This is generally true. I just wished to add that my wife (who is russian) had no problems with this sound. By the way: it is my impression that foreignersMessage 1 of 87 , Jul 31, 2005View SourceThis is generally true. I just wished to add that my wife (who is
russian) had no problems with this sound.
By the way: it is my impression that foreigners have less problems
learning flemish than standard-dutch.
--- roerdinkholder_ingmar <ingmar.roerdinkholder@...> wrote:
> Yes, Dutch ui is one of the most difficult sounds for foreigners to___________________________________________________________
> learn. I work with foreign people from all over the world daily who
> come to live in the Netherlands and who are learning Dutch at
> school, and <ui> becoms usually something like [2:], [au], [ai],
> [oi] in their mouths. So [2y] for PG au has no use...
> --- In email@example.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
> > I once tried to objectively establish what the mean sound of this
> > u was among the source language. I plotted the sounds in the 4
> > on a 2D matrix with Front-back on one axis, close-open on the
> > You will see a similar matrix on an IPA chart. I then worked out
> the x
> > and y co-ordinates for the average. I divided each sound into a 2
> > parts, treating the long u sounds as a dipthong. That is Scandy
> > was treated as [}}].
> > So I was able to establish the average vowel sound for both the
> > and second part of the sound.
> > The biggest hole in my methodology that I now see, is I did not
> > consider the rounded-unrounded dimension, which would add a z axis
> > the matrix. I might some time re-caculate the data with that in
> > Bizarrely, or perhaps serendipitously, the average sound was very
> > close to [2Y]] which is the sound of standard Dutch "ui".
> > For this reason, I would consider [2Y] a good candidate for this
> > phoneme. It's also quite close to the German "äu" or "eu" phoneme.
> > The biggest disadvantage I can see for this sound, it that it is
> > hard for us foreigners to pronounce.
> > Could some of the Dutch speakers tell us what they think of this?
> > the "ui" sound particularly difficult for foreign speakers of
> Dutch to
> > master?
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Yeah, well, then I will use -e . I have already eliminated a case system in my FS, by the way. Bye, Stephan ... whereas persons is ... point is ... in ...Message 87 of 87 , Aug 5, 2005View SourceYeah, well, then I will use "-e".
I have already eliminated a case system in my FS, by the way.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jan-Willem Benjamins
>whereas "persons" is
> --- stefichjo <sts@s...> wrote:
> > "people" is the (collective) plural of "person",
> > the countable plural of "person". The idea of countable<-point is
> > exists in english. This was one point I wanted to show (this
> > about _concept_).in
> Okay, so the _concept_ exists in english, but it is _not_ reflected
> the grammar. If you want a collective word for "person", you takethe
> word "people". That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that "people" is aforms
> plural of "person", in much the same way as "countryside" is not a
> collective plural of "farm".
> > The other point is that in German there are different plural
> > (this point is about _form_) (Männer <-> Mannen, Wörter <->Worte).
> > In FS I wanted to relate form and concept. This is my attempt tosave
> > both form and concept, otherwise you would just add "-s" tomissing
> > everything that is plural, and I find that some salt would be
> > in our "soup".language,
> The grammar of any auxlang will be simplified. I personally like the
> case-system of german, as it adds so much flexibility to the
> but I think it would be silly to introduce it into FS, as no otherYou
> sourcelang (with the exception of Icelandic) has anything similar.
> Same goes for the countable<->collective distinction (form-wise).
> can hardly call it common in the sourcelangs.new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> > As I stated before, there is no need that I insist on this plural
> > system. My nouns (until now) don't end in "e", so "e" might be a
> > perfect plural ending for me. (German: Ding -> Dinge (FS: thing -
> > thinge)).
> That sounds absolutely fine.
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all