LL-L "Phonology" 2008.06.13 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 13 June 2008 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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" 2008.06.13 (03) [E]

Heh - actually, both changes occurred historically in English, with
the change from Old English [ɑː] ([A:]) to Late Middle English [ɔː]
([O:]), and with the change from Late Middle English [aː] ([a:]) to
Early New English [ɛː] ([E:]).

> In Groningen, speakers tend to pronounce every Dutch long aa palatally as
> ae [{:]. This is interesting because in Groningen Low Saxon, both A sounds
> are pronounced very dark as oa [o:]. In their dialects it is goan, woater
> etc., but when speaking Standard Dutch it's gaen, waeter etc.!

That actually sounds like a sort of hypercorrection due to the
perceived difference between Groningen Low Saxon and Standard Dutch,
such that their Dutch pronunciation is exaggerated relative to that of
Groningen Low Saxon.

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Phonology
>
> Thanks, guys!
>
> Ingmar, have you ever researched if there are any early differentiations
> between what in modern varieties is the separation of [a:] and [ɒ:]? It
> might be worth our while to look at ancient forms in comparison with a
short
> list of examples.
>
> Paul, it's great to "see" you again.
>
> I suspect it still had its terminal "r", rather like Americans say it.
>
> Yes, everyone seems to agree that rhoticism was the norm in the happening
> places of Southern England in Shakespeare's time. Actually, when you take
> all of the safe reconstructed features together (including the
> characteristic [əɪ]* for what is now [aɪ] as in "I" and "eye") you end up
> with something less sounding like American English, a bit more like Irish
> English, and very much like old-time Southwest English dialects on which
> "pirate talk" is based. ("Aye, me hearrties!") I don't know how that would
> have gone over had it been used in the movie. (Imagine Gwyneth Paltrow
> talking "like a pirate"!)  I believe these are the old-time English
dialects
> of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, western Wiltshire and southern
Gloucestershire
> (Bristol). Right? These could simply be more conservative.
>
> (* This [əɪ] sound -- mid-shift between old [i:] and modern [aɪ] -- also
> survived in many Scots and Scottish English varieties.)
>
> I am in the middle of tweaking some phonetic detail of my Early Modern
> English Wren translation. It should be up soon. Is anyone game to make a
> recording? If not, I might end up taking a stab at it myself, or even in
> addition. The more the merrier.
>
> They still pronounce it through much of Southwest England, and they were
> doing so in Kent and Sussex into the 20th C.
>
> This is interesting with respect to Old Saxon, since we are talking about
> one of England's "hard-core" Saxon areas. Non-rhoticism as in Southeastern
> England, in Australia, in New Zealand and so forth is pretty much
identical
> with that of Northern Low Saxon.* However, perhaps they developed
> independently from each other then. I had always wondered if the "seeds"
of
> it had crossed over to England with early Saxon colonization.
>
> (* Non-rhoticism and voiceless stop aspiration are two important
> phonological features Southern English dialects share with the Northern
Low
> Saxon heartland dialects, as opposed to rhoticism and non-aspiration in
Low
> Franconian, or rather Franconian in general.)

I would suspect that is largely coincidental, as non-rhoticism in
southern English English dialects actually developed quite late (in
the 1600s), and only spread to the majority of England during the 20th
century. I think it would be more likely that the presence of
non-rhoticism in Northern Low Saxon is likely more closely related to
the development of such in High German dialects, which non-rhoticism
being areal in nature in continental West Germanic, than to the
development of such in English English myself.

----------

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

Travis,

The thoughts of both your points have crossed my mind also.

As for "non-rhoticism", it seems difficult to determine which came first:
Low Saxon or German. The phonology of Standard German is strongly influenced
by Low Saxon. (By this I don't mean historical shifts, folks.)  Southerners
perceive "real high" pronunciation as very Northern, "Prussian." As for
Southern German dialects, there are those that are rhotic and those that are
non-rhotic (just as there are those that aspirate and those that don't). I
think the non-rhotics have it, though.

My feeling is that you are right, though, that non-rhoticism developed
independently in Low Saxon and Southern English. The same probably applies
to great similarities of diphthongs (e.g. Lower Elbe realization of /ou/ to
[ɛʊ] or [eʊ] where others have [oʊ], [ɔʊ], [aʊ] etc.) and the characteristic
realization of /ar/ as [aː] (rather than [ɑː]) shared with Australian, New
Zealand and some Southern England dialects.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080613/c624c1b0/attachment.htm>