LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.13 (10) [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 * 13 March 2006 * Volume 10
=======================================================================

From: Dave Singleton <davidsin at pt.lu>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.11 () [E]

'eyup owr Ron,

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Dear Fellow-Lowlanders,
>
> As though I didn't have enough to think about already, I've been
> thinking about the English word "beloved" lately.
>
> While in pretty much all Modern English dialects the <e> in past
> particial <-ed> is not sounded -- including in "loved" [lVvd] -- it is
> sounded in most people's varieties in the word "beloved" [bI"lVvId] ~
> [b@"lVv at d] (though I have heard some people pronounce it [bI"lVvd]).
>
> What's going on here?  Obviously, "beloved" is a marked item in most
> dialects.  In other words, it is an exception from the usual rule in
> phonological processing.  This phonological marking applies usually,
> if not always, to non-nativized* or semi-nativized* loanwords, I am
> wondering if "beloved" is treated as a loanword, namely as a loanword
> from archaic English, as this word is only used in a non-everyday,
> poetic or oratory style, namely in a different register.
>
> If my theory holds water, this would mean that lexical loaning can
> occur within the same language, though from one variety to another.
> We know that this can happen between dialects.  So why not between two
> varieties of different time periods?
>
> What do you think about this one, folks?  Furthermore, can you think
> of similar cases, preferably within the realm of the Lowlands?
>
> * Here's an example of stages or levels, all three dialectical
> versions of "garage":
>  Non-nativized:  [g@"rQ:Z]**
>  Semi-nativized: ["gærQZ]
>  Nativized: ["gærIdZ]
>
> ** "Non-nativized" means "closest generally acceptable approximation
> to the foreign pronunciation."
A second theory could be that these words are the ones used once a week,
spoken(or sung) from the pulpit.
That being so they had a more revered status, thus saving them from the
ravages of time and tide. We can remember snatches of song from our
childhood, could be we attach the tune to the word or vice-versa !!

Dave Singleton

----------

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

'eyup, owr Dave!

What you wrote is something like the stuff I wrote about those being 
"loanwords" from an previous stage of the language.

Folks, as for Spanish speakers pronouncing English [tS] (<(t)ch>) as [S] 
(<sh>), isn't that simply a type of "overcompensation" or "levelling"? 
Since [S] does not occur in Castilian, the speakers might be "trying too 
hard" and in the process treating (foreign) /S/ and (familiar) /tS/ alike. 
This would be something like for instance German and Russian speakers 
treating English /T/ (<th> in <thin>) and (familiar) /s/ alike as [s], also 
treating /D/ (<th> in <though>) and (familiar) /z/ alike as [z].

As for English speakers saying [Z] (as in _pleaSure_) for "exotic" <j>, this 
might be classified as "affectation arising from ignorance."  It sounds 
"more exotic" ("more foreign").  It may have begun with people who had some 
French knowledge.  So you don't only get this with Arabic names and words 
but with those in other parts as well, especially in Asia; e.g., <Taj 
Mahal>* -> _Tazh Mahal_, <Tajikistan> -> _Tazhikistan_ (though not 
widespread), <Beijing> -> _Beizhing_, <Nanjing> -> _Nanzhing_.

* [Hindi ताज _tâj_ < Persian تاج _tâj_ < Arabic تاج 'crown', + Hindi महाल 
_mahâl_ 'formidable' (cf. Persian متعال _mat`âl_ 'formidable', 'lasting' < 
Arabic متعال _mat`âl_ 'transcendent') < महा _mahâ_ 'illustrious', 'great']

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Ben.Bloomgren at asu.edu>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.13 (01) [E]

Mark,

I believe the real issue is phonetic.  What they hear from us "Anglos" (for
lack of a better word) is [tS] when we are pronouncing [S].  Evidently, the
Spanish [tS] is different somehow from the English [tS].  My own guess is
that the Spanish [tS] has a little more [t] that the English one.  It seems
to me when I speak Spanish my tongue is in a slightly different place for
[tS] than in English.

The Spanish ch is not aspirated at all. It's like Zulu j. I use that because
you were in South Africa if I'm not mistaken. English ch is aspirated and
open as most English phonemes are. Your tongue has to be in a different
place when you speak Spanish because they use dental articulation for /t/,
initial /d/, /n/ and others whereas English uses alveolars. Also, remember
that some northern Mexican varieties of Spanish actually use sh where others
use ch, again these being spellings. In other words, Sonorans say posho
instead of pocho.
Ben

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2006.03.13 (01) [E]


Mark Brooks wrote:
"I believe the real issue is phonetic. What they hear from us "Anglos" (for
lack of a better word) is [tS] when we are pronouncing [S]. Evidently, the
Spanish [tS] is different somehow from the English [tS]. My own guess is
that the Spanish [tS] has a little more [t] that the English one. It seems
to me when I speak Spanish my tongue is in a slightly different place for
[tS] than in English."

We have a similar situation in Irish with consonantal palatisation. For 
example _muid_ "us" is pronounced [mudj] but nearly all learners will 
pronounce it as [mudZ]. Though some native dialect do affricate, for the 
most part the likes of [kudZ] for _cuid_ "share, portion" or [hitS] for 
[hitj] _thit_ "fell" must sound very English.

Go raibh maith agat

Criostóir. 

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