LL-L "Phonology" 2004.05.05 (09) [E]

Wed May 5 19:46:14 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 05.MAY.2004 (08) * 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: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
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: burgdal32admin <burgdal32 at pandora.be>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.05.05 (02) [E]

> From: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.05.04 (03) [E]
>
> Luc Vanbrabant wrote:
>
>> Indeed, g and ch sound almost the same in Dutch.
>> In my region though the g sounds h and the h is not heard. The ch
>> sounds h.
>
> The situation Luc describes here, actually goes for all Zeelandic and
> West-Flemish dialects (roughly spoken in the Dutch province of
> Zeeland, the
> Belgian province of West-Flanders and a small part of the
> Nord-departement
> in France). It even stretches out to a large part of East-Flanders.
>
> I think Luc is simplifying the subject a little. Allthough he is right
> that
> all h's are silent (like in French), not all ch's and g's sound as an
> h.
> After a dental vowel and at the end of a word, g's and ch's (which by
> some
> dialect writers are all -a bit too consistently- spelled h) actually
> sound
> like the g's and ch's in standard Dutch (so voiced cq voiceless). This
> is
> even the case when the dental consenant isn't pronounced (but the
> speaker
> 'feels' it's there):
>
> Dutch: mag ik vragen of het goed gaat? ja, het gaat goed
> Zeelandic: mah ik vraehen of at 't hoed haed? jae-t, 't gae goed
Hi Marco,
We do pronounce the second part also with the "h" sound.
V: Ma'k vraoh'n of dat hoe' haot? Jaot, 't hao hoet.

> regards,
>
> Marco
Groetjes
luc vanbrabant
oekene

----------

From: Frédéric Baert <baert_frederic at CARAMAIL.COM>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.05.05 (02) [E]

Marco wrote:
>From: marco [evenhuiscommunicatie] <marco at evenhuiscommunicatie.nl>
>Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2004.05.04 (03) [E]
>
>Luc Vanbrabant wrote:
>
>> Indeed, g and ch sound almost the same in Dutch.
>> In my region though the g sounds h and the h is not heard. The ch
>> sounds h.
>
>The situation Luc describes here, actually goes for all Zeelandic and
>West-Flemish dialects (roughly spoken in the Dutch province of Zeeland, the
>Belgian province of West-Flanders and a small part of the Nord-departement
>in France). It even stretches out to a large part of East-Flanders.
>
>I think Luc is simplifying the subject a little. Allthough he is right that
>all h's are silent (like in French), not all ch's and g's sound as an h.
>After a dental vowel and at the end of a word, g's and ch's (which by some
>dialect writers are all -a bit too consistently- spelled h) actually sound
>like the g's and ch's in standard Dutch (so voiced cq voiceless). This is
>even the case when the dental consenant isn't pronounced (but the speaker
>'feels' it's there):
>
>Dutch: mag ik vragen of het goed gaat? ja, het gaat goed
>Zeelandic: mah ik vraehen of at 't hoed haed? jae-t, 't gae goed
>
>So in the second phrase ('t gae goed) not only does the t in _'t_ turn the
>h-sound in _gae_ into a g, the 'silent' t in _gae_ (which gramatically
>should be _gaet_) makes the g in _goed_ sound like a g as well.
>Note that in written Zeelandic, all g's are usually spelled as a g. Also if
>they sound as an h. Silent h's are usually spelled with an apostrophe. In
>West-Flemish, the h's are usually just spelled as an h and spelling of g's
>that sound as an h varies: hoed, goed, ghoed (Du. _goed_).
>
>I believe this phenomenon is changing a bit. Younger speakers tend to use
an
>h-sound in stead of a g-sound in more and more positions now.
>
>regards,
>
>Marco
>
HI everybody
Here is the problem of differences between voiced and voiceless consonants
in western flemish.
In my french west flemish, "g" is a voiced palatal fricative and "ch" is a
voiceless palatal fricative (at least I feel it like that). But as Marco
wrote it, pronunciation is not as fixed as that. In a word
like "nacht", "ch" is voiceless and in "vraegen", "g" is voiced. But
in "Goe'n dag !", the "g" becomes voiceless because of its position at the
end of the sentence. And if I say "nach een" ("one more"), "ch" becomes
voiced because of the following vowel. This problem must be very old since
I think it explains orthograph of old flemish in which voiceless consonnant
was often written after its voiced "sister". i.e. "baerdt" instead
of "baerd" which give my name "Baert" instead of modern dutch "baard". I
think this ortograph problem comes from the fact that in flemish "d"
and "t", "p" and "b", "f" and "v", "s" and "z" and "ch" and "g" are
variants (voiceless and voiced) of the same consonnant, the pronunciation
of which only depending of its environment and never being fixed.
I recommend to you the book of J-L Marteel about learning of French west
flemish, "het vlaams dan men oudders klappen", which contains a very good
description of the assimilation of consonnants in french flemish in its
introduction.

I hope that I've been clear since it was difficult to explain my opinion
using my poor english level.
Best regards
Frederic Baert

----------

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

Frédéric, Luc, Marco and others,

I have a question about West Flemish and Zeelandic h-deletion:

Is there any phonetic differences between words that start with /h/ (which
is deleted) and those that (supposedly) start with a vowel.  More
specifically, do words that (supposedly) start with a vowel actually start
with a glottal stop (as in English, German, Lowlands Saxon, etc.)?  For
example, are there any phonetic differences between the equivalents of the
following Standard Dutch words?

   hebben - ebben
   haal - aal
   heer - eer
   houd - oud
   heen - een

There is a similar situation in Modern Hebrew, which I watched develop among
younger speakers in the early 1970s.  Supposedly under French and/or
Castilian influence, /h/ came to be deleted.  However, underlying /h/
remained word-initially destinct as phonetic zero, while words that
(supposedly) begin with a vowel (only if written in romanization, in Hebrew
script with א _'alef_ and ע _`ayn_) have a glottal stop ([ʔ]).*  For
example, Modern Hebrew הם _hem_ [ɛm] (~ conservative [hɛm]) 'they (masc.)'
vs. אם _(')em_ [ʔɛm] 'mother'.

*(In Ancient Hebrew, and still in Hebrew used in Arabic-speaking
environments, the א _'alef_ represents a glottal stop [ʔ], and  _`ayin_
represents the uvular equivalent [ʕ], directly corresponding to Arabic ا
_'alif_ and ع _`ayn_ 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.
=======================================================================