LL-L "Orthography" 2005.12.28 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 29 December 2005 * Volume 04
======================================================================

From: "Henry Pijffers" <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.12.24 (04) [E]

Jacqueline wrote:
>
> In "Ik had een hoed" (I had a hat) the d in "had" is
> pronounced with a "d" sound, but at the end of the sentence the "d" in
> "hoed" comes out sounding like a "t". On the other hand, in "de hoed die
> ik had" (the hat I had), "had is pronounced with a "t"
 >
I don't agree (and I'm a native speaker). When pronouncing the -d at the
end of either hoed or had, my mouth is in the same position as when
pronouncing a regular voiced d, only the sound produced isn't voiced.
This resembles a t, but the position of the mouth is different from when
pronouncing a t. For a d there is an opening between my front teeth,
whereas for a t there hardly is any.

> Hi Steve, Although both "hebben" and "hoeven" clearly have the same
> great-grand parents, they have entirely different meanings in Dutch.
> "hebben" as an independent verb means to be in posession of; like in "ik
> heb
> een kat". is used as the helper verb in sentences like" "Ik heb de kat
> gezien". "Hoeven" on the other hand belongs to a class of almost-modal
> verbs
> It uses "te" in combination with another (action) verb like in: "Hij hoeft
> geen appels te kopen" (he does not have to do any homework).
 >
However, one could say "je hebt het maar te doen" (you just got to do
it), or, to use one of your examples, "hij heeft maar appels te kopen"
(he's just got to buy apples).

Henry

----------

From: "Gary Taylor" <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Grammar

Hi All

Been away from a computer for a while, so have only
just read the last few mails...

It seems I wasn't being very clear with what I was
saying as regards:

>whereas a
written form should portray the way a language is
spoken and not the other way round.
<

With this I was just meaning that spoken language came
first, and the written form was 'invented' to express
what was spoken. Spellings in English haven't been
systematically updated for donkey's years, which means
that the orthographic system is now somewhat erratic.
I think to change English spellings is something that
is practically impossible to do, as it will always
favour one particular dialect - which is one of the
beauties about English spelling as it stands that it
doesn't correspond to any living dialect. It obviously
also has its drawbacks as it's very difficult to
express exact sounds in dialect writing and everyone
occasionally makes spelling mistakes.

I admire the fact that there have been spelling
reforms in German to try and keep it fairly phonetic
(in my mind these did not go far enough - how about
introducing some way of distinguishing short and long
vowels before 'ch' for example...). This is
unfortunately not possible in English without a
complete rethinking of the orthography.

So no, I wasn't calling for a rethinking of
orthography. However, writing what you say is
important, and changes in grammar and lexicon are
possible within an written English framework. If I was
to have written this sentence 100 years ago, then
probably most people would have frowned at my use of
'was' instead of 'were'. This 'was' now falls into the
realm of standard British English (along with 'were' -
both equally acceptable), the conditional gradually
disappearing, and so is (at least in England) no
longer frowned upon by the majority. Yes, I also wrote
that last sentence with a 'have' instead of an 'of'
although in my mind both could equally be used, but
that's just going over old ground again.

So don't bother with changing English orthography,
it's too much of an uphill struggle against those who
don't like change. But we can use the language to
reflect what's actually said with our strange
orthography, instead of saying that, because something
has always been written in a certain way, it can't be
changed as it's the only 'correct' form.

Gary

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html

----------

From: "Gary Taylor" <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L Phonology

Hi Ingmar and all

you wrote about 'is' /Iz/ changing to /Is/ before
voiceless consonants. This is only partly true in
English. The main difference in final voiced and
voiceless consonants in English is the length of the
previous vowel. Vowels before voiced consonants in
English are slightly tenser and longer than those
before voiceless consonants. The amount of voicing on
the consonant is largely dependent on the following
sound. If the 'voiced' consonant is followed by a
voiceless consonant or a pause it will be less voiced
itself (so perhaps only voiced at the very start of
the consonant). This is probably what you hear.
However, the previous vowel is still slightly longer
and tenser before this consonant, which is why English
speakers hear the sound as voiced (vowel length being
the trigger for voicing and not the actually voicing
of the consonant). So what you're describing is a
phonetic change, whereas phonemically there is no
change and 'iz' remains 'iz'.

Also I think Dutch has a process whereby the voiced
consonants become phonemically voiceless before other
voiceless consonants, this might also be interfering
with what you hear.

Changing 'have to' to 'haff to' is a grammatical
process and not a phonemic one, in the same way as
'want to' becomes 'wanna' and 'going to' becomes
'gonna', so yes it could be regarded as colloquial,
although it is very common, and in spoken English the
latter forms are far more likely to be heard than the
former. English language learners should be aware of
these and taught to use these forms when speaking in
order that their English does not sound as stilted.
(In much the same way as "won't" is what you'll hear,
but 'will not' is what you're more likely to see
written, although always saying 'will not' makes
English sound stilted).

Gary

http://hometown.aol.com/taylor16471/myhomepage/index.html

----------

From: "jpkrause" <jpkrause at sunflower.com>
Subject: Orthography

What's wrong with making a simple correction on a student's paper?  All
the instructor must do is substitute 've for of, and you have it.  This
is actually what the writer means and misspells.  Would of= would've and
could of = could've.   I remember having this drill when I was in about
grade 8 or so.   It's a spelling error like definately vs. definitely.
Gauns kloa un eenfach.

Jim Krause

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