Re: 'mispronunciation' of "engelang" (was: Introduction)

2009/4/2 G. van der Vegt <gijsstrider@...>

> >
> > What surprises me more is that you don't pronounce "melk" with an
> epenthetic
> > syllable. I normally always hear it pronounced ["mEl@k]. The [@] is
> usually
> > very short, but definitely present.
>
> I've heard people from the west pronounce it like that too, but in my
> home region (Salland), barely anyone I know who has lived there all
> his/her live does so. Same with the epithentic syllable in /r/ +
> consonant, much to the annoyance of a friend of mine. His name is
> "Harm", which we pronounce [hA*m] (* represents /r/, which is quite
> variable in my region), but people from the west usually say something
> like [A*@m] (Again * represents /r/)
>
Funny, although I have lived in the West in the past (in The Hague), I now
live in the North (Assen) and my husband is from Brabant (from the area
called de Kempen), and in both areas, both in Dutch and in the respective
dialects, the epenthetic vowel is definitely present (in my husband's
dialect, it's as strong as a normal vowel. "Melk" is fully dissyllabic). So
it's not just a Western feature. Why do you think it is?

Note however that the epenthetic vowel does not appear in all cases. I've
noticed for instance that "hart" and "hert" are usually monosyllabic, as is
the lastname "Pelt".  So the epenthetic vowel doesn't seem to appear when
the final consonant is /t/, even in dialects that normally have a strong
epenthetic vowel.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/

Reply