LL-L "Phonology" 2003.08.05 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.AUG.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l 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
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: "Mathieu. van Woerkom" <Mathieu.vanWoerkom at student.kun.nl>
Subject: Phonology

Roger wrote:

> > From: "Mathieu. van Woerkom" <Mathieu.vanWoerkom at student.kun.nl>
> > Subject: Phonology
> > I guess not. If you use [r], then /schr/ would simply sound like
> [s][x][r], but if you pronounce /r/ as [R], then it could sound like
> [s][R]... I have especially noticed the latter in Brabantish speech.
>
> I'm not aware of having the ch lost between s and R in "Belgian
> Brabantisch".
> Omitting the ch here sounds rather "Flemish" to me.

My mistake. When I say 'Brabantish', I mean the speech from Dutch Brabant.
By the way, I also say [s][R] for /schr/ myself...

Mathieu

----------

From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.08.04 (06) [E]

> From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.08.04 (01) [E]
>> From: "Mathieu. van Woerkom" <Mathieu.vanWoerkom at student.kun.nl>
>> Subject: Phonology
>> I guess not. If you use [r], then /schr/ would simply sound like
s][x][r], but if you pronounce /r/ as [R], then it could sound like s][R]...
I have especially noticed the latter in Brabantish speech.
> I'm not aware of having the ch lost between s and R in "Belgian
Babantisch".
> Omitting the ch here sounds rather "Flemish" to me.

The Brussels uvular R is rolling,or will certainly be rolling in
"schrijven", otherwise the ch and R would eventually merge (what I never
heard to occur).

A summary of the variation of the r-R in Dutch (with main focus on the
Netherlands though):
http://www.euro-support.be/temp/r.jpg
scanned from p. 8 in:
Geert Booij, The Phonology of Dutch, Oxford University Press, 1995,
paperback 1999, ISBN 0-19-823869-X, xi + 205 pp.

More specific for Belgium, though an older reference, is:
http://www.euro-support.be/temp/bl1.jpg
http://www.euro-support.be/temp/bl2.jpg
http://www.euro-support.be/temp/bl3.jpg
scanned from pp 133, 114 and 115 in:
Dr. E. Blancquaert, Praktische uitspraakleer van de Nederlandse taal, 1964,
Antwerpen, De Sikkel, 281 pp.
(This book was focussed on Belgian dialect speaking students for helping
them to pronounce Dutch in a more or less decent way)

Regards,

Roger

================================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.
=======================================================================