LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.10.18 (05) [E]

Fri Oct 18 22:54:08 UTC 2002

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 18.OCT.2002 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: admin at lowlands-l.net
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 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>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because 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) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Stan Levinson <stlev99 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.10.18 (04) [E]

Mike,
Funny you should mention that, since my son, who has
lived there for 13 years (since he went off to
college), always tells me that he just can't "get"
that "o"!!!  As such a cosmpolitan city and college
town, Boston certainly has so many people who DON'T
have the typical accents, but when I'm there, I search
out people who talk like that.  Sounds more "real",
just as when I'm in NY, I love to run into Brooklyn
accents.  I guess one man's food is another man's
poison, but those traditional accents to me are like
an ear massage, they just feel SO good!
Stan

> From: Szelog, Mike <Mike.Szelog at CITIZENSBANK.com>
> Subject: Language Varieties
>
> Stan, I agree - the Boston accent is quite different
> from the rest of New
> England - I can usually tell that a person is (or
> was) from the Boston area!
> To my ears, they have a very distinct "o" sound -
> not quite the IPA "open
> o", sounds something like the "aw" in 'law', but
> that's not quite it either
> - sort of something in between the two.
>
> Mike S

----------

From: Stan Levinson <stlev99 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2002.10.18 (03) [E]

Ron,
Interesting comparing it with Australian.  I agree,
except that I think the Australian "a" is even higher
than the Boston "a" before "r".  In general vowels
written "a" in Australian seem to be higher than
corresponding American vowels, so that the "a" /ae/ of
words like, say, "cat", is almost more like the "e" of
"end".  Like to hear what the Aussies say, but my
impression is that in general, if we think in terms of
a kind of old fashioned vowel "inverted pyramid", that
the Australian pyramid would be shorter on the
open/close axis as well as on the front/back axis,
with an offset closer to the front, i.e. the Aussie
pyramid would fit inside the American pyramid, but be
off-center favoring the "front" part.
Actually, since this DOES count as lowlands, what do
you folks think about Aussie vowels in general? It's
my contention that there are NO "back" vowels in
Australian.  In fact the Australian realization of the
long "o" (boat) sounds like it has every vowel known
to man in it--except "o", which sounds like an
exaggeration of typical British (sorry I don't know
British dialect boundaries, but I guess I mean
something close to normal education London).  What's
curious is that the Aussie "u" of "food" actually
sounds kind of Irish to me... isn't that just like the
Aussies.  Really, Oz just has the coolest vowels...
Stan
> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> Mike, Lowlanders,
>
> Like Stan (above), I don't consider the Boston
> pronunciation of "party" to
> "sound like rest of the nation "potty"."  I hear the
> sequence /ar/ in Boston
> pronunciation as [a:] (['p_ha:ti] ~ ['p_ha:d_0i]),
> thus very similar to the
> common Australian pronunciation -- with a "flat"
> long "a" sound (like in
> Standard German _nass_, just much longer).  I hear
> General American English
> ['p_hQ(:)ti] ~ ['p_hQ(:)d_0i] for "potty" (as
> opposed to BBC English
> ['p_hOt_hi] ~ ['p_hOt_hI] and General Australian
> ['p_hOt_hi]).  Like Stan, I
> hear the "broad" New York pronunciation of /ar/ as
> having a lower vowel than
> in Boston (something like (['p_hA:ti] ~
> ['p_hA:d_0i]).
>
> By the way, the pronunciation of /ar/ in Northern
> Lowlands Saxon (Low
> German) is very much like that of Bostonian and
> Australian, e.g., _Park_
> [p_ha:k] 'park', _Karr_ [k_ha:] 'car', _Mark_ [ma:k]
> 'mark', _Harm_ [ha:m]
> 'harm', _Smart_ [sma:t] 'smart', 'pain', _Barg_
> [ba:x] 'mountain', 'hill',
> _Harder_ ['ha:d3`] 'herder', _Lark_ [la:k] 'lark',
> _Parl_ [p_ha:l] 'pearl',
> _Part_ [p_ha:t] 'part', 'share', _Karn_ [k_ha:n]
> 'kernel', 'nucleus'.
>
> However, LS does not have liaison while English
> does, and all words must
> begin with a consonant.  A glottal stop occurs were
> people perceive a word
> to begin with a vowel (e.g., _Arm_ [?a:m] 'arm'),
> and, unlike in English,
> this glottal stop cannot be deleted (thus may be
> argued to be phonemic
> rather than inserted).  Interpreting essentially
> foreign _-a_ as _-er_ (as
> is done in liaison in non-rhotic English dialects,
> e.g.,
> "Chiner_or_other_allies") does not happen or at
> least cannot be proven;
> e.g., _Trina or Ann_ ['tri:nQ ?O3` ?a.n] 'Catherine
> or Anne', which in
> non-rhotic English might be pronounced
> ['tri:n at rOra.n], hence the perception
> of "choppiness" in German and LS to speakers of
> English.
>
> Another incidental remark: LS has the same
> aspiration ([_h]) rule as General
> American English: aspiration of a voiceless stop
> applies only in a syllable
> with primary stress (while in other English dialects
> it can apply anywhere);
> hence _party_: LS and Bostonian ['p_ha:ti] vs
> England English ['p_hQ:t_hi] ~
> ['p_hQ:ts_hi].
>
> Cheers!
> Reinhard/Ron
>
> P.S.: Phonetic notation used here: SAMPA
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm,
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/x-sampa.htm

----------

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

Stan,

I basically agree with you that the Australian phonetic output of /ar/ is
somewhat higher and more fronted than the Bostonian one.  However, there are
many shades of Australian (and probably several of Bostonian), and some of
them go farther on the scale than others.  Most people I know divide them
into "broad Australian" and "educated Australian" (the latter predominating
in the electronic media).  The /ar/ -> [a:] sound tends to be somewhat
higher and more fronted ("fletter") in the former than in the latter, but it
is not quite [æ:] or [E:] either.

What I had really meant to say was that the phonetic realizations of /ar/ in
Bostonian, general New England, Australian and New Zealand dialects are
similar to each other, in the same ballpark as opposed to most other
dialects of English (including those of New York), and Lowlands Saxon (LS)
fits in with them.

> Actually, since this DOES count as lowlands, what do
> you folks think about Aussie vowels in general? It's
> my contention that there are NO "back" vowels in
> Australian.  In fact the Australian realization of the
> long "o" (boat) sounds like it has every vowel known
> to man in it--except "o", which sounds like an
> exaggeration of typical British (sorry I don't know
> British dialect boundaries, but I guess I mean
> something close to normal education London).  What's
> curious is that the Aussie "u" of "food" actually
> sounds kind of Irish to me... isn't that just like the
> Aussies.  Really, Oz just has the coolest vowels...

Again, I generally agree with you, but at the same time remind you that
there is dialectal and sociolectal variation, and most people outside
Australia are not quite aware of that.  If I had to instruct anyone in how
to start putting on an Australian accent (without being able to pull it off
myself) I would begin with suggesting to "try and speak mostly in the front
of your mouth".  Yes, it is almost as though the entire vowel allophone
inventory has been shifted toward the front and also a bit up.  As in many
dialects of Southern England, the output of /oo/ as in _go_ or _boat_ is
something like [e.}] (ending with a central, slightly rounded vowel or
glide, very similar in many Northern Lowlands Saxon dialects).  Yes, the
Australian /uu/ realization (e.g., "too") seems to be something like [}:]
(like long _u_ in some Swedish varieties), a sound in between [u:] and [y:]
and with little rounding, almost [1:].  I hear the short /u/ (e.g., "good")
pronounced with little or no rounding, almost [1] (central, between [I] and
[W]).

However, there do seem to be some back vowels anyway, such as [O] (e.g.,
"pot"), [o:] (e.g., "thought"), and [AI] ~ [QI] ~ [OI] (e.g., "die," often
slightly rounded, as opposed to [aI], e.g., "day").

Much of this seems to apply to New Zealand varieties as well.  The only
feature of NZ "accents" that to my ear sounds special (from my
pseudo-Australian viewpoint) is that the short /e/, as in "bed," is
pronounced even more frontal and higher than its Australian counterpart,
something like [e], approaching [I].  I hear a similar sound in some South
African English dialects.

Cheers [tS_hIe.z]!
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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>.
 =======================================================================