LL-L "Phonology" 2004.10.20 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 20.OCT.2004 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.19 (09) [E]

Hallo Holger.
I didn't look yet on your site about EFLS, maybe it is explained there
perfectly well, but:
is there really a difference between EFLS ei [Ei] and äi [æi] , and there
long and _ueberlange_ varieties?
I guess for non native speakers it's very hard to hear this difference.
In Standard Dutch _ij and ei_ are usually described as [Ei] but probably
[æi] is closer to reality.
In the Eastern pronunciations of Dutch, i.e. speaking the standard language
with an accent from Southern Drenthe,
Overijssel, Gelderland, Limburg and/or Eastern Brabant, [Ei] or even
[ei]/[Ij] is the right description.
Excluding Groningen and Friesland with more [Ai]-ish sounds.

But as I said I'm interested in East Frisian words with  ei eei eeei  versus
äi ääi äääi, maybe you can show some?
Mid de hertlig gröte af Ingmar

> From: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
> Subject: "Orthography"

> Hello all !
> I don't want to explain my proposals for an Eastern Friesland Low Saxon
> orthography here (if You are interested, have a look at
> www.holger-weigelt.de) but just make the following remarks:
> If You want to understand the phonological system of EFLS You mustn't look
> how it is written in a German based way. For the -ai- diphthong as an
> example there are three variants:
> short -ai- [aI], long -āi- [a:I] and extra-lengthened -âi- [a:aI]
> which are different from
> -äi- [æI] / -äie- [æ:æI]
> or
> -ei- [EI] / -äj- [E:I]  / -äej- [E:EI].
> None of them has anything to do with long -ē-.
> It's similar for example with -au- and -ō-.
> But in local or individual language use You will sometimes hear
> diphthongized pronounciation of those long monophthongs [e:i] [o:u] which
> must strictly be divided from the real diphthongs and hasn't to be
reflected
> in orthography.
> (Some quickly chosen examples for comparison: mait = maid, mâit = effort;
sē
> = said, säi = she/they, säj = lake; lēp = went, läip = bad, nasty)
> Greetings
> Holger

----------

From: Henno Brandsma <hennobrandsma at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.10.19 (05) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Thanks a lot, Gary.
>
> I wonder if it is correct to think of this /w/ - /v/ - /f/ thing as an
> areal
> feature, as a Dutch feature that has influenced the farwestern Saxon
> dialects, or as a "Low German" (branch) feature that is common to Low
> Franconian and Lowlands Saxon, that the dialects on the German side of
> the
> border have lost it under German influence, as Ingmar suggested.
>
> What about Westerlauwer Frisian, Limburgish, Zeelandic and Western
> Flemish?
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron

Westerlauwer Frisian  only has initial f- no [v-].
Word internally there is a [v] sound, which is quite close (I always
thought) to the Dutch (initial w), though there is a difference in the
amount of friction.
The word internal [v] occurs after long vowels, while the internal w (as in
hawwe) also occurs after a short vowel, but this is almost a [v] sound
anyway.
There are two varieties of w, a "Dutch" one, NS  bilabial one, which is much
more common because of all the breaking diphthongs like [wa] and [wo], and
[ju.w] etc. (words like hoart [wat], doarren [dwar at n], bliuwe [blju.w@]
etc.)
  A surface minimal pair is formed by the above "hoart" and the word "wart"
(meaning as in English) which is pronounced as Dutch "wat".
Maybe the underlying system is [f] initially and also [v/w] (Dutch w sound)
which is realised more like Dutch w internally, while bilabial [w] only
occurs in diphthongs.

I'll look in a Frisian phonology book when I have more time..

Henno

==============================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.
=======================================================================