LL-L "Phonology" 2003.08.14 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.AUG.2003 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
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: "Holger Weigelt" <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: "Etymology"

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Moin, Holger!
>
> I repeat: we are basically on the same page, and I still need some
peace and
> quiet and simply digestion time.  Here just a cursory response:
>
> I did not exclude the possibility that some of the sounds you
distinguish
> orthographically cannot be phonemes.  To be sure, the same sound can
be a
> phoneme in one instance and an allophone in another instance.  I still
> believe we need more clarity in this department, namely a detailed
study of
> phonological processes in your dialect and related dialects.  This is
needed
> to recognize all phonological processes and thereby distinguish
allophones
> from phonemes.  While I am confident your analysis thus far has gone a
long
> way, I wonder if there aren't cases of allophones where you might be
> suspecting phonemes and fix your orthographic system on that basis.  I
> suppose this is a formidable undertaking, worthy at least one doctoral
> dissertation.
>
> When you get instances of sound alternation within the same word or
> morpheme, I think your first inclination ought to be to assume that
one or
> both are allophones, i.e., environmentally conditioned derivation from
a
> single underlying base sound.
>
> No two people will necessarly come up with the same analysis.
Sometimes you
> simply can't be sure which approach and assumption is correct, because
> phonemes have a way of disguising themselves in clever ways.
>
Hello Ron !
As I told You, I didn't finally decide about the phonemic or allophonic
character of  certain sounds. In German I name the twin- or
triplet-groups I
listed "Phonemgruppen" to express that the sounds of each group are
phonemically distinct from the others but leaving the possibility that
inside the groups they are all or partly allophonic.
Maybe my understanding of what is phonemic or allophonic is a bit
doubtfull.
But I want to remind You to the fact that my entire work in orthography
is
based on the idea of creating an orthographic system for EFLS for
practical use not for scientific purposes that fits this language according
to
it's phonological and grammatical structures. Now, all the sounds mentioned
are phonological features of EFLS and they have grammatical functions. For
this reason they must be represented in orthography - my belief.
I'm aware of the fact that there are only few examples to support the
assumption of  vowels with extra length to be phonemes too. But if there
are some mustn't we believe them all to be ?

> By the way, I am still wondering about your <ó> (as in <stróet>
'street',
> other dialects _straat_ (<Straat>, <Stroot>).  My inclination is to
view it
> as a long /a/ (/aa/) that, as in the vast majority of LS dialects, is
> somewhat to strongly rounded.  Does this conflict with another sound
that
> you consider /aa/, that I might consider a lengthened /a/?  In the
other
> dialects these would be cases of short /a/ occurring before sonorants
(e.g.,
> _an_ [?a:n] ~ [?a.n] 'on', _Ball_ [ba:l] ~ [ba.l] 'ball').

Yes, there is a conflict. I have some reasons to distinguish the a-group
from the ó-group (despite leaving the short _ó_ orthographically _a_,
a kind of reader-accomodating "historicism" .
1.) The sounds  ā/â and ó/óe are clearly distinguished by every EFLS
speaker. Despite local pronounciation differences these sounds never
replace each other. If anybody tries he'd be suspected of speaking a foreign
language.
2.) Both sounds form own never interchanging groups of alternating
sounds.
3.) You can find pairs of different meaning. Some of them work if You
accept each group as a phonemical entity that stands against the other as a
total.

In some other cases You find correct length-accordance (ā/ó; â/óe).
Examples:
lât (lath) / lót (late)
mât (mat) / mót (measure)
hân (hands) / hón (cock)
bân (ribbons) / bón (course; job)
rad (bicycle; wheel) / ród (advice)
pâp (daddy) / póep (priest)
kât (cat) / kóet (cottage)
âl (all) / ól (eal)
râw (scurf) / róew (raven)

Kind regards
Holger

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