LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.08 (05) [D/E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.JUN.2005 (05) * 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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (08) [D/E]


Gary Taylor wrote:
"The problem is for English speakers that our /u:/ phoneme is currently in
the process of change. A very conservative pronunciation of /u:/ (as uttered
by the Queen for example) is indeed [u:], however more modern varieties tend
towards [y:] (except when it"s before an /l/ or /r/. This is the case in
Britain anyway..."

I thought the Queen's accent (and that of many in the aristocracy in
general) was in fact somewhat radical, because I understood it had undergone
a further vowel shift from RP. For example, 'house' is [hais] not RP [haus],
and the vowel in 'off' is the same as in RP 'door' where RP has simply [of].
Is this the case?

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (08) [D/E]


Ron wrote:
"I agree about your observation of the "stiff" upper lip in Australian
speech. This was my (American) wife's first observation when she arrived in
Australia. I observed that in most speakers it isn't a case of a slack
(relaxed inactive) upper lip but indeed a case of a "stiff" upper lip, a
fairly tense one. If you assume that position you'll find that it is a good
initial, general aid in imitating Australian pronunciation."

I also notice that to do an Australian accent I have to tense the back of my
tongue constantly, and tense the side of my tongue against against the
palate when articulating Aus. [j] [i] and [i:]. For most other sounds the
tip of the tongue contacts the alveolar ridge, in contrast to Nottingham
English where the [j] [i] and [i:] are articulated by placing the underside
of the tip of the tongue behind and below the lower front teeth.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at WORLDONLINE.NL>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (08) [D/E]

Da ge bedankt zijt da witte, Reindert!
Dat betekent dus volgens jou dat de korte klinkers <i> en <ü> in het Duits
als [I] en [Y] worden uitgesproken.
Dus, hetzelfde als de Nederlandse korte <i> en <u>...

Toch horen wij Nederlanders de Duitse korte <i> en <ü> als [i] en [y], niet
als [I] en [Y], dus er moet een uitspraakverschil zijn tussen de Nederlandse
[I] en [Y] en de Duitse!

Ingmar

Reindert schreef:
>In the (meyrsten) Nourd-Sassischen dialekten is de uutspraak vun düsse
>fonemen meyr or min de sülvige as in't Duytsche, un daar wegen sünd sey ook
>meyr or min de sülvigen in de Duytschen dialekten vun d'n nourden:
>
>Eyn-luden (monophthongs):
>
>Duytsch un Neddersassisch:
>kort:
>   /i/ -> [I]
>   /ü/ -> [Y]
>   /u/ -> [U]
>   /e/ -> [E]
>   /ö/ -> [œ]
>   /o/ -> [O]
>   /a/ -> [a]
>
>lang:
>   /ii/    [i:]
>   /üü/ -> [y:]
>   /uu/ -> [u:]
>   /ee/ -> [e:] {1}
>   /öö/ -> [ø:] {2}
>   /oo/ -> [o:]
>   /aa/ -> [A:] {3}
>
>Neddersassisch:
>   {1} /ee/ -> [e:] ~ [E:]
>   {2} /öö/ -> [ø:] ~ [œ:]
>   {3} /aa/ -> [Q:] ~ [o:]
>
>Missingsch un "Ur-Nourdsch" Duytsch:
>   {3} /aa/ -> [Q:] ~ [o:]
>
>In Hamburg there are two dialect groups in Low Saxon and LS-substrata
German
>with regard to /ar/: northern [a:] ([ma:k]), southern [A:] ~ [Q:] (mA:k ~
>[mQ:k]), roughly divided by the upper arm of the Elbe (Norderelbe), which
>once was the border between Hamburg and the Principality of Hannover.
>However, this division seems to be less clear now.
>
>Is Dy dat 'n Hülp?
>
>Kumpelmenten,
>Reinhard/Ron
>
Ik (Ingmar) schreef:
>
>Ik heb een vraag - die ik bijna niet durf te stellen - want het gaat weer
>eens over de Duitse taal.
>In dit geval: hoe worden de korte klinkers <i> en <ü> in het Duits nu
>eigenlijk precies uitgesproken?
>
>En is er verschil tussen deze uitspraak in Noord-Duitsland, waar men van
>oorsprong Nedersaksisch spreekt, en andere delen van Duitsland?
>Nederlanders zullen bijna altijd de Duitse <i>=[i] en <ü>=[y] horen en
>gebruiken, hoewel in het Nederlands in dezelfde woorden <i>=[I] en <u>=[Y].
>
>In het NL wordt [i] als <ie> geschreven, en [y] als <uu>, dit zijn dus
>geen lange klinkers! <zit>=[zIt] <ziet>=[zit], <fut>=[fYt], <fuut>=[fyt].
>Alleen voor <r> zijn <ie> en <uu> lang: <bier>=[bi:r], <duur>=[dy:r].
>
>In België hoort men overigens soms een andere uitspraak, gelijk aan het
>Duits,waar <ie> en <uu> (en <oe>) altijd lang zijn, en <i>=[i] en <u>=[y].
>
>Maar een Nederlander die Duits leert, zegt nooit <ich bin>[Iç bIn] maar
>altijd [ix bin], niet <glücklich> ["glYklIç] maar ["glyklix] enz.
>
>Toch meen ik bijvoorbeeld in Duitse films en TV-series heel vaak wèl
>[I] en [Y] in plaats van [i] en [y] te horen.
>
>Duitsers, ex-Duitsers en would be Duitsers: hoe zit dat nu?
>
>Summary:
>I am asking how the short vowels <i> and <ü> are pronounced in German,
>[I] and [Y] as in Dutch, or [i] and [y].
>Btw: Dutch short <i> is the same as in English, namely [I], but German
>short <i> sounds as [i] in Dutch ears, and German short <ü> as [y].
>
>So: Germans, ex Germans and would be Germans: what's the right way?

----------

From: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (08) [D/E]

Ingmar wondered about regional differences in the German prononciation of i
and ü...

...well, there is a difference between Northern High German, and other
regions of the country, in the case of an i followed by an r. This is
probably due to the fact that in the North, we barely pronounce the "r" at
all, and it is sometimes replaced by an "a" sound:

Wurm - Wu-am
warm - waam
fertig - fe-atig, etc.

Now, in the case of "Kirche", "Birne" or "Hirsch", for instance, the vowel
is spoken as "ü":

Kü-ache
Bü-ane
Hü-asch

In Southern Germany, Bavaria vor instance, the "r" would be distinctly
prononced to produce something like "Kirrche" or "Hirrsch".

Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Luc Hellinckx <luc.hellinckx at pandora.be>
Subject: Phonology

Beste Ron,

You wrote:

> Good point!  I think this is particularly pronounced (no pun
> intended) in English varieties of Southern England, Australia
> and New Zealand.  In fact, I often think that many
> Australians' phonetic inventory has no monophthong at all,
> although in their own perception the speakers themselves
> probably believe they do.  I find it especially strong after
> labials; for instance, "bee" [bIi] ~ [b at i].  What I find
> particularly interesting about this is that we can be fairly
> certain that this is how /ii/ diphthongization began in
> English, Scots, Dutch and German.

Fairly certain? Speak your mind lad...oops...wrong register *s*...almost got
sucked in by Gabriele's universe...;=)

Aaah.../ii/ diphtongization! Can anybody tell me why on earth this happened
"almost" simultaneously in at least three different locations (London,
Brabant and Southern Germany) during the (late) Middle Ages (and NOT in most
other Lowlands dialects)? Was it an urban development? Sheer coincidence or
influence of (Romance) court culture? Internal phonetic reasons??? It's hard
to believe that at one point in time three different Germanic dialects
arbitrarily started to produce something along the lines of [w at in] instead
of previous [win]; [b at it(e)n)], [to b at it], [b at isn] in lieu of respectively
[bi:t(e)n], [bi:t(a)n] and [bi:tz(e)n] (hypothetical reconstruction
according to the spelling).

Kind greetings,

Luc Hellinckx

----------

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

Críostóir (above):

> I thought the Queen's accent (and that of many in the aristocracy in
> general)
> was in fact somewhat radical, because I understood it had undergone a
> further vowel shift from RP. For example, 'house' is [hais] not RP [haus],
> and
> the vowel in 'off' is the same as in RP 'door' where RP has simply [of].
> Is this
> the case?

Well, I understood Gary to be referring to /uu/, as in "soon."  Diphthongs
are another story.  In them the w-glide has indeed become unrounded in the
range of varieties you are referring to.  I personally hear it realized as a
central "i" (IPA barred i, SAMPA 1, like in Welsh _tu_ and Russian ты _ty_).
So it's "round" [ra1nd] vs "rind" [raInd].

Interestingly, many Australians pronounce "off" as [o(%)f] too, not as [Of]
(or [Qf]) as in most other English dialects.

Ingmar (boven):

> Toch horen wij Nederlanders de Duitse korte <i> en <ü> als [i] en [y],
> niet
> als [I] en [Y], dus er moet een uitspraakverschil zijn tussen de
> Nederlandse
> [I] en [Y] en de Duitse!

De korte versie is duidelijk [Y] in het Duits. Dit is niet alleen mijn
persoonlijke waarneming, maar het is algemeen als nauwkeurig aangenomen. Het
is een laks klinker, is niet gespand (zoals [y]).

Ik word altijd verward door de verklaring dat het korte "u" in het
Nederlands [Y] zou zijn. Volgens mijn inzicht is het korte "u" in het
Nederlands een beetje lager and gemiddeld, meer naar [8] (IPA barred o)
geneigd (zoals in Zweeds _buss_).

Gabriele (above):

> Now, in the case of "Kirche", "Birne" or "Hirsch", for instance, the vowel
> is spoken as "ü":
>
> Kü-ache
> Bü-ane
> Hü-asch

Farther north, in my native neck of the woods, it is not rounded:

Kirche ["k_hI3Ce] ~ ["k_he3Ce]
Birne ["bI3ne] ~ ["be3ne]
Hirsch [hI3S] ~ [he3S]

also:

Milch [mI:C] ~ [me:C]
Film [fI:m] ~ [fe:m]

Luc (above):

> Fairly certain? Speak your mind lad...oops...wrong register *s*...almost
> got sucked in by Gabriele's universe...;=)

Yeah, you'd better watch it, squirt.

I do mean "fairly certain," as in "pretty darn certain."  I leave the door
ajar for something to surprise me.

> Aaah.../ii/ diphtongization!

I find it pretty confounding myself.  At least on the European continent it
looks a bit like an areal feature that spread at some time.  Celtic
substrates?   To make it even more interesting, it also occurred in
Draveno-Polabian, a West Slavonic language of the greater Lunenburg
(Lüünborg/Lüneburg) area.  Its last known remnant was spoken surrounded by
Low Saxon speakers, originally not by German speakers, and the speakers
spoke Low Saxon as their second language!  Might this point to
Draveno-Polabian having been a northern outgrowth of a group of varieties of
which the southern ones had primary contacts with Geman (if we assume
diphthongization to be an areal feature cutting across language boundaries)?
Or did Polabian diphthongization (which is unique in Slavonic) spring up
independently?  Note that DP borrowed lexical items from Low Saxon,
apparently including Old Saxon, not from German.

E.g.:

go: ait (Cz. jít)
beat: bait (Cz. bít)
near: blaisk (Cz. blízko)
clean: caiste (Cz. čistý)
table: daisko (< OSax. dîsko?)
linden: laipo ~ laipa (Cz. lípa)
leaf: laist (Cz. list)
thread: nait (Cz. nit)
wedge: tjilaina (Cz. klín)

long: daudje (Cz. dlouhý)
guilt: daug (Cz. dluh)
friend: draug (R. друг drug)
morning: jautrü (Cr. jutro)
key: kjlauc (Cr. ključ)
moon: launa (R. луна luna)
pound: paune (< OSax. pûnd?)
cloth: saukne (Cz. sukno)
fat: tauk (Cz. tuk)

Furthermore, short *u became <ü>, and *y became <oi>.

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