LL-L "Phonology" 2002.05.07 (04) [S]

Tue May 7 21:45:53 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 07.MAY.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: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.05.05 (02) [E/S]

Sandy wrate:

>For Central dialecks onywey, A think [I] an [3] is best
>thocht on as allophones o the phoneme /I/ - for shuir A
>hinna been able tae find ony minimal pairs atween thae
>twa, an that should mair or less settle it.
>
>This wad mean spellin them baith the same wey - an sae,
><git>, <yit>.
>
>A tend tae write <git>, <yet> wi hou thae wirds is soondit
>[gI?], [j3?] in ma dialeck, but A'm tryin tae brek this
>habit an aye write baith [I] an [3] wi <i>, for that the
>minimal pairs tae juistifee differin spellins juist disna
>seem tae exist.
>
>A think in ma dialeck [I] soonds tends for [3] an it's
>juist whiles, uizually efter [g], [w] an [W], it seems
>tae me, that we still says [I]. Houanever, [I] soonds
>in some wirds tends taewards [V] insteed. It's like
>they're aa on ae line on the vowel diagram an can vary
>a fair bit conform tae hou hie or laich a body sets his
>jaw tae say them.
>
>Sae we hae <fit> that's soondit [fI?] tendin tae [f3?]
>an yit <wid> or <wud> that's soondit [wId] tendin tae
>[wVd], Ye'll notice the'r a ruch correspondence wi
>traditional spellins, houanever. Is the [I] bein
>separatit intae [3] an [V]?
>
>An abuin aa that the wirds <Wullie> , <will> an <willow>
>(whan it's no <sauch>!) is soondit /'wOlI/, /'wOl/ an
>/'wOlI/. This juist seems tae happen whan baith the /w/
>an the /l/ is praisent, tho ye micht hear it insertit
>afore a syllablized /l/: <bottle>, /'botOl/ &c. In aa o
>thae wirds, includin <will> &c, the /l/ micht be replaced
>wi a /w/ wi some spaekers or wi the same spaeker in
>different registers, sae <will> ends up soondit /wOw/ an
>aa that.

Ay. The effect o /w/ afore an /l/ efter I ken aboot - tho I'd gotten the
norie that juist /w/ afore made /I/ -> /V/ -  but the ither anes is a
bittie haurd ti wirk oot - speecially whan, like mysel, ye'r no that
weel acquant wi Central spaek.

I think ye maun be richt at [I], [3] an [V] can aa be realisations o the
same /I/ phoneme. The question is - whit is the determinin factors, if
onie? For example, dis the phonetics [V] an [3] represent differin
phonemes in differin environments? Is thare a /V/ phoneme, tae, an is it
sindered frae the /I/ phoneme. Is thare meenimal pairs whaur /I/ an /V/
(or aiblins even /I/ , /V/ an /3/, gin the ar sic a phoneme - I dinna
raelly understaund if Aitken's Vowel is a phoneme or no) is sindered
frae ither in the same phonetic environments?

I wad jalouse, at a roch guess, at the /I/ an /V/ phonemes merges in
some environments, but no ithers. Mibbie I'll hae ti hae a leuk at the
LAS.

I'm tryin ti think on words at's sindered this wey in my ain
pronunciation o Shetlandic.

/I/ [I,3] - /V/ [V~o~2]

sip [s3p] - sup [sop]
bit [b3t] - but [bot]
git [gj3t] - gut [got]
lick [l3k] - luck [lok]

bid [bId] - bud [b8d] (8 - vowel atween [o] an [2])
dig [dIg] - dug [d8g]
rib [rIb] - rub [r8b]

As ye can see, the'r a sinderin atween /I/ an /V/, an the realisations o
thaim is determined bi whither thay come afore vyced or vyceless
consonants. I say /V/ as [o] (mair or less) afore vyceless consonants
(in fact, I uise /o/ insteid o /V/ as the phonemic transcription) an [8]
afore vyced anes (wi a bittie gaun back an fore atween [o] an [2]
dependin on the ither surroondin soonds) but ither Shetland dialects
haes different realisations. This is obviously no the wey yer ain
dialect wirks - it micht be wirth tryin ti see gin it's the consonant
afore - like /g/, as ye suggest - at maks the differ.

Wi words like 'will', etc, ar the onie words wi a definite /V/ phoneme
in this poseetion - ie: /wVl/ at ye coud contrast wi /wIl/, ti see gin
thay'r baith sayed [V] or no? The'r nane i the dictionar. Whit aboot
juist efter /w/ - eg: _work, wonder_ - an juist afore /l/?

Is it likely, than, at [O] is juist a realisation o /I/ aither efter /w/
or afore /l/?

Tane thegither, whit ye say, sae faur, tends ti uphaud my ain feelins
aboot this, ie, at the soonds in words like 'work'(v), 'worth', 'wull',
etc. in Central dialects is a realisation o the /I/ phoneme, awin ti (a)
merger o /I/ an /V/ phonemes in this environment, an (b) [O] whiles bein
the realisation o /V/ in this environment afore /l/.

(I uised ti ken a algebraic-type shorthaund for writin this kynd o
thing, but I'v forgotten it. It leukit a bittie like:

I ->V/w_l

Can oniebodie clue me up?)

Can we say, than, at the tendency ti write <u> in a lot o sic words is
phonetic raither nor phonological (except in the sense at it micht
express Central dialect phonology, gin the /I/-/V/ phoneme distincion
haes been tint thare.)

I aften see <u> spellins o words at - whan I hear Central dialects -
seems ti hae a [3] raither nor a [V] soond. Wad this be awin ti (a) the
<u> spellin bein the only wey at the slicht differ frae SSE
pronunciation can be shawn, an (b) this spellin comin inti mair formal
Scots spellins awin ti the tendency ti uise spellins at's different frae
English? This faas inti a contrar tendency whan some fowk threips at ye
shoudna spell e.g. wirth, wirk, wi <i> cause that's a unnecessar
sinderin frae the English! Sae ye git the meenimalist camp spellin
<worth, work> an the maximalists spellin <wurth, wurk.> The idea at
the'r a underlyin Scots /I/ phoneme disna cut nae ice.

John M. Tait.

http://www.wirhoose.co.uk

==================================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
=======================================================================