LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.14 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.MAR.2005 (07) * 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: Ole Stig Andersen <osa at olestig.dk>
Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.03 (08) [A/E]

> From: þjóðríkr þjóðreksson <didimasure at hotmail.com>
> Subject: LL-L "Intelligibility" 2005.03.02 (09) [E]
(between Danish, Norwegian and Swedish)

> I was told that the better understanding by the Norwegians was due to
> their
> more dialectical environment: as they come into contact with speakers of
> all
> the different dialects very often, their ears are more trained, whereas
> Danish and Swedish (I was told) dialects have been leveled out more,
> making
> everyone speak more alike.

Another factor is phonology.

During the last few centuries Danish has ventured into quite adventurous
lenition processes for post-vocalic consonants. That's how modern Danish has
become so extraordinarily melodic and beautiful, immortalised by the classic
phrase (most exquisite in my almost-own "Jutish" dialect):
A æ uu o æ ø' i æ å', æ' a
In "Danish":
Jeg er ude på øen i åen, er jeg
In ternational:
I am out on the island in the river, I am.
So lame. Compared to the wild beauty of the original.

Here's the system:

t > d
d > approximant (soft) d > Ø

p > b
b > w

k > g
g > approximant (soft) g > j/w > Ø

r > approximant (deep/open) a > Ø
v > w > Ø

The only post-vocalic consonants not affected by utter lenition are
s, f, and l, m, n, ng,
and j, of course, being by nature as vowel-like as any consonant could ever
dream of.

E.g. Swedish "bok" [bo:k] is the same as Danish "bog" pronaunced [bå'w] (and
meaning 'book'). Swedish "skrik" [skri:k], Danish "skrig" [sgri'], etc.

Swedes will recognise written Danish forms easierly than spoken ones. In
fact, they can barely understand the Danish stream of vowels, only enthuse.
Whereas us Danes can at least recognise some similarity between Swedish
speech and Danish orthography. One up.

Such asymmetrical intelligibility, as between Danish and Swedish, would be
caused by phonology, not?

Ole Stig Andersen
http://www.olestig.dk

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