.com
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.10 (04) [E]

In a message dated 10/01/02 21:58:46 GMT Standard Time, sassisch at yahoo.com
writes:

    Is there a linguistic reason for the first girl not being
    "Rebeccal", or is the inconsistency just for the sake of
    the humour?

I haven't yet plumbed the dpeths of the Bristolian lanuage but my guess is
that it depends on the number of syllables eg. Bristol was
Bristow and the l was added just as Norma is the name always used as the
example, obviously because of comic effect but maybe because
there are two syllables in the name. This double rythm might trigger the
l.Tri-sylllabic examples will be sought.

Edwin

----------

From: Will Dion <wdion at ocln.org>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.10 (10) [E]

>Sorry... meant "cold and told".
>
>I've always heard it said about the farmer who had 3 daughters "Evil,
>Idle, and Normal". We have a similar phenomenon in Massachusetts (Bristol
>County) where most of the original settlers were from the Southwestern
>coast of England. We're told that when we pronounce the words "code and
>told" it comes out sounding like "code and toad" but soda comes as
>"soder". It's interesting to see the different speech communities here
>reflecting what seems to be 300 year old dialects. I wonder if any of
>dialects moved on with Mass settlers when they went west? Will Dion
>
>From: AEDUIN at aol.com
>Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.10 (04) [E]
>
>In a message dated 10/01/02 21:58:46 GMT Standard Time, sassisch at yahoo.com
>writes:
>
>    Is there a linguistic reason for the first girl not being
>    "Rebeccal", or is the inconsistency just for the sake of
>    the humour?
>
>I haven't yet plumbed the dpeths of the Bristolian lanuage but my guess is
>that it depends on the number of syllables eg. Bristol was
>Bristow and the l was added just as Norma is the name always used as the
>example, obviously because of comic effect but maybe because
>there are two syllables in the name. This double rythm might trigger the
>l.Tri-sylllabic examples will be sought.
>
>Edwin

William Dion
Electronic Information Services/Reference Librarian
Canton Public Library
786 Washington Street
Canton, MA 02021
781.575.6630
http://town.canton.ma.us/library

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Phonology"

A feature of English phonology is that a voiced consonant is
devoiced when it follows a voiceless stop. For example, the
second letters of words like "twist", "place", "pride" are
all devoiced, but of course the devoiced and voiced versions
of these letters are treated as allophones of the same phoneme.

As far as I can see, this rule applies in Scots too. However,
in Scots an unvoiced "w" exists as a phoneme in its own right,
in words such as "what", "whist" and "wheasel". I'm wondering
how this should be treated phonologically - should the devoiced
"w" of a word such as "twist" be treated as an allophone of /w/
in Scots because the devoicing can be explained as a phonological
process, or should it be treated as an allophone of the unvoiced
/W/ phoneme in Scots, simply because this phoneme exists in the
language? I'd be very grateful if any of the linguists amongst
us could give a definitive answer, or else set out some of the
pros and cons of the decision.

The upshot would be that if we allowed the devoicing of the "w"
of words like "twist" to be a phonological process as in English,
then we would be writing /twIst/ in a phonemic transcription of
Scots and [tw"Ist] in a phonetic version (where I've used a
quote mark to indicate devoicing, ie a little circle under the
"w" in IPA). But if we ruled that all devoiced "w"s in any
position should be treated as allophones of the unvoiced /W/,
then we would write /tWIst/ phonemically and [tWIst] phonetically.
However, I'm not just thinking in terms of transcription, I'm
also looking for a model that best describes the phonological
processes of the language.

I should add that the fact that the "w" in "twist" sounds more
like the "w" in "whist" than the "w" in "wist" isn't particularly
noticeable to a Scots speaker - it's as if the fact that the
phonological process would cause devoicing anyway (ie a Scots
speaker would naturally say [tWIst] instead of [twIst] even
when reading the spelling <twist>) makes a speaker think of
it as a /w/ rather than a /W/.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Sandy,

After pondering your very interesting problem above, I have come to think that
either way would be acceptable, certainly if you do not consider diachronic
aspects by comparing the distribution with that of English.

While initial voiceless (not "devoiced") /W/ appears to be indeed a phoneme
(since you can't explain it as an allophone, and it contrasts with initial
/w/), the [W] following a voiceless consonant can be seen (1) as a devoiced
(i.e., assimilated) allophone of /w/ or (2) as an underlying /W/.  I guess no
harm would be done either way.  However, personally I favor choice (1),
because _w_ after voiceless consonants *always* surfaces as voiceless.  This
seems "neater" to me.  In that case, I guess, you would have the choice of
writing it as [W] or as [w"] in phonetic representation, the pronunciation
being the same.

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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================