LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.JUN.2005 (03) * 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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.05.07 (01) [E]


Ingmar wrote:
"Yes, but how can anybody mistaken for [y] - since those sounds don't look
alike at all - not even in Canadian?"

I suppose you would have to ask an American why he or she hears [y] for the
Canadian dipthong. I am not American and I do not confuse the two, and I
cannot understand how anyone would, as my original question made clear.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.


----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2005.06.06 (07) [E]


Ed Alexander wrote:
"Ha ha. It's just that I think must have explained my point of view about
this spelling three or four times over the years, and it always seems to be
such a hard point to make. Please excuse my expression of my frustration
which was meant to be humorous."

You have explained some aspects of the dipthong from your point of view, and
some aspects of the history of Canadian English to those of us (and I would
include myself foremostly here) who know - or knew - very little about the
idiom. Your answers a couple of years ago sent me off investigating so that
know I am fairly well versed in the peculiarities of Canadian English. I was
grateful for that initial spark from you.

However, I think it unfair of you to be frustrated, even in a light-hearted
manner. I do not understand why you should find continuous discussion on the
nature, consequences and origins of Canadian raising tedious, and you could
always ignore those posts that obsess on it. Several topics resurface now
and again on the list (Yola is a good example), but new and fascinating
aspects always develop and informing newer members is never a chore.

Perhaps your frustration with the thread on Canadian raising goes back to my
original point about the tedium of it being pointed out and mocked by
Americans? (Perhaps you also believe that a focus on Canadian raising
ignores other, more interesting aspects of Canadian speech.)

Oh, and here's a question for you: do the Newfoundland English variants
exhibit raising and, if so, did they acquire it after 1949 or is it long
established in them?

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

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