LL-L "Phonology" 2003.02.26 (06) [E]

Wed Feb 26 16:57:17 UTC 2003

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.FEB.2003 (06) * 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
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) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ruud Harmsen <rh at rudhar.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2003.02.25 (13) [D/E]

14:00 25-2-2003 -0800, Lowlands-L:
>I have heard
>Dutch people pronounce nieuwe with a "v" sound.

A very soft and voiced v, an approximant. That is the normal
realisation of the phoneme in de north of the language area. So in
words like "nieuwe" the question is whether is should be considered
structured as "niew-e" (that produces a round w), or "nie-we"
(resulting in a "soft v").
Such a soft v isn't a v withing the Dutch pronunciation system, but
it way seem to sound like that to speakers of other languages.
(I left out the u in nieuw(e), because that is merely a spelling
convention, it isn't pronounced).

>This seems to me to be a spelling pronunciation,

I don't think so, see above.

>and I certainly don't think it's widespread,

I think it's very common.

>but I do have an otherwise wonderful old book (A Dutch phonetic
reader /
>E.E. Quick & J.G. Schilthuis. University of London Press, 1930) with
>Dutch texts in IPA transcription, and they use the "v" pronunciation in
>similar words throughout. My theory is the sound shift that seems to
>have happened during the 20th century, whereby Dutch w became more or
>less v, and v became more or less f, but that's another can of worms!

I expect it to much much older. Note that in German, the written v
has a full f sound, and the German written w always has the sound of
a northern Dutch inititial w.
("Northern" not in the sense of coming from Groningen, but of "north
of the big rivers").
--
<http://rudhar.com>

----------

From: Holger Weigelt <platt at holger-weigelt.de>
Subject: Phonology

> From: Stan Levinson <stlev99 at yahoo.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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?
.....
> 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?

Hello Stan, hello Ron !
Just a few words on both subjects mentioned above:
1) In Eastern Friesland Low Saxon we have:
_woersğauen_ (to warn, to predict something bad to happen).
2) EFLS has no ~š~. The š-sound here is spoken with the tongue laid broad
against the upper teeth with a slight retraction of the tip (the
pronounciation turns a little towards ~ç~) and is always connected with
consonants, mostly ~ğ~, ~g~ or ~k~ (examples: sğip = ship; sğüer = barn;
sğâr = shadow; tüsken = between; masğīn = machine - but also in: släif;
stuer; smēer etc.).
~ž~ is replaced by a sound I write _zj_. It is a [z] spoken in a similar way
as the š-sound followed by a ~j~. There are only few words - mostly (or all
?) loans - with this sound (examples: zjanēwer = Genever, spirit; garózje =
garage).
Contrasting z / zj isn't an option of EFLS but si / sği occurs in it's
*native* phoneme inventory.
Kind greetings
Holger

----------

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

Folks,

Holger's posting above reminded me to ask if there are any published dialect
maps that show the isoglosses of _sch_, _sh_, _sx_, _sğ_, _sk_, _sj_, etc.,
encompassing the Lowlands Saxon and Frankish areas.

We already know that in Dutch _s-ch_ (_sx_) predominates but _sk_ also
occurs abundantly. With regard to Lowlands Saxon (Low German), my general
estimate is that _s-ch_, _sk_ and _sğ_ predominate roughly west of Bremen.
It
includes all or most of the Westphalian varieties, right?  East of this area
it is _sch_ (as in German, as in English "ship" and "shoe"). I assume this
includes the
Eastphalian varieties as well. Is this about right? Isn't _sk_ also used in
some dialects near the Danish border?

Any info would be gratefully received.

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