Re: Dutch questions

Hi!

Mark J. Reed writes:
> 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]?
For <ij>, some dialects and Standard Dutch have [&i], other dialects
have [i:].  There's also <ei> which is also [&i] is most (all?)
dialects.  This is also one reason why the distinction <ei> vs. <ij>
was retained: some dialects have different pronunciations for them
although in Standard Dutch, both are [&i].

You do see [Ei] for it, that's right, but I'd also think it's more
like [&i], at least from those speakers I've heard.

In the younger generation, it often is pronounced [ai], btw., which is
considered sub-standard.  (And this is exactly the way German got its
[aI] pronunciation for <ei>.)

> My perpetual difficulty in distinguishing [a] and [A:] continues.
Did you mix up the CXS symbols?  Dutch has [a:] vs. [A].  Some German
dialects (mainly coastal) retain [a] vs. [A:], while most have [a_"]
vs. [a_":] (which are usually written [a] vs. [a:] for simplicity).
Thus I had difficulties distinguishing the Dutch vowels, too.

> 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 Dutch"...
Unfortunately (for a German like me), the length distinction is
only retained in the /a/-vowels ([a:] vs [A]) and before /r/.  I
still have some problems with [i] vs. [I]: <vies> vs <vis>.

Further, since /e:/ is usually [eI], I mixed it up with [&i].

Dutch vowels are definitely not a piece of cake.

> 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
> -t?
My impression is that many dialects only have [X] while some, mainly
southern ones, have <g> [x] vs. <ch> [X].  I don't seem to remember
any [G] in Dutch.  (When I speak Dutch, I consistently use [X], but
I'm not a native, of course.)

**Henrik

Reply