LL-L: "Phonology" LOWLANDS-L, 19.NOV.2000 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 19.NOV.2000 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
  =======================================================================

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Phonology

I wrote:

> Yes, it seems to be an areal feature.  If I am not mistaken, deletion of
> /d/ also occurs in Southern Jutish dialects.  I wonder if this has
> something to do with a general tendency toward vowel "softening."

Of course, the relative weakness of /d/ is evident in most Low Saxon (Low
German) dialect in the form of assimilation to preceding /n/ or /l/ as
well, usually shown in the traditional orthographies that are aimed at
"phonetic" representation.

Examples:

/-d/:

/kind/ _Kind_ [k`I.nt] 'child'
/kind+er/ _Kinner_ ['k`I.nA] 'children'

/find/ _find!_ [fI.nt] 'find!'
/find+st/ _fin(n)s(t)_ [fI.ns(t)] '(thou) findest'
/find+n/ _finnen_ ['fI.n=n] ~ [fIn:] 'to find'
/fund+n/ _funnen_ ['fU.n=n] ~ [fUn:] 'found'

/guld/ _Guld_ [gU.lt] 'gold'
/güld+n/ _güllen_ [gY.ln] 'golden'

/vold/ _Wo(o)ld_ [vo.lt] 'woods', 'forest'
/vold+n/ _Wo(o)l(d)en_ ['vo.ln] 'woods', 'forests'

cf. /-t/:

/kant/ _Kant_ [k`a.nt] 'edge'
/kant+n/ _Kanten_ ['k`a.nt=n] 'edges'

/hult/ _Hult_ [hU.lt] 'wood'
/hult+n/ _hulten_ ['hU.lt=n] 'wooden'

(Vowels undergo half lengthening before liquids and nasals.  In some
orthographies this is mistakenly shown as full length, hence _Woold_ or
_Kaant_.)

Danish, too, has /-d/ assimilation and deletion, although, as in a few Low
Saxon dialects (e.g., /fin(d)/ _finn!_ [fIn] 'find!'), in some instances
one might wonder if there is really an underlying /-d/ or if _d_ is only an
orthographic relic; e.g. (| = _stød_), _anden_ ['an at n] 'other', 'second',
_anden_ ['an|@n] 'the duck' (cf. _and_ [an|] 'duck'), _god_ [go|] 'good',
_gode_ ['go@] 'good (ones)', _alder_ ['al|@(r)] 'age' (cf. _alter_
['ald@(r)] 'altar').

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

----------

From: Lone Elisabeth Olesen [baxichedda at yahoo.com]
Subject: "Phonology"

Hello -

R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com] wrote:

> But the sound in question, the one used in Danish
> where intervocalic and final
> _d_ is written, seems to me to be something like an
> interdental or dental
> *glide* -- a very lax version of [ð] or of a dental
> version of [d] ([d_]) in
> which the tongue does not actually touch the teeth.
> Yes, I believe that
> slight lateral friction is at play at the same time,
> which would account for
> the perception as [l] by non-native speakers.
>
> In fact, I think it is the same or a similar sound
> as in Southern Castilian
> and most Latin American dialects of Spanish for
> intervocalic /d/; e.g., in
> _lado_ 'side', _poder_ 'to be able', _cada_ 'each',
> 'every'.  In some dialects
> it comes to be very weak or in fact deleted; thus
> [lao], [po'er], ['kaa].
> (This is probably what happened in Portuguese; e.g.,
> _mãe_ 'mother', _pai_
> 'father' (cf. Spanish _madre_ and _padre_).  What is
> different in Danish is
> that it can also occur syllable-finally.

Not only in Southern Jutland, but also on the islands
of Fyn and Lolland (maybe also Falster), the "soft d",
as we call it, tends to disappear. A friend of mine
from Lolland percieves of the sound as if the vowel
coming before the place, were the "soft d" is present
in standard Danish, is being prolonged: eg. "hernee'e"
instead of "hernede" (down here).
In many parts of Jutland, the "soft d" is replaced by
"j" - the difference is quite notable, because the "j"
is pronounced so clearly that it seems unlikely to get
cancelled: "uje" instead of "ude" (out) etc.

Making the "soft d", it seems to me that I have to
touch the teeth somehow, just the ones far back in the
mouth... The only times I can "get away" with not
doing it are when the vowels around the "soft d" are
"a" and "e", but in making a "soft d" like that would
sound as if I was about to yawn or was speaking with
something in my mouth, I would also have to open my
mouth more or stick my toungue out... This way of
pronouncing a "soft d" is often used when children
(and adults on occation) make fun of each other, as a
sort of sneering.

An interesting observation on the "soft d" can be made
in the Danish word "billeder" (pictures, photographs).
Many, many speakers say "bidler", with a "soft d"
right before the "l". The first "e" of "billeder" is
cancelled always, and I guess for some Danish speakers
it is easier to pronounce the "soft d" before the "l".
The distinction between the two sounds become very
clear no matter which comes first, and it is one of my
favorite words when I try to explain to someone who is
starting to learn Danish that "soft d" is no "l". An
old friend of the family, born in Løkken, always
pronounced "bilder" almost as in German. As a child I
asked her why she did not pronounce it "right", and
she said that she did, since the word was "bi-lle-der"
stressing each syllable and making a "hard d" again.
This is the second possibility of the areas that do
not pronounce the "soft d", but I don't know how much
it is used today.

I have listened to many speakers of Spanish from both
Spain and Latin America, and I never understood their
intervocalic /d/ to be the same as the one in Danish -
I understand this Spanish "d" to be slightly "harder",
the difference is very small, but I think it is there.
Now I'm truly sorry I'm not able to use the phonetic
signs, otherwise I could explain myself a little bit
better. Eg. a word like "minutter" in Danish becomes
"minudder" because of the lenition of intervocalic
"t", if you try to pronounce it with a "soft d"
instead, it sounds incorrect - but, if you pronounce
"minutter" wich a Spanish intervocalic "d", it would
not sound that wrong, because the Spanish d would be
less "gliding" and thus resemble the correct
pronounciation.
(I wish I had a vaw file to send instead!).

Greetings, Lone Olesen

==================================END===================================
  You have received this because your account has 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>.
  =======================================================================
  * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
  * Contributions 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>.
  * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
    type of format, in your submissions
  =====================================================================