LL-L "Phonology" 2003.02.24 (13) [D/E]

Tue Feb 25 00:27:30 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 24.FEB.2003 (13) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 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: Stan Levinson <stlev99 at yahoo.com>
Subject:  LL-L "Orthography & Pronunciation" 2003.02.24 (04) [E]

Nederlandssprekenden:
Ik was iets aan het lezen, toen er me iets heel
vreemds opviel.  Na ja, het vreemde is dat ik er nooit
eerder aan heb gedacht.  Het gaat om spellingregels,
(mijn blijkbaar verkeerde) uitspraak en het werkwoord
"waarschuwen".  Ik heb altijd gedacht dat het "waar -
schuu - wen" wordt uitgesproken, en dat denk ik nog.
Maar ik heb ineens besefd dat de vormen "waarschuwt"
and "gewaarschuwd" een beetje vreemd zijn, en nou weet
ik niet hoe ik zie moet uitspreken.  Ik veronderstelde
"waar-schuu-vt" en "ge-waar-schuu-vt" om het zonder
fonetische tekens aan te duiden.  Maar als het zo
wordt uitgesproken, dan wijkt het af van de spelling
regels.  Where am I going wrong?  Help.
Bij voorbaat bedankt.
Stan

----------

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

Lowlanders,

Our recent discussion about Dutch <sch> reminded me of something only
vaguely related that I have been wanting to submit for discussion.

I remember that one of the striking features I perceived in Dutch
pronunciation (and in Dutch "accents" in German) already as a child was that
many or most speakers did not pronounce their /s/ "sharp" the way we did but
rather with the tip of their tongues a little retracted.  In other words,
many speakers of Dutch (especially of the Hollandic areas) pronounce their
/s/ and their voiced equivalent /z/ as apicoalveolar fricatives rather than
as dental or alveodental [s] / [z].  I suppose the IPA symbols for the
apicoalveolar variants are "curly-tailed" esh ([ʆ]) and yogh ([ʓ]), or these
are at least close to them.

So far my theory has always been -- _un dat is sachs nich bloots up *mien*
Mist wussen_, lit. "and that has probably not grown only on *my*
dung/fertilizer" -- that this sort of "retraction" is an option only in
language varieties that do not have contrasting /s/ vs. /š/ (as in 'ship')
and /z/ vs. /ž/ (as in 'azure', 'measure' and 'jeu'), at least not in their
*native* phoneme inventories.  This is certainly true of Dutch, Danish
(though probably not predominantly), Greek, Finnish and Northern Castilian,
none of which has native /š/ (and /ž/), and all of which permit the
non-dental pronunciation, which really lies in between the dental ([s]/[z])
and alveolar ([ʃ]/[ʒ]) pronunciations.  (As most of you know, a part of
heavy Greek and Finnish "accents" is non-distinction of pairs like "sip"
versus "ship", and a heavy Danish "accent" tends to distinguish them as
something like "sip" versus "syip".)

As far as I know, most or all of the Saxon-based varieties in the
Netherlands do not have /š/ (and /ž/) either, and thus, at least
theoretically, would permit the apicoalveolar pronunciation too.  Is this
pronunciation in fact used by locally raised speakers in the eastern parts
of the Netherlands?

Since Limburgish does natively distinguish /s/ from /š/ (written <sj>), I
assume that the apicoalveolar pronunciation of /s/ is not an option in
Limburgish and is thus not or rarely an option in the Limburgish
pronunciation of Dutch.  Is this so in fact?  What about the (originally)
Frisian-, Brabantish- and Flemish-speaking areas of the Dutch-dominated
Lowlands?

Sure, today's Dutch abounds with English and French loans, and this includes
words with /š/ and /ž/, thus is a case of foreign-induced distinction
between /s/ and /š/ and /z/ and /ž/.  I have been trying to listen closely
to English and German spoken by Dutch speakers and found the respective
phonetic distinctions to be weak to non-perceptible.  Will the "assertion"
of imported words with /š/ and /ž/ eventually force /s/ and /z/ to be
pronounced as dentals in order to clarify the distinctions?  Similarly in
Greek and Finnish?  (Finnish uses the letter <š> {s-hachek} for foreign /š/,
but it appears that many Finnish speakers do not really distinguish it from
/s/, at least not perceptibly so to my ears.)

Now, the Northern Castilian ("Spanish") apicoalveolar pronunciation of /s/
is often explained to English speakers as being similar to the pronunciation
of /s/ among speakers of Southern Scotland and among older speakers of
Midlands dialects of the United States of America.  As for the reference to
Scotland, it is -- not surprisingly -- never mentioned if it is Scottish
English or Scots.  Since it seems to be an areal feature, I assume that it
exists in both English and Scots varieties.  I think I have noticed it in
the English pronunciation of some Scottish people, but I cannot swear to it
that they are from Southern Scotland.  One person that immediately comes to
mind is the actor Sean Connery, whose "funny s" is a tasty morsel for
impressionists.  Just a sec!  I looked up Connery's biography and found that
he was born in the Fountainbridge district of Edinburgh.  That would be in
the Lothians and wouldn't qualify as "Southern Scotland," would it?  But
were did he grow up?  (I know that he joined the Navy in his early teens.)

Anyway, if this apicoalveolar option is used for /s/, then this would beg
the question how those speakers distinguish it from /š/ (e.g., "sip" from
"ship"), given that both phonemes are native in Scots and English?  Is the
/š/ retracted?  Is the distinction accepted as minimal?

Any input would be highly valued.

Regards and thanks!
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: Stan, for whatever it's worth, in Northern Lowlands Saxon (Low German)
'to warn' is /vaaršuu-/ or /vaaršou-/ (_waarschuen_, _waarschuun_,
_waarschoen_, _waarschoon_, etc.).  This is consistent with /fruu/ ~ /frou/
(_Fru_ ~ _Fro_) 'woman', 'Mrs.'.  The endings are pronounced [...u:n] and
[...o.ɷn], a "schwa" (in most dialects a short [ɛ]) being articulated only
in extremely clear pronunciation and song: [...u:ɛn] and [...o.ɷɛn].  Dutch
_waarschuw-_ and _vrouw_ seem to be consistent with these.  I don't think I
have ever heard the <w> (in Dutch the labiodental glide [ʋ], as in
Indo-Aryan varieties) really pronounced in _waarschuwen_ and _vrouwen_.  But
then again, I'm not a native Dutch speaker, and who know what kinds of
things go by me?

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