LL-L "Phonology" 2002.10.27 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 27.OCT.2002 (01) * 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 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) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.10.26 (11) [E]

At 04:07 PM 10/26/02 -0700, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>Strange, I always thought that the vowel of "out" was one of the few
>that is practically the same in all varieties of English, across all
>oceans (Northern Ireland excepted), and that a British or American
>ou will also do fine as an imitation of what is spelt au or ou in
>Dutch. Am I wrong? If so, how?

In most North America accents, it is pronounced as if it were the High
German pronunciation of "au" as in "aus".

However, Canadian accent (except Newfoundland), pronounces it more the way
it is spelled, namely "o-ut".

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

----------

From: Stan Levinson <stlev99 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.10.26 (11) [E]

Ruud and folks,
Actually, in my experience, the "ou" of "out" has to
be one of the most varied diphthongs in English, from
the American version which uses a more closed and
front "a" than the Dutch sound in "fout" through the
Australian version which starts with an even higher
front vowel, the standard British which (seems to me,
though I'm not so sure) starts with a more mid vowel,
and back to Canadian which really, to this American
ear, sounds like it starts with something approaching
/o/, but more front.  No?
Stan

----------

From: Ben J. Bloomgren <Godsquad at ev1.net>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.10.26 (11) [E]

I was actually talking about the Dutch UI or UY. The OU and the AU are the
same across the English world. Thanks for asking the question, Ruud.
Ben

----------

From: robert bowman <bowman at montana.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2002.10.26 (02) [E]

On Saturday 26 October 2002 11:53, Gary wrote:
> and also 'Worcestershire' given it's full
> value instead of England English, 'Woostersheer'.

Depends on the region. Massachussets has a Worcester which is pronouned
Wooster, so by extension many people in the northeast would say
'Woostersheer'. People outside the region generate a few smiles as they try
to handle Worcester, Leominster, and other imported place names. Between the
English, Dutch, and native place names, you can always tell a Nebraskan on
vacation.

bob

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