LL-L "Phonology=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8B=22_?=2013.04.19 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L - 19 April 2013 - Volume 01
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: Luc Vanbrabant <lucv32 at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2013.04.18 (02) [EN]

 Dag allemaal,

'Beyond' is related to our (Saxon)Flemish (Nederlands in brackets):

gunt gunt guntste gintste (daar) E: there
Gunter ginter Gunster Ginster (ginder) E: over there
'Beyond' sounds not odd in Flemish : begunt beginst ... (even though that
word does not exist)
It is like 'besides', in Flemish  'bezijds' ( bezijden)

Groetjes,

Luc Vanbrabant
Oekene


> Paul & Ron:
>
> Subject: LL-L "Phonology"
>
> On 4/17/2013 6:35 PM, Ron F. Hahn wrote:
>
> What seems like a large percentage of American English speakers
> pronounces the word "beyond" like "be-ond" ([biˈʔɔnd], instead of
> like [biˈjɔnd]).
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> It seems to me that [biˈʔɔnd] would be more difficult to pronounce than
> [biˈjɔnd], and therefore less frequent. In progressing from the "i" sound,
> with the back of tongue against the roof of the mouth, to the "o" sound,
> with the tongue against the floor of the mouth, would not the "y" sound be
> made automatically in the absence of a glottal stop? (Try saying "ia-ia-ia"
> and see how the tongue moves.) Tightening the muscles of the throat to stop
> the flow of air between "i" and "o" would take more energy.
>
> Mark here:
>
> May I suggest that the question may be more satisfactorily answered
> philologically rather than phonologically?
>
> For example in the English of our grandfathers of old (who learned it in
> school), there is the word 'yonder' - meaning 'over that way', & the word
> 'thither' meaning something similar, or 'over in that place' as opposed to
> 'there' by which they but not we would have meant merely 'that place' with
> no implication of distance.
>
> Then again, the 'be-' may be a prefix modifier belonging to a hard-used
> group of the same in all West Netherfrankish languages including Anglian &
> Old English (Quirk & Wrenn) & beyond, along with 'ge-', 'her-', 'er-',
> 'ont-' & 'ver-'.
> In Afrikaans for example we have 'besonder' - 'singular', 'gesonder' -
> 'separated' & 'sonder' - 'without'.
>
> English still has 'bewitched', 'bebothered' & 'bewildered'... Also
> 'beyond'; all old words with dangling ends & histories, but then that is
> one of the charms of English.
>
> Ron, greetings from an old lurker, if you can forgive that & my ungraceful
> advent, after so long. It is only because of the general level of erudition
> that I so seldom have any mite to contribute to the common pool myself, but
> I sup shamelessly.
>
> Paul, you will have fun here. I guarantee it.
>
> Love to all, & the same from my Ruth,
> Mark & Ruth
>

----------

From: Paul Baronowsky <paulb1 at insightbb.com>
Subject: LL-L "Phonology" 2013.04.18 (02) [EN

On 4/18/2013 9:52 PM, Mark Dreyer wrote:

Mark here:
> May I suggest that the question may be more satisfactorily answered
> philologically rather than phonologically?


Hello Mark, Thank you for your comments, with which I completely agree. It
seemed to me, however, that Ron's initial post was focused on the present
day phonological aspect of the question, contrasting [biˈʔɔnd] with
[biˈjɔnd]. I assumed that the first pronunciation had a glottal stop
between the two syllables and no "y" sound - at least, that's what the IPA
symbols indicate to me.

I still think that [biˈʔɔnd] would be more difficult to pronounce than
[biˈjɔnd], and therefore less frequently used, regardless of philological
history.

One (at least) error that I made was to write about the "o" sound. I should
have written: the "a" sound - be-YAHND, as was pointed out by another
poster (sorry, I don't have that post at hand right now).

Paul, you will have fun here. I guarantee it.


Thank you, Mark. I have had much fun already for over thirteen months, and
I expect much more. I, too, have little to give and much to take, and I
find the table to be well spread to my liking.

MfG, Paul (Baronowsky)

----------

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

Luc, you wrote:


> 'Beyond' is related to our (Saxon)Flemish (Nederlands in brackets):
>
gunt gunt guntste gintste (daar) E: there
> Gunter ginter Gunster Ginster (ginder) E: over there


In Northern Low Saxon:

günt ~ gunt ~ günnen 'beyond'
güntọ̈ver ~ guntọ̈ver 'beyond', 'opposite'
güntsiet ~ guntsiet 'beyond'
Paul:


> I still think that [biˈʔɔnd] would be more difficult to pronounce than
> [biˈjɔnd], and therefore less frequently used, regardless of philological
> history.


 What about "ask" having replaced earlier "aks"?

Mark:


> English still has 'bewitched', 'bebothered' & 'bewildered'... Also
> 'beyond'; all old words with dangling ends & histories, but then that is
> one of the charms of English.


And there's "belong".

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

=========================================================
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/20130419/1f99841a/attachment.htm>