|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, May 7, 2006, 8:11|
What is <ij> really? Wikipedia says it's [Ei], but I'm currently in
Amsterdam and my Anglophonic ears hear it as a variety of "long i"
rather than "long a", which is what I'd expect in that case. Maybe
it's closer to [&i]?
My perpetual difficulty in distinguishing [a] and [A:] continues.
Fortunately, there is a length difference to go with the quality one,
but it'd be nice if it were [&:] instead of [A:], as I was led to
believe by the imprecise fauxnetic descriptions in "Teach Yourself
The lack of aspiration really stands out, I find. But the most
noticeable sound, in rapid conversation where I have no idea what is
being said, is [x]. Lots and lots of [x]. (I'm told that in the
analogous situation with English, [s] is what stands out...)
Wikipedia says that <g> is [G], although many dialects have merged it
with [x]. I've heard nothing but [x] so far in words like <zagt> - is
that indication of a merged 'lect or is it just assimilation to the
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>