LL-L "Phonology" 2003.04.25 (01) [E]

Fri Apr 25 14:46:37 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 25.APR.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
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
Archives: 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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: "Stella en Henno" <stellahenno at hetnet.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.04.24 (02) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Hi, Gary, Lowlanders!
>
> This topic of l-vocalization interests me a great deal too, as some
> Lowlanders already know.  So I am very keen on the input you (and I)
> will hopefully receive on this.
>
> Below are some relevant bits of information (observations) in brief.
>
>
> As we discussed a while back, most Dutch varieties have a velar (i.e.,
> not tongue-tip) /l/, as in <hell> in most English varieties.  In many
> cases this calls for schwa epenthesis and thus creates an additional
> syllable in which the /l/ comes to be initial; e.g., <melk> -> mellek
> ['mEl at k] 'milk'.  This is a productive rule.
True, but not all speakers apply this. It's still considered substandard
by
most.
The "instable" standard Dutch option is to leave the velar l before k,
and
neither
add a schwa nor vocalise it. I do this myself. My wife finds this
strange,
and
uses epenthesis much more heavily, also before r: a clearly heard [@]
before
m
in _storm_ [stOr at m] e.g. Also _kalm_ becomes [kal at m], whereas I would
say [kalm]. The "natural" tendency is to create open syllables, or
vocalise
the l
to a [w]: [kawm]. The latter is heard sometimes and has been cause for
many
an angry letter to "Onze Taal" already. Also word-finally this
vocalisation
happens: _school_ becomes [scho:w], with some speakers. Substandard,
though
many people won't even notice it.

>  A rule that used to apply
> at a fairly early stage (early enough to have been inherited by
> Afrikaans) is l-vocalization between /o/ and a syllable-final consonant,
> and this is reflected orthographically; e.g., _old_ > <oud> 'old',
> _gold_ > <goud> 'gold', _wold_ > <woud> 'woods', _holt_ > <hout>,
> _Wolter_ > <Wouter> 'Walter', _stolt_ > <stout> 'fearless', 'audacious',
> _zolt_ > <zout> 'salt', _holden_ > <houden> 'to hold', _scholder_ >
> <schouder> 'shoulder' -- thus this historical shift (taking into
> consideration modern standard pronunciation): ol > ou > au
>

As to Westerlauwer Frisian: the velar l rules as well. Many use
epenthesis
as well, but this is speaker dependent. Eg. one common expression says
"Hy
is fan Kollum en Birdaard"
(two place names) [meaning that he is of a calm/quiet nature] where
there
is
a pun on the pronounciation [kol at m In b at da:d] which sounds like "kalm en
bedaard", when we use epenthesis in the first word.  Similarly before r.
Vocalisation doesn't happen, but it has happened historically: "goud"
[go.wd] from Old Frisian "gold" (now only in Hylpen/Hindeloopen:
"goald"),
skouder, souder (cf. Dutch zolder), moude (dust, cf. English mold),
Koudum
(place, near Hindeloopen, where they call it Koaldum), etc.
But Old Frisian also had an "al" combination in "ald/t", which was also
vocalised, now to [O:]. So we have wâld [wO:t] (wood/forest, we still
write
the l), sâlt [sO:t] (salt), kâld [kO:t] (cold) etc. We still have the l
in
derived words without the a: "jeld" [jElt] (old age) which derives from
*eld
< *aldi, related to _âld_ = old.  Also "hjelt" [jElt] (hilt) from
*haldi,
related to "hâlde" (to hold). The Hylpen dialect has _aald, waald,
saalt_
.
The dialectical situation (also North and East Frisian) suggests that we
have a very old
lengthening of a to a: here (in North Frisian this vowel sometimes
coincides
with other old long a: sounds), which becomes more "back" and gets
rounded
eventually. Already in the back a: stage the l must have been dropped
(descriptions from the 17th century suggest this). So the combination
"back
vowel + velar l" must have "done it".
There is no real evidence for a new wave of vocalisation in WF. It
should
be
noted though that many of the cases in Dutch have no direct parallels,
as
sometimes final l or lk has an extra schwa behind it, eg _skoalle_ ,
_molke_
(I say môlke). another historical case that springs to mind: _hok_
(Dutch
welk) < *hulik, which possibly went via [hulk].
Similarly _sok_ (Dutch zulk) from *swelik (I believe).

Henno Brandsma

----------

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

Tige tank, Henno!

> _molke_
> (I say môlke).

Maybe there is a difference in cases like _melk_ and _molke_ because of
syllabization: $melk$ vs $mol$ke$, perhaps less of a need for epenthesis
in the latter because it is less likely to apply where there is a
syllable boundary.  This difference certainly is apparent in Lowlands
Saxon (Low German) where the /l/ may become [I] or [i] in $melk$ ([mEIk]
~ [mEik]) 'milk' but not or rarely in _Molken_ ['mO.lk=N] (~ *[mO.Ik=N]
~ *[mO.wk=N]?) 'whey'.  Similarly in Missingsch: _Milch_ [mI(.)IC] and
_Molke_ ['mO(.)lke] (rarely ['mO(.)Ike]).

> another historical case that springs to mind: _hok_ (Dutch
> welk) < *hulik, which possibly went via [hulk].
> Similarly _sok_ (Dutch zulk) from *swelik (I believe).

Which reminds me of Lowlands Saxon (Low German) _welk_ ~ wilk_ 'which',
which in many dialects is _weck_, also _solk_ ~ _sölk_ ~ _sülk_ 'such',
which in some dialects is _sock(e)_, _sück(e)_ or _sückse_; cf. English
(_hwilc_ >) "which" and (_swylc_ >) "such", and Scots (*_hwilk_ >)
_whilk_ and (*_swylk_ >) _sic_ respectively.

Regards,
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.
=======================================================================