LL-L "Phonology" 2002.01.14 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.JAN.2002 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian 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

> From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
> Subject: "Phonology"

> > From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Phonology
> >
> > You may remember that our Dutch-speaking friends insist that there is a
> > phonetic difference between _f_ [f] and _v_ [v"] in Dutch?  While I do
> > not doubt that they perceive it, I still find it confusing, because a
> > devoiced /v/ ought to be voiceless, thus [f].  If it is a different
>
> I think a Scots speaker might say the same about [W] and [w"].
> What is now spelt <wh> in Scots was spelt <quh> in Middle Scots,
> eg "wha" was spelt "quha" &c. The SND has a suggestion that this
> spelling was due to the pronunciation [xW] - so the [W] could
> actually be seen as devoiced due to the presence of the [x].
>
> It goes on to say that "older speakers" can still sometimes be
> heard to pronounce this vestigial [x] in emphatic speech -
> although I'm not sure in what sense I'm an "older speaker"
> as this was written before I was born! It's probably just a
> facile expression. It's true, though, that Scots speakers are
> still frequently heard pronouncing this sound with a light [x]
> preceding it, or a perfectly audible [xW] when emphasised. This
> probably makes the [W] seem qualitatively different from the [w"]
> to Scots speakers, but you could approach it from the other
> direction and say that the [x] of [xW] is deleted after a voiced
> stop - so it still comes down to either approach being acceptable,
> and it's still a matter of deciding which works best overall.

I have heard Scots speakers pronounce [xW] too, and I was wondering
about this when you raised the question, Sandy.

This opens up another possibility.  You might then argue that there is
no phoneme pair /W/ vs /w/ but only the phoneme /w/, and that [W] is a
devoiced allophone of /w/ in all cases.  On this assumption you would
have to indicate the omissible /x/ in the underlying (phonemic)
representation.  Since /x/, too, is a voiceless consonant, the same rule
applies:

(1)
   |[-vocal]|
   |        | -> [-voice] / [-voice]__
   |[+voice]|

This would then account for both types of cases of /w/ devoicing after
voiceless consonants: (1) _twist_ [tWIst] and (2) _whist_ [xWIst].

Secondly, in fast speech mode syllable-initial /x/ undergoes a deletion
rule anywhere except before vowels (which happens to apply only to the
sequence /xw/):

(2)
   x -> 0 / $__[-vocal]

Hence, ...
   /twist/  /xwist/
 1  tWIst    xWIst
(2    -      WIst)

However, you might then argue that this would be awkward in the purely
synchronic analysis of the speech of someone who never pronounces _wh_
as [xW].  Yet, conversely you could simply assume that such a speaker
*always* applies Rule 2, while another speaker applies it only in fast
mode.

> > phoneme it ought to have its own symbol, for the devoicing diacritic (a
> > small circle in IPA, " in SAMPA) leads one to assume the result of a
> > phonological rule, i.e., devoicing.  So, perhaps the IPA (here SAMPA)
> > system is imperfect in that it does not show degrees of voicelessness,
> > if there is such a thing.  To avoid such doubts I personally would, as I
> > said, opt for consistent [W] in Scots.
>
> I often think this - especially these days when phonetics is
> studied using medical scanners and x-rays to measure exactly
> what goes on during speech!

Yes, in this light the rule schemes we discussed are probably "rough,"
i.e., very general.  Things would get very complex indeed if we had to
account for minute differences like those.  As far as I know,
phoneticians often add symbols such as + and - and up and down arrows as
diacritics to show slight differences, but the notation then becomes
very complex and for most people hard to read.

If you chose to completely ignore "older" speakers' [xW], then you might
as well assume the phoneme /W/, i.e., a new phoneme that was developed
from /kw/ (or /qw/?) via /xw/.  However, I feel that in a general, i.e.
not dialect-specific, description of Scots phonology you owe the reader
at least some sort of note with reference to the [xw] mode.

It's your call, Sandy.  _Dat is Jack as Büx_ ("It is jacket as/like
pants" = 'It all boils down to the same thing'), as we say in Low Saxon
(Low German).

> I started putting "the project" up on the Web yesterday, so it
> can now always be viewed at http://sandyfleemin.org/grammar/
>
> There's practically nothing there yet, although what is there is
> probably useful as far as it goes.

It is, and it looks like a very promising beginning.  I hope you will
get a lot of input.  I am delighted to see the valiant efforts you,
Andy, Ian and Colin have been making on behalf of general access to
information about Scots.  Who knows what other wonderful things have
been or are being done by subscribers that hitherto have not "unlurked"
themselves?

One thing, though, Sandy: on your phonetics and phonology pages some of
the symbols do not show in my display, even when I choose alternative
display modes (and I have several kinds of IPA fonts), and when I choose
alternative display modes the font appears very large.  I do not know
what the reasons are, because I haven't analyzed your source code so
far.  If you use a special font and specify it as preferable in the
display, you might want to tell the visitor which font it is and offer
it for downloading.

Continuing success!

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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 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>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================