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

2009/4/2 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela.cg@...>:
> 2009/3/30 G. van der Vegt <gijsstrider@...>
>
>> 2009/3/30 Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>:
>> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM, G. van der Vegt <gijsstrider@...>
>> wrote:
>> >> Possibly due to Dutch influence, as this is the area around the New
>> >> Netherlands, and the Dutch cognate of <milk> (<melk>) usually has [E]
>> >> as the vowel. (My own pronounciation would be [mE4k])
>> >
>> > [4] as an allophone of /l/?  That's intriguing.  (YADPT ho!)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's not exactly common, as my pronouncation of the
>> liquids (/r/ and /l/) is one of the most common sources of people
>> misunderstanding my speech. I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do
>> with an anomaly to my tongue, my "tongriem" (Don't know the English
>> term for the part.) is shorter than it should be.
>>
>>
> (Sorry for picking this up so late, couldn't reply for a few days)
>
> 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/)

Reply