LL-L "Phonology" 2008.06.10 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 10 June 2008 - Volume 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: Travis Bemann <tabemann at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2008.06.09 (04) [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Thanks again, Travis, for these interesting and important bits of
> information. The Kahuna (http://lowlands-l.net/treasures/kahuna.htm) has
> begun to pay attention.
>
> Low Saxon apocope is morpheme-final. There are two interesting things
about
> it:
>
> While it did (or does?) apply in most North Saxon dialects (which are the
> ones that tend to dominate the presence of the language), it did not apply
> in a good number of others, especially in Westphalian and Eastphalian ones
> and North Saxon and Eastern dialects that border them. So you can still
> analyze living varieties that have no apocope.
>
> I would really love to get your analysis of the phenomenon of lengthening
as
> a result of apocope, a feature that goes by many younger people who rely
> much on writing, most of which does not indicate it. In other words, this
> feature, along with distinction between diphthongs and long monophthongs,
is
> in the process of being lost in great part because of poor spelling.
Apocope
> causes lengthening of the preceding syllable, which in cases of long
> monophthongs leads to extra- or super-long monophthongs (referred to as
> Schleifton "drawl tone" in German). What's particularly interesting here
is
> that final devoicing (which otherwise applies consistently) is starved in
> the case of super-length. In other words, it looks as though apocope
applies
> after devoicing. In dialects with intervocalic d-deletion, /d/ may then be
> deleted (which seems to have happened in the case of Dutch luyde > lui
> 'people'), and in a few dialects this happens to /g/ as well. Examples:
>
> Monophthongs:
> hase [ˈhɒːze] ~> haas' [hɒːˑz] (not *[hɒːs]) 'hare'
> (haar [hɒːɐ] 'hair' >) hare [hɒːre] -> haar' [hɒːˑɐ] 'hairs'
> stede [ˈsteː(d)e] ~> steed' [steːˑ(d)] (not *[steːt]) 'stead', 'place',
> 'spot'
> dele [ˈdeːle] ~> deel' [deːˑl] (not *[deːl]) 'floor', 'hallway', 'stage'
> luyde [lyː(d)e] ~> luyd' [ˈlyːˑ(d)] (not *[lyːt]) 'people'
> (bruud 'bride' [bruːt] >) bruyde [ˈbryː(d)e] ~> bruyd' [bryːˑ(d)] (not
> *[bryːt]) 'brides'
> (dag [dax] 'day' >) dage [ˈdɒːɣe] ~> daag' [dɒːˑɣ] (not *[dɒːx]) 'days'
> mage [ˈmɒːɣe] ~> maag' [mɒːˑɣ] (not *[mɒːx]) 'stomach'
> (weg [vɛç] 'way' >) wege [ˈveːɣe] ~ weeg' [veːˑɣ] (not *[veːç]) 'ways'
> (schaap [ʃɒːp] 'sheep' >) schape [ˈʃɒːpe] ~> schaap' [ʃɒːˑp] (not *[ʃɒːp])
> 'sheep' (pl.)
> oge [ʔoːɣe] ~> oog' [ʔoːˑɣ] (not [ʔoːx] or [ʔɔʊx]) 'eye'
> (schip [ʃɪp] 'ship' >) schippe [ˈʃɪpe] ~> scheep' [ʃeːˑp] (not *[ʃeːp])
> 'ships' ([ɪː] > [eː])
> But:
> stimme [ˈstɪˑme] ~> stimm [stɪˑm] 'voice'
> lippe [ˈlɪpe] ~> lipp [lɪp] 'lip'
> valle [ˈfaˑle] ~> vall [ˈfaˑł] 'trap'
> (pot [pʰɔt] 'pot' >) pötte [ˈpʰœte] ~> pöt [pʰœt] 'pots'
>
> Diphthongs:
> (leyge [ˈlɛˑɪʝe] ~ [ˈlaˑɪʝe] >) leyg' [lɛːɪʝ] ~ [laːɪʝ] ('low' >) 'bad'
>    (usually written leeg and mispronounced as [lɛɪç])
> (droyge [ˈdrœˑɪʝe] ~ [ˈdrɔˑɪʝe] >) droyg' [drœːɪʝ] ~ [drɔːɪʝ] 'dry'
>    (usually written dröög and mispronounced as [drœɪç] ~ [drɔɪç])
> louge [ˈlɔˑʊɣe] ~ [ˈlaˑʊɣe] > loug' [ˈlɔːʊɣ] ~ [ˈlaːʊɣ] 'lye', 'leach',
> 'solution'
>    (usually written Loog and mispronounced as [loːx] ~ [lɔʊx])
>
> Please note that apocope does not apply in cases of grammatical marking;
> e.g. Dat huus is groot [groːt] un hoog [hoːx] 'The house/building is big
and
> tall', dat grote [groːte], hoge [ˈhoːɣe] huus 'the big, tall
> house/building'.

As for this, I cannot really speak for certain, particularly because I
do not know all the circumstances of Northern Low Saxon apocope, but I
would probably approach it from the following point of view:

If said apocope is still productive, then it is easy to analyze. In
that case I suspect it would reflect an underlyingly retained /e/ in
word-final positions, as the elision thereof would result in
compensatory lengthening while shielding in the final consonant and
reinforcing its voicing (through it phonemically falling
intervocalically, where voicing influences tend to be very strong
crosslinguistically).

If said apocope is no longer productive, then things are a bit
trickier. In that event one would likely have to have phonemic
overlong vowels in the final syllables of morphemes or have some kind
of special null vowel phoneme following such syllables, and in the
former case either some ad hoc rule where overlong vowels prevent
devoicing of consonants in their codas or treat practically all words
except for words so affected as having final devoicing underlyingly
being allomorphy. As for such allomorphy, the problem would then be
that it would be the rule and not the exception, contrary to how
allomorphy generally works, even though one could treat it in terms of
such being the default behavior of words in general.

Of course, the largest clue to such is how loans from languages
allowing words with word-final schwas and or voiced consonants are
handled. If loans originally ending in schwas undergo apocope, then
such is still productive and thus the first case applies. If loans
originally ending in voiced consonants do not undergo final devoicing,
then the case of having final devoicing implemented through allomorphy
applies. If neither apply, though, it would require further analysis
to determine whether such reflects final null vowel phoneme of some
sort, as ad hoc as that really seems or having a phonemic overlong
vowel whose presence synchronically suppresses final devoicing of its
syllable's coda.

----------

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

Thanks a lot for that, Travis (also for the piece about Wisconsin identity).

Your take on Low Saxon apocope happens to be the same as mine.

Lately I am inclined to see Low Saxon apocope as still productive, resulting
in overlength as a matter of compensatory lengthening, at least in some
dialects. However, I also think that apocope is no longer productive in a
number of dialects and idiolects and that it is these that have dropped
compensatory lengthening.

The reason why I think apocope is still productive at least in some dialects
is precisely the one you mentioned: treatment of loanwords.

For example, these days people say and write *leertast* (*L**ę**ęrtast*)
[ˈleːɝtast] 'space bar' (< German *Leertaste*), *buyn'* (*Bühn*) [byː(ˑ)n]
(< German *Bühne*) for '(theater) stage' (instead of native *speeldeel* (*
Spęęldęęl*)), and *juud'* (*Juud'*) [ɟuː(ˑ)(d)] for 'Jew' (< German *Jude*)
replacing native *joyd'* (*Jööd'*)). However, there are others that say and
write *leertaste* (*L**ę**ęrtaste*), *buyne* (*Bühne*) and *jude* (*Jude*)
respectively.

However, most speakers that apply compensatory lengthening do not know that
they are doing so, and they would not be able to explain it even if they
did. It thus goes by most adult learners, and it does not help that it is
not (consistently) indicated orthographically and so far has not been
described and taught in textbooks for ordinary folk. So, while by no means
dead and gone, it is going down the tubes because of inattention.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080610/f273a3fb/attachment.htm>