LL-L "Phonology" 2003.06.05 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.JUN.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ruud Harmsen <rh at rudhar.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.06.04 (07) [E]

02:48 PM 6/4/2003 -0700, Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
>[...] My own pronunciation of it has changed
>due to outside pressure. I originally pronounced it as
>a labio-dental approximant (similar to a German's
>pronunciation of 'w') [...]

Yes. I've heard that too. Perhaps that is what I meant by "maybe
uvular approximant". Perhaps it is actually a uvular-labiodental
approximant, or uvularised labio-dental? I'm getting very technical
now, and speculative, I know.

You are British, not American, I presume?

>Coming from Northeast London,

So you are. I asked because I couldn't very well imagine this sound
in combination with an American accent, or at least I've never heard
anything like that.

R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>:
> Another interesting phenomenon is [v] for <th> as in "then" and
> "bathe", and [f] for <th> as in "think" and "bath."

Yes. Typical of a (or some?) Cockney accent. Also used in the
English of some Dutch speakers who find the real thing too
diffucult. Which is rather smart, because it is much closer in sound
than substiting [z] and [s].

Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>:
>Come to think of it: why are r-sounds so weak in most England English
>variants? (Particularly given that this r-weakness
>has not been exported to descendant variants such as American,
>Australian and New Zealand.)

Which r's do you mean? Initial/medial ones, or final ones? Final r's
in most kinds of British English (except West-England and Scotland
of course) are not just weak, but simply absent, or only still
betrayed by the length of the preceding vowel. I think it has that
in common with South-African, Australian, and Boston/New York (New
England?) type American English.

But perhaps I misunderstood your remark?

--
Ruud Harmsen  http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm  3 June 2003

================================END===================================
* 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.
=======================================================================