LL-L "Phonology" 2011.05.19 (03) [EN-NDS]
Lowlands-L List
lowlands.list at GMAIL.COM
Fri May 20 22:05:49 UTC 2011
=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 21 May 2011 - Volume 03
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================
From: Joachim <Osnabryg+Lowlands at googlemail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2011.05.19 (03) [EN]
Am 20.05.11 06:14, schrieb Luc Hellinckx, Halle, Belgium:
Het is zeker geen "typo"...ik bedoelde wel degelijk dat een "w" soms "t"
wordt in bepaalde Brabantse woorden...maar niet alleen in Brabants by the
way:
new (E) = nieuw (D) = nuut (B) ... compare with Swedish "Gott Nytt År" for
"Good New Year"
blue (E) = blauw (D) = blaat (B) ...
Sometimes also: raw (E) = r(a)uw (D) = raat (B), but also rää (B)
I forgot to mention that "w" even sometimes turns into "g" when at the back
of a word:
mellow (E) = murw (D) = mörg (B) (said of food that is ready to eat, also
meaning "drunk")
Thank you having answered to my appeal. I see, you are widening the thread
to the (linguistically perhaps weightyer) question of sound shift and
phonemic change, the mine was humbly limited to the pronounciation of the
written letters w, v, f in het Standard-Netherlands. Of course are these
topics related to each other.
For my limited concern to be assured that Netherlandish *'w'* was originally
(and - as I thing - *is* still in the authentic civilized manner) pronounced
as bilabial approximated/fricative *as in English* I'd like to argue:
The shift from w to t or g -* neuw > nuut, blauw > blaat, r(a)uw > raat,
murw > mörg - *is a kind of *"Hiattilgung"*, a/one spontaneous way in folk
speech to avoid the collition of too many *vocals or diphthong + vocal. *
Reinhard's example in
Low Saxon; e.g., *blau* ~ *blag'* (Dutch spelling *blauw* ~ *blaog*', IPA
[blaˑʊ] ~ [blɒːˑɣ]) 'blue'.
is of the same kind. I could add others in Westphalian like
*niiu(w)(e) > nig(ge), vrii(e) > vrig(ge), vriien > vriggen, wiie > wigge,
bou(w)en > bovven* (of *bugen* in other LS dialects).
*Anyway this is an endmost averment of the Lowlandic 'w' being generally
articulated semi-vocally and that is bilabial-approximating!*
Met echt-westfœlsken »Goudgaun!«
joachim
--
Kreimer-de Fries
Osnabrügge => Berlin-Pankow
----------
From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Phonology
Joachim, you wrote above:
Reinhard's example in
Low Saxon; e.g., *blau* ~ *blag'* (Dutch spelling *blauw* ~ *blaog*', IPA
[blaˑʊ] ~ [blɒːˑɣ]) 'blue'.
is of the same kind. I could add others in Westphalian like
*niiu(w)(e) > nig(ge), vrii(e) > vrig(ge), vriien > vriggen, wiie > wigge,
bou(w)en > bovven* (of *bugen* in other LS dialects).
You could also add *Froon ~ Froen ~ Fruun ~ Fruen ~ Frugen* 'women'.
But you need to distinguish between "true" /g/ and epenthetic [g].
Epenthetic [g] occurs a lot in dialects of Mecklenburg. See for instance
Hanne's translation: http://lowlands-l.net/anniversary/mekelnborgsch.php .
There is the word *reigenweg* 'totally', which in other dialects is *reinweg
*, based on the German loanword *rein* 'clean', 'pure(ly)' > Low Saxon
'totally', 'altogether', 'absolutely'.
Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA
----------
From: Joachim <Osnabryg+Lowlands at googlemail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2011.05.20 (04) [EN-NDS]
- Nidderdüütsk-Westfœlsk tekst volgt unnedran -
Am 20.05.11 21:35, schrieb Joachim:
*Anyway this is an endmost averment of the Lowlandic 'w' being generally
articulated semi-vocally and that is bilabial-approximating!*
Dear Lowlanders
(especially for those like Hanne mainly dealing with today's Low German
teksten),
The above quoted sentence of mine does not mean, that every "w" in
present-day Low German texts should be pronounced bilabial as English "w".
1. In New LowGerman the bilabial [w] has almost been lost (rare
South-Westphalian exceptions, to wright it they use /b/, what in effect is a
shift to [b]).
2. New Low German has no (voiced) [v] - either lost or never have had
(because of Frisian influence?), so the use of f and v (as in the official
Duden orthography in High German) is rather accidental. (See "vor", but
"für" for the same radical word.)
3. New Low Saxon is widely following the Standard High German spelling,
which isn't rational.
4. The bilabial phonem [w] lost, in most cases the phonem [v] is written
(as in High German) as /w/. With the foreign and loan word exceptions.
Therefore, the above sentence applies to English and Dutch as to Middel Low
Saxon, but not to New Low German Platt. (It *should* be applied in the cases
where it is historically correct like "waar/wor, wind, wedder/wiär and the
like).
--------- Westfœlske samenvatting -------------
Up 20 mey 1911 21:35 scraif Joachim:
*
Jedenvals is dat de endgüllige bewiis, dat dat Laaglandske 'w' in't
algemeyne half as miieklinker (as halfvokaal) uutsproken word un dat heyt:
met nadering van beyde lippen (bilabial-apprximativ).
*
Leyve Laaglanders
(sünnerlik vör dey as Hanne, de vöral met hüdigendags Nidderdüütsk te doun
hebben),
Miin buaven citeerde zat/zin zolde nich bedüden, dat alle 'w' in
hüdigendagse Plat-teksten salt/müeten met twee lippen (bilabial) as Ingels
"w" uutsproken worden.
1. In't Plat van vandage is dat bilabiale [w] verloren gaun. (Et gift
rare Züüd-Westfœlske uutnamen - die bruukt /b/ üm et te scriven, wat man up
een verscuving nach [b] ruutsuurt.)
2. Hüdigendags Plat heft nin (stimhaft) [v] - verloren odder nienich had
(vanwegen Friisken invlut?), zo dat de bruuk van f un v (ouk in de
officieele Duden-scriifwiis vör Haugdüütsk) tämelik touvällig is. (Zü "vor"
un "für" vör dezülvige woord-wordel.)
3. Nig-Niddersassisk (Plat) heft wiidgaunend de Standard (Haug-)Düütske
scriiving üövernomen, dey man nich van vernül is.
4. Ümdat de tweelippige (bilabiale) luut [w] verloren gaun is, word de
luut [v] meestal, as in Haug-Düütsk, 'w' scriven (uutnaam vremd- un
leenwöörden), man dat is dan nich en kenteken vör de bilabiale luut [w].
Dorüm drept de buaven citeerde zat/zin wol up Ingelsk en Nidderlandsk (as
ouk up Middelnidderdüütsk) tou, man nich up Nig-Niddersassisk Plat.
(Eygenlik zolde men et gliik in vällen aanwenden, wor et historisk richtig
wöör as bii *"waar/wor, wind, wedder/wiär"* un dergliiken.)
Met echt-westfœlsken »Goudgaun!«
joachim
--
Kreimer-de Fries
Osnabrügge => Berlin-Pankow
===============================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html .
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
===============================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20110520/d2d7c5b5/attachment.htm>
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list