LL-L "Phonology" 2005.04.06 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 06.APR.2005 (04) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 "Phonology" 2005.04.06 (01) [E]

Yes, Ben, Norwegian <au> sounds like Dutch <ui>, because in Norw. <au> =
<a> + <u>, and <u> sounds like Dutch/French <u>, or German ü.
Btw: I think that Old Norse <au> had already that <ui> sound too, because
otherwise Danish/Norwegian <ø> and Swedish <ö> would not have developped
from it, but it would have been long <o> in stead, like in Dutch and Low
Saxon. Second: Icelandic <au> has the same sound as Dutch <ui> or Norw.
<au> too.

Rudi, about the difference between Afr. <y>/<ei> and <ui>... I often saw
Afrikaans <y> and <ei> transcribed phonetically as [@j], schwa + j.
In Dutch ears that would resemble <ui> a lot, because D. ij/ei = [Ej].
So what is the Afr. pronunciation of y/ei and what is its difference with
ui?

Ingmar

>From: Ben Bloomgren <ben.bloomgren at asu.edu>
>Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.04.05 (09) [E]
>
>It sounds to me almost like Norwegian Au.

>From: rudi <rudi at its.co.za>
>Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.04.04 (06) [A/E]
>
>Subject: Phonology, Afr /ui/ to /ai/
>
>Elsie and Ingmar (and others) contributed on this topic.
>
>In my limited experience, there was (or maybe even still is in some social
>circles),  the tendency for Afr /ui/ to be pronounced as /y/.
>Buite would become byte, huis => hys etc. This was by and large regarded
as
>either laziness or just "poor breeding/education".  Could /ui/ to /ai/
not
>be interpreted as  an  over correction or perhaps even an affectation in
an
>attempt to sound  correct/educated? What say the clever people?
>
>Cheers
>Rudi Vari

----------

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

Ben:

> >It sounds to me almost like Norwegian Au.

Ingmar (above):

> Yes, Ben, Norwegian <au> sounds like Dutch <ui>, because in Norw. <au> =
> <a> + <u>, and <u> sounds like Dutch/French <u>, or German ü.

I think Ben's "almost" is quite warranted.  "Not quite" may be another one
here.

In most Norwegian (and Swedish) dialects, /u/ is not pronounced quite like
"Dutch/French <u>, or German ü," i.e., like [y] and [Y], not like [u] and
[U] either, but is an in-between, "medial" version -- neither back nor
front.  In IPA script it is written as an "u" with a bar through it, in
SAMPA as [}]. This applies to the glide in /au/ as well.  Furthermore, the
/a/ in /au/ is pronounced as [æ] (digraph "ae") in IPA and as [{] in SAMPA,
thus [{}] for the diphthong in SAMPA (looking rather weird).  I think this
"u" sound in Norwegian and Swedish sounds closest to "ü" to speakers of
other Germanic languages, hence the "slight misperception."

The "conservative" pronunciation of Dutch <ui> tends to be described in IPA
as [œ] (digraph "oe") followed by an upside-down "h," which denotes the
glide equivalent of [y].  In SAMPA it tends to be written [9y].  In the
"newer" pronunciation, which unrounds the vowel an lowers the glide, I
suggest writing [æ] followed by a small capital "y", in SAMPA [{Y].

So, in this latter pronunciation, the vowel does indeed sound like the one
in Norwegian <au>, but the glide is not medial and tense but back and lax.

Conservative Afrikaans <ui> tends to be described the same as conservative
Dutch <ui>.  From what I have heard, the newer Afrikaans versions range
somewhere between the newer Dutch one and what in IPA is schwa followed by a
small capital "y", in SAMPA [@Y], with extension to total unrounding, this
involving the glide that in IPA is a small capital "i" and in SAMPA [I].  It
sounds closest to what in Afrikaans are written <y> and <ei> and may end up
identical if the trend persists and speakers *perceive* them as identical.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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