Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Dutch questions

From:Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>
Date:Sunday, May 7, 2006, 11:49
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

Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>