LL-L "Phonology" 2005.12.04 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

   L O W L A N D S - L * 04 December 2005 * Volume 07
=======================================================================

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Phonology

Hi Ron and Ingmar

can I expand on what you said Ron and be equally
boring ;) ?

"I regard the development of any voiceless stop
consonant to end up as a
glottal stop a "natural" one, one that has no
genetics-specific
physiological reasons.  For instance, you find the
shift /t/ > [?] all
over
the world, as an areal feature throughout Eastern
Asia, the Americas
and
several British English dialects, and the shift /k/ >
[?] is even more
widely spread.  To put it crassly then, I think it's a
process of
"laziness"
or "sloppiness" (and I'm half joking here)."

This is very definitely a natural phonetic process.
Voiceless stops, by their very nature 'voicelessness',
mean that when they are produced the vocal folds stop
vibrating.

In order for this to happen in fluid speech languages
tend to go in a number of directions.
- They retain this rather difficult stop over between
voiceless stops and voiced vowels (as I think in
Dutch)
- They may make the swap over between vowel and
consonant 'fuzzier' which often results in processes
voicing the formerly voiceless consonants (as in
Spanish and Danish)
- Or they reinforce this voiceless consonant somehow.

They can in turn reinforce this in a couple of ways.
- With some kind of aspiration/frication separating
the consonant and vowel - as is very common in
Germanic languages.
- By simultaneously forcing the voicelessness by a
catch in the throat, i.e. the glottal stop.

In Southeast England intial voiceless consonants are
reinforced with aspiration (a slight h sound), or with
affrication (so 't' can sound like 'ts'). Non-initial
voiceless consonants are however reinforced with the
glottal stop (as they are in many Scots dialects).

This combination of simultaneous voiceless stop and
glottal stop however produces a complex sound. People
naturally being 'lazy' or tending to streamline the
language (however you look at it) do not like complex
sounds and have dropped the more strenuous tongue
movement in final 't' to just leave the glottal stop.

Why the 't' was affected in English and not the 'k',
which is also glottally reinforced, I don't know. I
guess it was by chance here.

As this is a phonetic change and not a phonological
one, it makes no difference to understanding, even
though it is often stigmatised.

Just thought I'd let you know

Gary

ps. this reduction of a complex sound is also behind
vocalising final -l into -uw - but that's another matter.

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html

----------

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

Gary, das Schneiderlein, das ein wenig zu tapfer (oder zu groß für sein 
Höslein) ist:

> can I expand on what you said Ron and be equally
> boring ;) ?

Excuse ME?!  Kindly speak only for yourself, young man!  ;-)

> Non-initial
> voiceless consonants are however reinforced with the
> glottal stop (as they are in many Scots dialects).

Are you trying to tell us then that these varieties use glottalized stops, 
as for instance in numerous American and Caucasian languages (areally 
including Indo-European Armenian)?  Then again, those are, strictly 
speaking, "glottalic egressive." So you may be right.  When I pronounce 
final unreleased stops (e.g., in Malay/Indonesian and Cantonese) I do indeed 
glottalize them -- but only because they are unreleased, while I don't 
glottalize final stops when I release them.  So I suspect that what you 
described may have something to do with the unreleased feature as well. 
What do you think?  What's the difference? They seem the same to me ...

(For those of you who don't know what the heck I'm talking about here, let 
me add that an unreleased stop consonant is pronounced with delayed release 
of the closure that produces it.  Say "Stop!" and keep your lips in the 
"lip-lock" position, et voilà, you have yourselves an unreleased "p.")

Enjoy despite my allegedly boring delivery!  Or is it the subject matter? 
Or the discussant perchance?  I think they are all pretty darn exciting.

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