LL-L "Phonology" 2005.03.08 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.MAR.2005 (11) * 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: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Onomastica

Hi Heather, Ron and all

Ron, you wrote:
"Then, still occurring in more recent times, there is dialectal or
idiolectal replacement of /T/
by /f/ and /D/ by /v/ (e.g., "both" as "bofe", "the" as "ve", "rather" as
"rahver", and "through" as "frough")."

I've never heard 've' for 'the' - Initial voiced 'th' has actually lost it's
fricative feel, but initially
it's still dental (or possibly substituted with 'd', but not 'v'). In the
middle of a word it has the usual
fricative feel and it's here that it caqn be substituted with 'v'.

Heather, you wrote regarding to use of this feature:
"This is now known as Estuary English  i.e. spoken from the East End of
London ( Cockneys) to the Essex coast."

I would say it's more of a Cockney feature than an Estuary feature - there
is a difference! Estuary tends to be a kind of halfway accent between
Cockney and RP. There are a number of Cockney features which are generally
seen as Estuary, such as l-vocalisation (making them sound like 'w' after
vowels), and t-glottalling when the t is word final - giving <bu'> instead
of <but>, however features such as t-glottalling when it's between two
vowels, giving <bu'er> instead of <butter> or the use of f and v for th are
very much more in the Cockney range, being 'frowned upon' and 'corrected'
within Estuary speaking areas.

However saying that, the feature turning th into f and v is spreading
throughout England and has been recorded in London, Colchester, Reading,
Milton Keynes, Norwich, The Fens, Derby, Birmingham, Hull, Sheffield,
Middlesborough and Newcastle, (however not yet in Liverpool!!) so I wouldn't
be at all surprised if it doesn't become more accepted within Estuary.

Also Ron, you mentioned briefly about r being pronounced as w (or rather
Sampa /P/ - it's still
different from w - red and wed are not identical!). This is also spreading
in England - and this is an
accepted part of Estuary (being a feature of my own English)- and has been
recorded in London, Colchester, Reading, Milton Keynes, Norwich, The Fens,
Derby, Hull, Middlesborough and Newcastle, with it creeping into Liverpool
and Birmingham (although there was no data from Sheffield for this feature).

(I got the info from David Britain, 2002, 'Phoenix from the ashes?: The
death, contact and birth of
dialects in England', Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 41:42-73 - also
available on the internet at www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/papers/errl-41b.pdf
in case anyone's interested)

Gary
----------

From: Gary Taylor <gary_taylor_98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology

Hi Ingmar and all

you wrote:
"I think in Danish -g > -v is quite normal too.
A somewhat stranger Danish soundshift to me is that of -t > -d > -dh > L.
E.g. støt > stød > sdø?dh > sdø?L = punch/push/gust, and the name for  the
special interesting Danish tonal accent.
But in Danish there has been such an enormous chain of soundshifts that
entirely changed the language's character compared to the other Scandinavian
languages. My own theory is in fact that these changes started outside
Denmark, in Northern Low Saxon, with the devoicing of
intervocal stops -p-, -k-, -t- > -b-, -g-, -d-. In Groningen Low Saxon we
see the same tendency. Further developments in Danish were then: -b-
> -bh-, -g- > gh-, -d- > -dh- etc etc"

I've always wondered about this myself, why Danish p, t, k changed to b, d,
g. In the middle of a word it's quite a natural process, Spanish had it in
its history too, for example - but it doesn't go to explaining why these
changes took place at the end of a word, and I don't think this can be from
the influence of Low Saxon, cos this tends (or tended) to go in the opposite
direction so that b, d, g change into p, t, k, as in High German and
Dutch... - But anyway this is all rather off topic for the list... :/

What does Southern Jutish do? - I think I'm allowed that one as a contact
language ;)

Gary

----------

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

Oy, Gary!

> I've never heard 've' for 'the' -

I did in Australia.

Cheers!
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.
======================================================================