Re: VW (was: Digest 2 Apr)

En réponse à Irina Rempt <ira@...>:

>
> Yes. Also for the letter <v>, though <v> is slightly more tense and
> in most dialects partially or completely devoiced (which makes it
> sound almost exactly like <f>). The difference between my /v/ and
> /f/, for instance, is *only* that /v/ is lax and /f/ is tense if I'm
> speaking carefully; neither has any voicing at all.
>
My boyfriend's dialect has definitely /v/ as a voiced fricative (not
approximant), though it tends to be devoiced easily (especially when he speaks
with Dutch people from the North :) ), except between two vowels where it stays
definitely voiced. My way of pronouncing Dutch (and I want to keep it that way
even if I'm going to take Dutch lessons in Delft) is quite Sourthern too: I
pronounce /v/ as a voiced fricative and /r/ as an alveolar flap. I find it nicer
(read: less German) than using a voiceless lax fricative and an uvular
fricative...

> Southern speakers, like your boyfriend, may use a bilabial
> approximant (or even a bilabial semivowel) for <w> in some contexts.
>
Definitely after another consonnant. He pronounces twaalf: "twelve" as
['twa:l@f]. In any other case, he uses a labiodental approximant (rarely a
labiodental fricative, but since he insists on saying that his /v/, /f/ and /w/
are all different, I guess it must be my ear which is not used to the sound).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Reply