LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.18 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 18.OCT.2004 (02) * 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: Ingmar Roerdinkholder <ingmar.roerdinkholder at worldonline.nl>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2004.10.17 (10) [E]

>  R. F. Hahn:<
>
> >
> Ingmar, are you saying that Drenthe (and other) Lowlands Saxon dialects of
> the Netherlands has *three* phonemes -- w, v, f?  We would want to
consider
> only phonemes, not Dutch orthography quirks.
>
> The dialects on the German side have only /v/ and /f/, which in native
words
> we spell <w> and <v> respectively.  The intervocalic <v> can be [v] or
[b],
> dependent on the dialect.
>
>>>>>Yes, initially: W isn't V isn't F. Just as in Dutch these are phonemes
not just spellings.
I think the Dutch and Dutch Lower Saxon preserve the original situation, and
Lower Saxon
in Germany took the f- pronunciation from Standard German.
Why? Because there were originally initial v-, z-, and dh- (>d)in the
Lowland Western Germanic varieties
i.e. in the ancestors of Saxon, Dutch, Franconian etc, from the Old Germanic
reibelauts f-, s- and th-.
The spelling v- for this voiced f- reflects nothing more than its
pronunciation.
In Dutch and in Dutch Lower Saxon v- before a vowel is [v] not *[f], w- is
another type of [v] not the same as v,
and f = [f].
It would seem logical that the LSaxon of Germany had these three phonemes
once too, but under the influence
of German the [v] became [f]. Just like initial g- [G] became [g] like in
German in most dialects, and initial [s] in consonant
clusters became [S]... Ingmar

----------

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

Thanks, Ingmar.

Dutch (and Netherlands Lowlands Saxon?) /w/ is pronounced as a labiodental
glide.  It corresponds to voiced fricative [v] in the dialects on the German
side of the border.

The phonetic output of Dutch (and Netherlands Lowlands Saxon?) /v/ is a bit
of a mystery to those outside the area.  People in the Netherlands describe
it as a "devoiced v".  Well, a "devoiced v" would be [f] according to
internationally accepted principles.  However, native speakers swear up and
down that you can clearly hear the difference between /v/ and /f/.  I have
been listening and listening and have come to the conclusion that the
difference is a puff of air that accompanies /f/ and does not accompany /v/.
It is easy to imagine -- if you are right, Ingmar, and this set of three is
original and was disturbed by German influence in "Oostersch" -- and I tend
to go along with you there -- that /v/ came to be usurped by /f/ in the
east, thereby creating a set of two phonemes out of a set of three.

So ...

Initials:

Netherlands:  w  |  v  |  f

Germany:       v   |     f

In a spelling system that allows dialectal variation with maximal
interdialectal reading comprehension (which is what I propose), we would
therefore have to free up the <v> for the /v/ of the Netherlands and write
<f> for what is true initial /f/ in all varieties.  What do you think,
Kenneth, others?  This, together with <ii> makes the system look more and
more like North Frisian.

Ingmar, you wrote:

> >>>>> Oh, I didn't read it so well then again, huh? But I understand in
> Germany this
> LowSax initial v- is always pronounced as [f] ? That's different in LowSax
> in the Netherlands,
> where [v] is written as v- and [f] as f, before a vowel that is. As I said
> earlier, vr- and vl-
> are pronounced [fr]/[fl]. vroagen [frO:gN] = to ask  and  vrij [frIj] =
> free; vlochten [floxtN] = to flee;
> here v- is spelled because Dutch writes and pronounces [v] in stead of [f]
> in these consonant clusters.
> But we spell with f: flesse ["flEs@] = bottle, fluiten [f9ytN] = to
> whistle/flute, fruit [fr9yt] = fruit
> because of these words have f in Dutch too.

We don't care about following Dutch and German idiosyncracies, as I had
said.  So the (nativized) words for "bottle" (which on the German side
happens to be _bottel_ or _buttel_), "to whistle" and "fruit" would have to
be spelled _vlesse_, _vlöyten_ and _vröyt_ respectively.

But where *do* the Saxon dialects of the Netherlands pronounce /v/ as this
"devoiced v"?  As initials followed by vowels?  E.g., _vechten_ 'to fight',
_vinden_ 'to find', _vaak_ ~ _vaken_ 'often'?

We have to be absolutely sure this initial /v/ is really and truly a
separate phoneme and thus requires its own grapheme.

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