Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in Dutch.)

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    Hi Andrew, Who can say for sure that the original PIE prono of *w was exactly [w]? Although we have some good evidence in for example classical Latin, where V
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Andrew,
      Who can say for sure that the original PIE prono of *w was exactly [w]?
      Although we have some good evidence in for example classical Latin,
      where V and U were originally the same letter and presumably pronounced
      similarly -- [w] as consonant and [u] as vowel. And in the conjugations
      of roots, it could be realized as a vowel or as a consonant. eg
      solutio(n-) and solvere. It took a long time in the Middle Ages before
      "v", "u" and "w" became established as 3 separate letters and were used
      consistently like they are today. This clouds the pronunciation changes
      that occurred in that period.
      *w when coupled with *k has remained [w] in such Spanish words as
      "cuando". My knowledge of PIE is sketchy, but I think the PIE *qw was
      separate phoneme and not simply a combination of *k + *w.


      Andrew Jarrette wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- On Mon, 12/21/09, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
      > <hcesarcastro@... <mailto:hcesarcastro%40gmail.com>> wrote:
      >
      > From: Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <hcesarcastro@...
      > <mailto:hcesarcastro%40gmail.com>>
      > Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in
      > Dutch.)
      > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Received: Monday, December 21, 2009, 6:33 AM
      >
      >
      > > Hi Andrew,
      >
      > >maybe Antwerp's w-sound is really a bilabial approximant.
      >
      > >Like I said before, in the Wikipedia article about Flemish phonology, the
      >
      > >south flemish pronunciation of w is the beta-shaped phoneme (voiced
      > >bilabial
      >
      > >fricative).
      >
      > >But, as you said, there is no IPA symbol for biliabial approximant. It is
      >
      > >represented by the beta with a small T below it meaning that the
      > tongue >must
      >
      > >be somewhat lowered compared to the original beta-shaped phoneme. And
      >
      > >sometimes this T below the beta is forgotten, maybe this can mean
      > that the
      >
      > >south flemish pronunciation of w is really a bilabial approximant.
      >
      > Actually I got my facts wrong, the Wikipedia article on Dutch
      > phonology actually states that the Hasselt-Maastricht dialects use a
      > bilabial *approximant*, not fricative. I was mistaken because I saw
      > the IPA sign for the bilabial fricative used to represent this,
      > without noticing that it had a little subscript attached to indicate
      > that it is an approximant rather than a fricative. The IPA really
      > should develop a character for the bilabial approximant, in my opinion!
      >
      > Thanks for your responses.
      >
      > P.S. The reason why I am so hung up on this 'pronunciation of w' thing
      > is that I find it very strange that English seems to be the ONLY
      > Indo-European language that preserves IE /w/ in the standard dialect.
      > I've always been on the lookout for any other language that may
      > preserve IE /w/. Standard Belgian Dutch is one such language, however
      > I think most (at least in the English-speaking community) regard it as
      > merely a dialect of Dutch, rather than a separate language. Can it be
      > regarded as a separate Germanic language called Flemish? In any case,
      > I am relieved that at least one language community has preserved this
      > IE phoneme, and English is not a complete loner. Welsh comes close,
      > with IE /w/ becoming /gw/ which lenites to /w/ under certain
      > conditions. I've heard that Jysk (Danish of Jylland or Jutland) also
      > preserves /w/ in its northern dialects, and in some positions in its
      > southern dialects.
      >
      > Andrew
      >
      > 2009/12/21 Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@yahoo. ca>
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- On Sat, 12/19/09, chamavian <roerd096@planet. nl
      > <roerd096%40planet. nl>>
      >
      > > wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > From: chamavian <roerd096@planet. nl <roerd096%40planet. nl>>
      >
      > > Subject: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in
      > Dutch.)
      >
      > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>
      >
      > > Received: Saturday, December 19, 2009, 3:11 PM
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > When I want to imitiate the pronunciation of initial w in words
      > >such as
      >
      > > "wa", "waerk" etc of these recordings of Antwerps, I pronounce >it as
      >
      > > something like the English w, but with my lips as if I want to
      > >pronounce
      >
      > > "b"... I don't know how to explain it better.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I know exactly what sound you mean. The IPA does not have a symbol for a
      >
      > > bilabial approximant ([w] is considered a 'labiovelar' approximant)
      > , but the
      >
      > > sound you are producing, I would describe it as a bilabial
      > approximant. Sort
      >
      > > of like a [w] with flat unrounded lips as for [b], but without the lips
      >
      > > meeting. I've practised this sound in front of the mirror (before you
      >
      > > mentioned that you have practised this sound also) in attempts to
      > produce
      >
      > > whatever sound commentators have meant by the 'Belgian w', when I
      > have read
      >
      > > that it is slightly different from English /w/ but still bilabial. I
      > like
      >
      > > this sound, it requires less work than English /w/ (because there is no
      >
      > > rounding) but there is still no friction and it's still bilabial and
      >
      > > therefore fully distinct from /v/ (it's often very hard for me and I
      > suspect
      >
      > > most English speakers to discern the difference between the labiodental
      >
      > > approximant and the labiodental voiced fricative).
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I'm still not sure, however, that that (bilabial approximant) is the
      > sound
      >
      > > that the Antwerps speaker produces. To me it still sounds more like a
      >
      > > labiodental approximant (or at least what I imagine the labiodental
      >
      > > approximant should sound like), although sounds transmitted through
      >
      > > electronic equipment might not be clear enough to know their exact
      > method of
      >
      > > production..
      >
      > >
      >
      > > I do know that Wikipedia states that <w> is pronounced as a bilabial
      >
      > > fricative in the Hasselt and Maastricht dialects. Perhaps it is
      > really the
      >
      > > above 'bilabial approximant' that I (and you) describe?
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >So to your ears Northern Dutch w (Netherlands) sounds like English
      > v. But
      >
      > > >what does the Antwerp v sound like to you?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Well, I'm going by the Dutch speakers I have heard here in Ottawa, when
      >
      > > I've been up close to them so that I could hear them clearly. The
      > ones I've
      >
      > > heard (and oddly enough they've all been women) generally pronounced
      > their
      >
      > > Dutch <w> as a sound that I recognized as English /v/. I say 'generally'
      >
      > > because one woman (of the four or five I can remember listening to)
      >
      > > pronounced her Dutch <w> almost the same as English /w/, although I
      > couldn't
      >
      > > quite make out exactly what the difference was. And at least three
      > of these
      >
      > > Dutch women pronounced their Dutch <v>'s as a sound that I recognized as
      >
      > > English /f/ (even when one emphasized it by lenghthening it and speaking
      >
      > > loudly - she clearly said [ffff!] when I asked her to repeat her
      > Dutch <v>
      >
      > > because I wanted to be sure of its pronunciation) . It seemed to me
      > at that
      >
      > > time that in Dutch, the letters <w> and <v> are pronounced just the
      > same as
      >
      > > in German, i.e. as [v] and [f] respectively. If you remember, I even
      > told
      >
      > > you about how I asked one woman to pronounce the minimal pair
      >
      > > <winden~vinden> , and I was unable to detect any difference in
      > pronunciation
      >
      > > between the two words, even when she repeated them (therefore she
      > did not
      >
      > > pronounce /v/ as [f]). I guess my English ears are just not attuned
      > to the
      >
      > > subtle difference between Dutch /v/ (when it's not pronounced as
      > [f]) and
      >
      > > /P/ (the X-Sampa symbol for the labiodental approximant) . She
      > pointed out
      >
      > > that it's very difficult for Dutch speakers to hear any difference in
      >
      > > pronunciation between the English words 'colour' and 'collar', so
      > it's tit
      >
      > > for tat (by the way, I find that a major difference in my Canadian
      >
      > > pronunciation of these two words is that 'colour' has a short first
      > vowel,
      >
      > > while 'collar' has a somewhat long first vowel, regardless of the
      >
      > > traditional ideas of what are 'short' and 'long' vowels in English
      > -- also
      >
      > > the low front vowel /æ/ I pronounce mostly as a somewhat long vowel,
      > usually
      >
      > > [a:] but sometimes
      >
      > > higher e.g. before nasals).
      >
      > >
      >
      > > In any case, I have since listened to recordings of Dutch speakers
      > in the
      >
      > > Wikipedia article on Dutch phonology, and found that these speakers
      > clearly
      >
      > > pronounced a labiodental approximant, not fricative, for their <w>.
      > Maybe
      >
      > > that's what I heard those Dutch women pronouncing, but at that time
      > my ears
      >
      > > and mind were not sensitive enough to detect this (I have no idea
      > why they
      >
      > > should be any more sensitive now). Unfortunately this Wikipedia
      > article does
      >
      > > not have a sample of word-initial /v/, where one might expect Amsterdam
      >
      > > devoicing to appear, but I found that even the medial /v/ that was
      > offered
      >
      > > sounded slightly devoiced to my English ear (at first I thought I was
      >
      > > hearing [f], i.e. [o:f@n]).
      >
      > >
      >
      > > The Antwerps /v/ sounds very much like English /v/, i.e. very
      > fricative and
      >
      > > very voiced, no devoicing at all. If they have a labiodental
      > approximant, I
      >
      > > can hear the difference between it and /v/ rather clearly. But maybe I'm
      >
      > > really hearing the difference between a bilabial approximant and /v/, if
      >
      > > you're right.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Thanks for responding, Ingmar, I was afraid that no one would show any
      >
      > > interest or worse that Dutch speakers might be angered or offended or
      >
      > > insulted by my pronouncements on a language which is not native to me.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Andrew
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@ ...>
      >
      > > wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > This is off the topic of the meaning and recognition of 'bot' in the
      >
      > > Netherlands and in Belgium, but your citation of the Antwerps
      > Woordenboek
      >
      > > allowed me something I've wanted to know for a long time:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > In the recordings of the pronunciation of the Antwerps words, I
      > finally
      >
      > > was able to hear how Dutch 'w' is pronounced in Belgium. I had read
      > that it
      >
      > > was pronounced the same as in English, that it is slightly
      > different, but
      >
      > > without stating how, that it is like French 'u' in <huit>, that it is a
      >
      > > bilabial fricative, etc.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > What I heard is a phoneme that sounds very similar to English 'w', but
      >
      > > there is a difference that is definitely audible. What I heard
      > sounded to me
      >
      > > like a genuine labiodental approximant, the 'curled-v' symbol in the
      > IPA. If
      >
      > > you don't listen closely it sounds close enough to English 'w' to be
      > taken
      >
      > > as identical, but when listening closely the difference can be
      > heard. But
      >
      > > *this* 'w' seems like the *real* labiodental approximant, whereas what I
      >
      > > hear from speakers in the Netherlands sounds exactly like English
      > 'v', i.e.
      >
      > > a labiodental *fricative*. I know this is going to annoy you Netherlands
      >
      > > Dutch speakers on this forum, because you will insist that your 'w'
      > is an
      >
      > > approximant, but I am only going on what I've heard with my English
      > ear. I
      >
      > > may be wrong, but I suspect and hope that I'm not. What do you
      > Netherlands
      >
      > > Dutch speakers think of the Antwerps 'w', if you care to reply?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > Andrew Jarrette
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > --- On Fri, 12/18/09, cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@.. .> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > From: cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@.. .>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in Dutch.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Received: Friday, December 18, 2009, 2:49 AM
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > bot <http://www.antwerps .be/woord/ 1545>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > [bot]
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > zn. (m)
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > nen/den ~, botte(n), botteke/botshe
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > 1 *laars* - Fr. *botte*
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > ik koêp e nief paar *botte
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > :B
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > *
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@.. .>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > I've looking around for it and the word "bot" as boot
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > seems to be shunned
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > even all over the internet XD. Hard to find anything
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > about it. Even some
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > books that call themselves etymology of dialects
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > (referring to Dutch
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > dialect) seem to ignore this word
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > completely. I've checked 3 books so far, trying to
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > find my "Antwerp Dutch"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > dictionary but I can't seem to locate it.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > I did however found out that the word laers has been
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > used since at least
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > 1640 which is roughly half a century after the Belgian
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > area became victim of
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > the French and Spanish.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > Oh and that a word is probably French just because the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > country has been
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > ruled by them is not a valid argument.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > Even without French rulership one might use French
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > words like bon bon vs
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > praline and beiaard vs carillon.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:12 AM, chamavian <roerd096@.. .>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Most Dutch (i.e. "Netherlanders" ) would
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > automatically assume that he's
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> talking about bones, not about boots.. But within
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > this context, some would
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> understand that it's a kind of footwear. Or people
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > that live close to the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Belgian border probably recognize the word too.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> I think "bot" is a loan from French, not an
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > archaic Frankish word in
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Belgian Dutch, because the political border is a
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > language border here.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> That's a very strong indication for a loan word
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > from French. In Belgium,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> French was the sole official language for ages,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > also in Dutch speaking
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Flanders, and today it still is very important.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > And of course, Belgium's
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> capital Bruxelles, situated as an inclave in
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Flanders, is a predominantly
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> French speaking or bilingual city, and the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Southern half of Belgium is
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> completely Francophone.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> So French "botte" may have Germanic roots
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > originally, Belgian-Dutch "bot"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> probably has not.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> <parked@> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > So "laars" must be a 'made up' word then.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Only in the Low Countries
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> would it be necessary to specify when shoes are
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > made out of leather rather
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> than wood ;-)
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > There is a possibility that the French word
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > is a borrowing from Germanic
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> (ie old Frankish) which would make "bot" the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > native word.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > My question is still whether a
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Netherlands- Dutch speaker (of the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Netherlands proper, on the north side of the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > border) will recognize "bot" to
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> mean boot. When someone from Belgium says "Mijn
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > voeten zijn erg pijnlijk,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> omdat mijn botten te krap zijn.", do you
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > automatically assume that he is
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> talking about his footwear or are left confused
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > because you don't understand
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> how bones can be tight?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > Beste Cody,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > you wrote
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > "....the reason why you might not find
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > [bot] in a dictionary is because
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> the dutch (referring to ppl of the netherlands)
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > have replaced a lot of
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> original dutch words with either foreign or made
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > up words..."
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > but in this case, "bot" is the foreign
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > word of course, borrowed from
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> French, and "laars" the original Dutch word (I
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > guess from "leer"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > +"schoen" = leather+shoe) .
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > Groeten van de ingesneeuwde noordenbuur
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > Ingmar
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. .com>,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@> wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > bot means both bone and boot in
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > belgium. the reason why you might
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> not
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > find in a dictionary is because the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > dutch (referring to ppl of the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > netherlands) have replaced a lot of
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > original dutch words with either
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > foreign or made up words.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > On 12/14/09, David <parked@>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > Is this word a valid Dutch
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > word for "boot" (the kind of shoe)?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > I had it recorded that dutch
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > had "bot". I think that I must have
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> put it into
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > my Ueberlist years back. Now I
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > can't in any dutch dictionaries
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> find any
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > reference to "bot" being a
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > synonym for "laars".
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > I can only find "bot"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > translating as noun to "bone" or "flounder"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> (the
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > fish).
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > Whether "bot" is a Dutch word
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > for shoe affects the validity of my
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> Frenkisch
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > and FS word "bott" as boot.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > However, I have recently
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > discovered that Russian has "shtiblety"
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> as a word
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > for boots. This would make
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > "stivel" a valid word for Frenkisch,
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> based on DE
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > Stiefel, Scandy
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > støvle/støvel/ stövel and Russian shtiblety, in
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> accordance to
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > > FK's Rule of Three.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >> >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >>
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > > folkspraak-fullfeat ured@yahoogroups .com
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 - Release Date: 12/20/09 07:35:00
      >
      >
    • Andrew Jarrette
      ... From: David Parke Subject: Re: Pronunciation of w (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: Bot in Dutch.) To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 22, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Tue, 12/22/09, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:

        From: David Parke <parked@...>
        Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in Dutch.)
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Received: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 3:29 PM


        > Hi all, I think we are in agreement: I will use "w" in words as as >win

        >(wine), war (where). In the rare occasions that I speak FS out loud,

        >I'll bravely attempt a [P] sound, but the reality is, it will probably

        >come out something like [vw] or [vu]



        >What I said about languages being balanced systems is notable in the

        >case of Modern High German.

        >It seems that German changed the prono of "w" from [w] to [v] quite

        >recently. Not in living memory or since we've have artificial recordings

        >but sometime in the modern period. Possibly there was a transitional

        >phase where it was like the Dutch "w". Are there German dialects that

        >haven't made the change?


        What I've read said the change from [w] to [v] began somewhere around 1350 A.D. (thus about the end of the Middle High German period) and proceeded quite quickly, though with intermediate stages having a labiodental approximant, a bilabial fricative, or even fricatives involving closure of one side of the mouth or the middle of the mouth, with the other side or the two flanks respectively remaining open for the passage of air.

        >Certain things allowed that change to occur:

        >For one thing intervocal PG *b in German has remained [b] and not

        >become [v] so there is less possibility for confusion here. So German

        >has "weben" not *weven.

        Note that former *w after *l and *r becomes Modern German [b] (with final allophone [p]) in e.g. <gelb>, <gerben>, <mürbe>, <Narbe>, <Schwalbe>.

        >Initial PG *f in German is [f] not [v]. Although words such as Vater,

        >Vogel, viel and voll and ver- suggest to me that earlier in German, the

        >sound was [v] like in Dutch.

        It was [v] in Middle High German (all Modern German words with <f-> had <v-> in Middle High German), when <w> was still pronounced [w] or close to that.

        >It's a bit of a mystery to me why German hasn't reformed the spelling of

        >such words to "f", since the vast majority of German words use this. Let

        >me qualify that in the interest of accuracy: German "ver-" words

        >probably outnumber all other initial "f" and "v" words combined, but if

        >counting the number of f-words, "ver-" is one element. But why have

        >"voll" and related "füllen" and vor along side of "für"?


        German initial <v-> representing [f] is probably a remnant of Middle High German spelling. It seems pretty arbitrary as to whether to write <v> or <f>, but we English speakers cannot complain, our language is excessively arbitrary and unphonetic in its spelling, in my opinion, despite Old English having had near-phonetic spelling. Why did our spelling have to deteriorate so thoroughly? You'd think that things would get better over time, not worse?

        >German [w] changing to [v] forced a changed of German [v] to [f]. Or

        >perhaps the change of [v] to [f] made a space in the phonology that [w]

        >was able to fill. Chicken or the egg?


        Yes, I've often wondered about that. Which change was first, /w/ > /v/, or /v/ > /f/? Based on what has happened in modern Dutch dialects in living memory, it's probable that first /w/ > /P/ or /B/, then /v/ > /f/ to make it less similar to the new /P/ or /B/. But it's odd that initial /z/ did not follow suit and become /s/, as in the same modern Dutch dialects. I know that some Austrian varieties of German pronounce initial <s-> as [s], not [z], although I wonder whether it ever became voiced in this position in these Austrian varieties.



        >I wonder if there is a relationship in the dialects of Dutch between the

        >prono of "w" and of "v"? For example the prono of wolk/volk or

        >wegen/vegen or wagen/vage. I assume that there are no dialects where the

        >pairs are pronounced exactly the same? Do the dialects that pronounce

        >"w" more like [v], use [f] for "v"? And the dialects that prono "w" more

        >like [w] use [v] for "v"?


        I've only listened to a handful of Dutch speakers plus have heard the voice recordings on the Internet (Wikipedia et al.), but what I've heard supports the idea that those who use /P/ tend to devoice initial /v/ to /f/, while those who use /B/ or /w/ tend to keep initial /v/ voiced. However I did meet one Dutch woman whose initial <w>'s and <v>'s sounded exactly alike to me, I really could not hear the difference despite having them repeated.



        chamavian wrote:

        >

        >

        > Hi David,

        >

        > I myself am in favour of your Anglo-Dutch solution, so spelling and

        > pronouncing initial w in native Germanic words differently than in

        > loan-words, which have v. But in non-initial positions have v in both

        > native and loan-words.

        > About the pronunciation one could argue. Maybe we could say that

        > anyone can make that out for himself. In Dutch, some people pronounce

        > w as [P], others as [w], others even as [v], depending on their

        > background. It's not only regionally different but also socially and

        > ethnically. In the Randstad, at least half of the younger people are

        > of non-Dutch background, and they tend to pronounce w as [w] in their

        > Dutch, which is very often their first language. And there are also

        > very many German immigrants, who'll have their [v] pronunciations.

        > What I'm trying to say, this is no problem at all for communication or

        > understanding.

        > So in Folkspraak, someone with an English maternal language could

        > pronounce w as [w], another with a Dutch mother tongue as [P] and

        > Germans and Scandinavians as [v].

        > The latter would probably pronounce FS v in loan-words the same, but

        > is that such a big deal?

        >

        > Btw in German, v is not only pronounced the same as w, but also often

        > as f. In "native" words, v = f, in loan-words, v = w.

        > Much used native German words with v [f] are e.g. Vater, vier, vor.

        >

        > One more remark about what you call the Afrikaans-Polish solution:

        > I never saw Afrikaans spellings with w instead of v in loan-words.

        > But Afrikaans sometimes has w intervocally whereas Dutch has v.

        > Btw they use w intervocally then for [v], because in Afrikaans eveery

        > v is pronounced [f]. So Afrikaans lewe [le:v@] needs a w and not a v,

        > because *leve would be pronounced with f. Dutch has leven [le:v@], the

        > words are more or less pronouned the same in both languages.

        >

        > Ingmar

        >

        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:

        > >

        > > Steering this back in a slightly more on-topic direction:

        > > What do we want to do in FS for the pronunciation and spelling of *w

        > and

        > > *hw?

        > >

        > > This is really not as obvious or clear-cut as some people might think.

        > >

        > > It seems to me that pronouncing as [v] but spelling with "w" isn't the

        > > simplest way of working. Why? Because unless all instances of the [v]

        > > sound are spelled with "w", it is introducing an irregularity into the

        > > spelling system. If I hear a [v] sound, I need to decide whether I must

        > > spell it with a "v" or a "w". And it's a very common sound.

        > >

        > > Because English, Dutch and German (and Frisian and Low German) use a

        > "w"

        > > to represent instances of the PG *w phonene, the temptation is to make

        > > "w" the spelling solution for FS. So we would use "w" for [v] is

        > when it

        > > comes from PG *w but "v" for [v] when it comes from Latin v or from PG

        > > *b and *f. So the spelling system is less regular but reflects the

        > > majority of the source languages and marks etymology.

        > >

        > > I would put it to you, that this makes about as much sense as

        > marking PG

        > > *th with thorns or eths or barred ts and ds (as I used to do). I would

        > > use a barred t in a words such as ŧenke or ŧorn, or a barred d in a

        > > words such as munÄ` or paÄ`. This was in spite of the fact that in the

        > > actual prono of such words, the barred letters would be the same as

        > > normal t or d. A superficial investigation of the Germanic source

        > > languages would give the impression that only English maintains the PG

        > > *th phoneme, in other Germlangs, it has been lost. A more sophisticated

        > > analysis would note that High German, while it has lost the *th

        > phoneme,

        > > it has retained for the most part, the RELATIONSHIP and DISTINCTION

        > > between PG *th and *t and *d. That is, *th has normally become [d] in

        > > High German, however *d has shifted to [t] and *t to [ts] which

        > > maintains the distinction and relationship. I think that languages are

        > > balanced, wholistic systems: when one thing changes, it forces other

        > > things to change to compensate, to establish a new balance. The risk

        > > with building FS, is when we try to cobble a compromise together from

        > > parts of several systems, we make an unbalanced, inharmonious mutant.

        > > It is in Dutch, Low German and continental Scandinavinan where the *th

        > > phoneme has been truely lost, merged opaquely with *t and *d. So in

        > > using ŧ and Ä`, I was marking a phonemic distinction that is still

        > > important in some of source languages, even if such a distinction isn't

        > > made in the phonology of FS. Hmmm sounds familiar?

        > >

        > > If the difference in spelling is not reflected in the pronunciation,

        > > should it really be worthwhile the extra complication to the spelling

        > > system?

        > >

        > >

        > > There is one way that we can have our cake and eat it too and that is,

        > > like modern Dutch or English, to have *w pronounced as a distinct

        > > phoneme from [v].

        > >

        > > The Dutch "w" is subject to much variation it seems, ranging from

        > [w] to

        > > [B] (the IPA beta) and [P] (the IPA curly v).

        > >

        > > But it is always distinct from the prono of "v".

        > >

        > > In the spirit of making a middling, compromise language, I would say

        > the

        > > the Dutch [P] is closer to the "average" of the prono of *w in our

        > > source languages. With only English truely maintaining [w] , the middle

        > > ground is not exactly halfway between [w] and [v]. The weight of

        > > languages is pulling more towards [v]. But Dutch [P] would be far

        > closer

        > > to the average than either [w] or [v]).

        > > The main problem with using [P] or [B], is the difficulty that speakers

        > > of languages other than Dutch have of making this distinction. A

        > speaker

        > > of German or Scandy or English is probably going to need a lot of

        > > practice to be able to distinguish it from [v] -- passively or

        > actively.

        > > I am pretty sure that I can passively hear the difference between [P]

        > > and [v]. BUT I probably can't actively pronounce the difference

        > accurately.

        > >

        > > So in summary, if we really want to use "w" in the spelling system of

        > > FS, we SHOULD pronounce the "w" as a difference sound from "v". [w] is

        > > only used in a minority of the Germlangs (English and a minority of

        > > Dutch). The sound closest to the average/middle/ compromise is [P]. We

        > > should use that sound.

        > >

        > > In Frenkish, I go so far as to recommend that if you can't pronounce

        > [P]

        > > properly, it is preferable to use [w] than [v]. [w] might be further

        > > from the ideal, but it at least keeps the distinction necessary for the

        > > spelling system to work properly.

        > >

        > > Some proposals:

        > > Regular proposal 1: PG *w prono'd as [v]. spelled as "v" always, so

        > > *wîban to FS viv (wife), Latin vitalis, universum to FS vital,

        > univers.

        > > Call this the "Scandy proposal"

        > >

        > > Regular proposal 2: PG *w prono'd as [v]. spelled as "w", all other [v]

        > > also as "w", so *wîban to FS wiw, Latin vitalis, universum, to FS

        > > wital, uniwers. Call this the "Afrikaans-Polish proposal"

        > >

        > > Regular proposal 3: PG *w prono'd as [w] or [P], whatever so long as is

        > > distinct fron [v]. spelled as "w", [v] as "v" , so *wîban to FS wiv,

        > > Latin vitalis, universum to FS vital, univers. Call this the

        > > "Anglo-Dutch proposal"

        > >

        > > Irregular proposal PG: *w prono'd as [v]. spelled as "w" , all other

        > [v]

        > > use "v". so *wîban to FS wiv, L vitalis to FS vital, L universum to FS

        > > aktiv, univers. Call this the "German proposal".

        > >

        > > Note that all except the "German proposal" allow a regular orthography,

        > > but each has it's own advantages, disadvanges and compromises.

        > >

        > > Andrew Jarrette wrote:

        > > >

        > > >

        > > >

        > > > --- On Mon, 12/21/09, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro

        > > > <hcesarcastro@ ... <mailto:hcesarcastr o%40gmail. com>> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > From: Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <hcesarcastro@ ...

        > > > <mailto:hcesarcastr o%40gmail. com>>

        > > > Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in

        > > > Dutch.)

        > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>

        > <mailto:folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>

        > > > Received: Monday, December 21, 2009, 6:33 AM

        > > >

        > > >

        > > > > Hi Andrew,

        > > >

        > > > >maybe Antwerp's w-sound is really a bilabial approximant.

        > > >

        > > > >Like I said before, in the Wikipedia article about Flemish

        > phonology, the

        > > >

        > > > >south flemish pronunciation of w is the beta-shaped phoneme (voiced

        > > > >bilabial

        > > >

        > > > >fricative).

        > > >

        > > > >But, as you said, there is no IPA symbol for biliabial

        > approximant. It is

        > > >

        > > > >represented by the beta with a small T below it meaning that the

        > > > tongue >must

        > > >

        > > > >be somewhat lowered compared to the original beta-shaped phoneme. And

        > > >

        > > > >sometimes this T below the beta is forgotten, maybe this can mean

        > > > that the

        > > >

        > > > >south flemish pronunciation of w is really a bilabial approximant.

        > > >

        > > > Actually I got my facts wrong, the Wikipedia article on Dutch

        > > > phonology actually states that the Hasselt-Maastricht dialects use a

        > > > bilabial *approximant* , not fricative. I was mistaken because I saw

        > > > the IPA sign for the bilabial fricative used to represent this,

        > > > without noticing that it had a little subscript attached to indicate

        > > > that it is an approximant rather than a fricative. The IPA really

        > > > should develop a character for the bilabial approximant, in my

        > opinion!

        > > >

        > > > Thanks for your responses.

        > > >

        > > > P.S. The reason why I am so hung up on this 'pronunciation of w'

        > thing

        > > > is that I find it very strange that English seems to be the ONLY

        > > > Indo-European language that preserves IE /w/ in the standard dialect.

        > > > I've always been on the lookout for any other language that may

        > > > preserve IE /w/. Standard Belgian Dutch is one such language, however

        > > > I think most (at least in the English-speaking community) regard

        > it as

        > > > merely a dialect of Dutch, rather than a separate language. Can it be

        > > > regarded as a separate Germanic language called Flemish? In any case,

        > > > I am relieved that at least one language community has preserved this

        > > > IE phoneme, and English is not a complete loner. Welsh comes close,

        > > > with IE /w/ becoming /gw/ which lenites to /w/ under certain

        > > > conditions. I've heard that Jysk (Danish of Jylland or Jutland) also

        > > > preserves /w/ in its northern dialects, and in some positions in its

        > > > southern dialects.

        > > >

        > > > Andrew

        > > >

        > > > 2009/12/21 Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@ yahoo. ca>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > --- On Sat, 12/19/09, chamavian <roerd096@planet. nl

        > > > <roerd096%40planet. nl>>

        > > >

        > > > > wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > From: chamavian <roerd096@planet. nl <roerd096%40planet. nl>>

        > > >

        > > > > Subject: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in

        > > > Dutch.)

        > > >

        > > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>

        > > >

        > > > > Received: Saturday, December 19, 2009, 3:11 PM

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > When I want to imitiate the pronunciation of initial w in words

        > > > >such as

        > > >

        > > > > "wa", "waerk" etc of these recordings of Antwerps, I pronounce

        > >it as

        > > >

        > > > > something like the English w, but with my lips as if I want to

        > > > >pronounce

        > > >

        > > > > "b"... I don't know how to explain it better.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > I know exactly what sound you mean. The IPA does not have a

        > symbol for a

        > > >

        > > > > bilabial approximant ([w] is considered a 'labiovelar' approximant)

        > > > , but the

        > > >

        > > > > sound you are producing, I would describe it as a bilabial

        > > > approximant. Sort

        > > >

        > > > > of like a [w] with flat unrounded lips as for [b], but without

        > the lips

        > > >

        > > > > meeting. I've practised this sound in front of the mirror

        > (before you

        > > >

        > > > > mentioned that you have practised this sound also) in attempts to

        > > > produce

        > > >

        > > > > whatever sound commentators have meant by the 'Belgian w', when I

        > > > have read

        > > >

        > > > > that it is slightly different from English /w/ but still

        > bilabial. I

        > > > like

        > > >

        > > > > this sound, it requires less work than English /w/ (because

        > there is no

        > > >

        > > > > rounding) but there is still no friction and it's still bilabial and

        > > >

        > > > > therefore fully distinct from /v/ (it's often very hard for me

        > and I

        > > > suspect

        > > >

        > > > > most English speakers to discern the difference between the

        > labiodental

        > > >

        > > > > approximant and the labiodental voiced fricative).

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > I'm still not sure, however, that that (bilabial approximant) is

        > the

        > > > sound

        > > >

        > > > > that the Antwerps speaker produces. To me it still sounds more

        > like a

        > > >

        > > > > labiodental approximant (or at least what I imagine the labiodental

        > > >

        > > > > approximant should sound like), although sounds transmitted through

        > > >

        > > > > electronic equipment might not be clear enough to know their exact

        > > > method of

        > > >

        > > > > production..

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > I do know that Wikipedia states that <w> is pronounced as a bilabial

        > > >

        > > > > fricative in the Hasselt and Maastricht dialects. Perhaps it is

        > > > really the

        > > >

        > > > > above 'bilabial approximant' that I (and you) describe?

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >So to your ears Northern Dutch w (Netherlands) sounds like English

        > > > v. But

        > > >

        > > > > >what does the Antwerp v sound like to you?

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > Well, I'm going by the Dutch speakers I have heard here in

        > Ottawa, when

        > > >

        > > > > I've been up close to them so that I could hear them clearly. The

        > > > ones I've

        > > >

        > > > > heard (and oddly enough they've all been women) generally

        > pronounced

        > > > their

        > > >

        > > > > Dutch <w> as a sound that I recognized as English /v/. I say

        > 'generally'

        > > >

        > > > > because one woman (of the four or five I can remember listening to)

        > > >

        > > > > pronounced her Dutch <w> almost the same as English /w/, although I

        > > > couldn't

        > > >

        > > > > quite make out exactly what the difference was. And at least three

        > > > of these

        > > >

        > > > > Dutch women pronounced their Dutch <v>'s as a sound that I

        > recognized as

        > > >

        > > > > English /f/ (even when one emphasized it by lenghthening it and

        > speaking

        > > >

        > > > > loudly - she clearly said [ffff!] when I asked her to repeat her

        > > > Dutch <v>

        > > >

        > > > > because I wanted to be sure of its pronunciation) . It seemed to me

        > > > at that

        > > >

        > > > > time that in Dutch, the letters <w> and <v> are pronounced just the

        > > > same as

        > > >

        > > > > in German, i.e. as [v] and [f] respectively. If you remember, I

        > even

        > > > told

        > > >

        > > > > you about how I asked one woman to pronounce the minimal pair

        > > >

        > > > > <winden~vinden> , and I was unable to detect any difference in

        > > > pronunciation

        > > >

        > > > > between the two words, even when she repeated them (therefore she

        > > > did not

        > > >

        > > > > pronounce /v/ as [f]). I guess my English ears are just not attuned

        > > > to the

        > > >

        > > > > subtle difference between Dutch /v/ (when it's not pronounced as

        > > > [f]) and

        > > >

        > > > > /P/ (the X-Sampa symbol for the labiodental approximant) . She

        > > > pointed out

        > > >

        > > > > that it's very difficult for Dutch speakers to hear any

        > difference in

        > > >

        > > > > pronunciation between the English words 'colour' and 'collar', so

        > > > it's tit

        > > >

        > > > > for tat (by the way, I find that a major difference in my Canadian

        > > >

        > > > > pronunciation of these two words is that 'colour' has a short first

        > > > vowel,

        > > >

        > > > > while 'collar' has a somewhat long first vowel, regardless of the

        > > >

        > > > > traditional ideas of what are 'short' and 'long' vowels in English

        > > > -- also

        > > >

        > > > > the low front vowel /æ/ I pronounce mostly as a somewhat long

        > vowel,

        > > > usually

        > > >

        > > > > [a:] but sometimes

        > > >

        > > > > higher e.g. before nasals)..

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > In any case, I have since listened to recordings of Dutch speakers

        > > > in the

        > > >

        > > > > Wikipedia article on Dutch phonology, and found that these speakers

        > > > clearly

        > > >

        > > > > pronounced a labiodental approximant, not fricative, for their <w>.

        > > > Maybe

        > > >

        > > > > that's what I heard those Dutch women pronouncing, but at that time

        > > > my ears

        > > >

        > > > > and mind were not sensitive enough to detect this (I have no idea

        > > > why they

        > > >

        > > > > should be any more sensitive now). Unfortunately this Wikipedia

        > > > article does

        > > >

        > > > > not have a sample of word-initial /v/, where one might expect

        > Amsterdam

        > > >

        > > > > devoicing to appear, but I found that even the medial /v/ that was

        > > > offered

        > > >

        > > > > sounded slightly devoiced to my English ear (at first I thought

        > I was

        > > >

        > > > > hearing [f], i.e. [o:f@n]).

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > The Antwerps /v/ sounds very much like English /v/, i.e. very

        > > > fricative and

        > > >

        > > > > very voiced, no devoicing at all. If they have a labiodental

        > > > approximant, I

        > > >

        > > > > can hear the difference between it and /v/ rather clearly. But

        > maybe I'm

        > > >

        > > > > really hearing the difference between a bilabial approximant and

        > /v/, if

        > > >

        > > > > you're right.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > Thanks for responding, Ingmar, I was afraid that no one would

        > show any

        > > >

        > > > > interest or worse that Dutch speakers might be angered or

        > offended or

        > > >


        > > > > insulted by my pronouncements on a language which is not native

        > to me.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > Andrew

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@

        > ...>

        > > >

        > > > > wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > This is off the topic of the meaning and recognition of 'bot'

        > in the

        > > >

        > > > > Netherlands and in Belgium, but your citation of the Antwerps

        > > > Woordenboek

        > > >

        > > > > allowed me something I've wanted to know for a long time:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > In the recordings of the pronunciation of the Antwerps words, I

        > > > finally

        > > >

        > > > > was able to hear how Dutch 'w' is pronounced in Belgium. I had read

        > > > that it

        > > >

        > > > > was pronounced the same as in English, that it is slightly

        > > > different, but

        > > >

        > > > > without stating how, that it is like French 'u' in <huit>, that

        > it is a

        > > >

        > > > > bilabial fricative, etc.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > What I heard is a phoneme that sounds very similar to English

        > 'w', but

        > > >

        > > > > there is a difference that is definitely audible. What I heard

        > > > sounded to me

        > > >

        > > > > like a genuine labiodental approximant, the 'curled-v' symbol in

        > the

        > > > IPA. If

        > > >

        > > > > you don't listen closely it sounds close enough to English 'w'

        > to be

        > > > taken

        > > >

        > > > > as identical, but when listening closely the difference can be

        > > > heard. But

        > > >

        > > > > *this* 'w' seems like the *real* labiodental approximant,

        > whereas what I

        > > >

        > > > > hear from speakers in the Netherlands sounds exactly like English

        > > > 'v', i.e.

        > > >

        > > > > a labiodental *fricative*. I know this is going to annoy you

        > Netherlands

        > > >

        > > > > Dutch speakers on this forum, because you will insist that your 'w'

        > > > is an

        > > >

        > > > > approximant, but I am only going on what I've heard with my English

        > > > ear. I

        > > >

        > > > > may be wrong, but I suspect and hope that I'm not. What do you

        > > > Netherlands

        > > >

        > > > > Dutch speakers think of the Antwerps 'w', if you care to reply?

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > Andrew Jarrette

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > --- On Fri, 12/18/09, cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@ .> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > From: cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@ .>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in Dutch.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Received: Friday, December 18, 2009, 2:49 AM

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > bot <http://www.antwerps .be/woord/ 1545>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > [bot]

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > zn. (m)

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > nen/den ~, botte(n), botteke/botshe

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > 1 *laars* - Fr. *botte*

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > ik koêp e nief paar *botte

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > :B

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > *

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@ .>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > I've looking around for it and the word "bot" as boot

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > seems to be shunned

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > even all over the internet XD. Hard to find anything

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > about it. Even some

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > books that call themselves etymology of dialects

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > (referring to Dutch

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > dialect) seem to ignore this word

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > completely.. I've checked 3 books so far, trying to

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > find my "Antwerp Dutch"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > dictionary but I can't seem to locate it.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > I did however found out that the word laers has been

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > used since at least

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > 1640 which is roughly half a century after the Belgian

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > area became victim of

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > the French and Spanish.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > Oh and that a word is probably French just because the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > country has been

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > ruled by them is not a valid argument.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > Even without French rulership one might use French

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > words like bon bon vs

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > praline and beiaard vs carillon.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:12 AM, chamavian <roerd096@ .>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Most Dutch (i.e. "Netherlanders" ) would

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > automatically assume that he's

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> talking about bones, not about boots.. But within

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > this context, some would

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> understand that it's a kind of footwear. Or people

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > that live close to the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Belgian border probably recognize the word too.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> I think "bot" is a loan from French, not an

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > archaic Frankish word in

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Belgian Dutch, because the political border is a

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > language border here.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> That's a very strong indication for a loan word

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > from French. In Belgium,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> French was the sole official language for ages,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > also in Dutch speaking

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Flanders, and today it still is very important.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > And of course, Belgium's

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> capital Bruxelles, situated as an inclave in

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Flanders, is a predominantly

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> French speaking or bilingual city, and the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Southern half of Belgium is

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> completely Francophone.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> So French "botte" may have Germanic roots

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > originally, Belgian-Dutch "bot"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> probably has not.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>, "David"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> <parked@> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > So "laars" must be a 'made up' word then.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Only in the Low Countries

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> would it be necessary to specify when shoes are

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > made out of leather rather

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> than wood ;-)

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > There is a possibility that the French word

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > is a borrowing from Germanic

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> (ie old Frankish) which would make "bot" the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > native word.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > My question is still whether a

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Netherlands- Dutch speaker (of the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Netherlands proper, on the north side of the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > border) will recognize "bot" to

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> mean boot.. When someone from Belgium says "Mijn

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > voeten zijn erg pijnlijk,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> omdat mijn botten te krap zijn.", do you

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > automatically assume that he is

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> talking about his footwear or are left confused

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > because you don't understand

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> how bones can be tight?

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > Beste Cody,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > you wrote

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > "....the reason why you might not find

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > [bot] in a dictionary is because

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> the dutch (referring to ppl of the netherlands)

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > have replaced a lot of

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> original dutch words with either foreign or made

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > up words..."

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > but in this case, "bot" is the foreign

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > word of course, borrowed from

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> French, and "laars" the original Dutch word (I

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > guess from "leer"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > +"schoen" = leather+shoe) .

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > Groeten van de ingesneeuwde noordenbuur

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > Ingmar

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. .com>,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@> wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > bot means both bone and boot in

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > belgium. the reason why you might

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> not

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > find in a dictionary is because the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > dutch (referring to ppl of the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > netherlands) have replaced a lot of

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > original dutch words with either

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > foreign or made up words..

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > On 12/14/09, David <parked@>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > wrote:

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > Is this word a valid Dutch

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > word for "boot" (the kind of shoe)?

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > I had it recorded that dutch

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > had "bot". I think that I must have

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> put it into

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > my Ueberlist years back. Now I

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > can't in any dutch dictionaries

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> find any

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > reference to "bot" being a

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > synonym for "laars".

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > I can only find "bot"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > translating as noun to "bone" or "flounder"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> (the

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > fish)..

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > Whether "bot" is a Dutch word

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > for shoe affects the validity of my

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> Frenkisch

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > and FS word "bott" as boot.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > However, I have recently

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > discovered that Russian has "shtiblety"

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> as a word

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > for boots. This would make

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > "stivel" a valid word for Frenkisch,

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> based on DE

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > Stiefel, Scandy

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > støvle/støvel/ stövel and Russian shtiblety, in

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> accordance to

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > > FK's Rule of Three.

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >> >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >>

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > > folkspraak-fullfeat ured@yahoogroups .com

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > >

        > > >

        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        > > >

        > > >

        > > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

        > > >

        > > >

        > > > No virus found in this incoming message.

        > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

        > > > Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 - Release Date:

        > 12/20/09 07:35:00

        > > >

        > > >

        > >

        >

        >

        > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

        >

        >

        > No virus found in this incoming message.

        > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

        > Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 - Release Date: 12/20/09 07:35:00

        >

        >
      • Andrew Jarrette
        ... There is irrefutable evidence that PIE *w was pronounced like English , i.e. [w]. This shows up frequently in Sanskrit for example where unstressed
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 22, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- On Tue, 12/22/09, David Parke <parked@...> wrote:

          > From: David Parke <parked@...>
          > Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in Dutch.)
          > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          > Received: Tuesday, December 22, 2009, 3:35 PM
          > Hi Andrew,
          > Who can say for sure that the original PIE prono of *w was
          > exactly [w]?
          > Although we have some good evidence in for example
          > classical Latin,
          > where V and U were originally the same letter and
          > presumably pronounced
          > similarly -- [w] as consonant and [u] as vowel. And in the
          > conjugations
          > of roots, it could be realized as a vowel or as a
          > consonant. eg
          > solutio(n-) and solvere. It took a long time in the Middle
          > Ages before
          > "v", "u" and "w" became established as 3 separate letters
          > and were used
          > consistently like they are today. This clouds the
          > pronunciation changes
          > that occurred in that period.
          > *w when coupled with *k has remained [w] in such Spanish
          > words as
          > "cuando". My knowledge of PIE is sketchy, but I think the
          > PIE *qw was
          > separate phoneme and not simply a combination of *k + *w.

          There is irrefutable evidence that PIE *w was pronounced like English <w>, i.e. [w]. This shows up frequently in Sanskrit for example where unstressed <va> becomes [u], in other languages where *w shows rounding effects on following vowels (e.g. Latin where *swesor becomes <soror>, the *w rounding and backing the *e), in Slavic languages like Serbo-Croatian where <v> that came to be before consonants becomes [u] (relics of when it was pronounced [w]), and by the fact that in no recorded language has initial [v] ever changed to [w], so we know it didn't start out as [v].

          PIE *qw (or *kW, however you want to notate it) was a labiovelar, i.e. a velar plosive accompanied by rounding of the lips. It was considered a single consonant (proven by rules of syllabification and other means in several languages), whereas there existed the combination *k^w (as in *ek^wos 'horse') with palatal *k^ (though a great many linguists believe, with good reason, that PIE never really had palatal plosives) and possibly even *kw with velar *k plus *w. The latter sound combination's existence (which is debated) drives some linguists to say that *kW/qw had a uvular plosive. However others say that *k was uvular, while *k^ was velar (not palatal), among those who maintain that they were two separate phonemes. There is still much debate about this. Nevertheless it is reasonably clear that the speakers of PIE regarded *qw/kW as a single phoneme while *k^w was regarded as a combination of two phonemes.


          Andrew

          >
          >
          > Andrew Jarrette wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > --- On Mon, 12/21/09, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
          > > <hcesarcastro@...
          > <mailto:hcesarcastro%40gmail.com>> wrote:
          > >
          > > From: Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <hcesarcastro@...
          >
          > > <mailto:hcesarcastro%40gmail.com>>
          > > Subject: Re: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re:
          > [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in
          > > Dutch.)
          > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:folkspraak%40yahoogroups.com>
          > > Received: Monday, December 21, 2009, 6:33 AM
          > >
          > >
          > > > Hi Andrew,
          > >
          > > >maybe Antwerp's w-sound is really a bilabial
          > approximant.
          > >
          > > >Like I said before, in the Wikipedia article about
          > Flemish phonology, the
          > >
          > > >south flemish pronunciation of w is the
          > beta-shaped phoneme (voiced
          > > >bilabial
          > >
          > > >fricative).
          > >
          > > >But, as you said, there is no IPA symbol for
          > biliabial approximant. It is
          > >
          > > >represented by the beta with a small T below it
          > meaning that the
          > > tongue >must
          > >
          > > >be somewhat lowered compared to the original
          > beta-shaped phoneme. And
          > >
          > > >sometimes this T below the beta is forgotten,
          > maybe this can mean
          > > that the
          > >
          > > >south flemish pronunciation of w is really a
          > bilabial approximant.
          > >
          > > Actually I got my facts wrong, the Wikipedia article
          > on Dutch
          > > phonology actually states that the Hasselt-Maastricht
          > dialects use a
          > > bilabial *approximant*, not fricative. I was mistaken
          > because I saw
          > > the IPA sign for the bilabial fricative used to
          > represent this,
          > > without noticing that it had a little subscript
          > attached to indicate
          > > that it is an approximant rather than a fricative. The
          > IPA really
          > > should develop a character for the bilabial
          > approximant, in my opinion!
          > >
          > > Thanks for your responses.
          > >
          > > P.S. The reason why I am so hung up on this
          > 'pronunciation of w' thing
          > > is that I find it very strange that English seems to
          > be the ONLY
          > > Indo-European language that preserves IE /w/ in the
          > standard dialect.
          > > I've always been on the lookout for any other language
          > that may
          > > preserve IE /w/. Standard Belgian Dutch is one such
          > language, however
          > > I think most (at least in the English-speaking
          > community) regard it as
          > > merely a dialect of Dutch, rather than a separate
          > language. Can it be
          > > regarded as a separate Germanic language called
          > Flemish? In any case,
          > > I am relieved that at least one language community has
          > preserved this
          > > IE phoneme, and English is not a complete loner. Welsh
          > comes close,
          > > with IE /w/ becoming /gw/ which lenites to /w/ under
          > certain
          > > conditions. I've heard that Jysk (Danish of Jylland or
          > Jutland) also
          > > preserves /w/ in its northern dialects, and in some
          > positions in its
          > > southern dialects.
          > >
          > > Andrew
          > >
          > > 2009/12/21 Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@yahoo.
          > ca>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > --- On Sat, 12/19/09, chamavian
          > <roerd096@planet. nl
          > > <roerd096%40planet. nl>>
          > >
          > > > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > From: chamavian <roerd096@planet. nl
          > <roerd096%40planet. nl>>
          > >
          > > > Subject: Pronunciation of 'w' (was: Re:
          > [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in
          > > Dutch.)
          > >
          > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com <folkspraak%
          > 40yahoogroups. com>
          > >
          > > > Received: Saturday, December 19, 2009, 3:11 PM
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > When I want to imitiate the pronunciation of
          > initial w in words
          > > >such as
          > >
          > > > "wa", "waerk" etc of these recordings of
          > Antwerps, I pronounce >it as
          > >
          > > > something like the English w, but with my lips as
          > if I want to
          > > >pronounce
          > >
          > > > "b"... I don't know how to explain it better.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > I know exactly what sound you mean. The IPA does
          > not have a symbol for a
          > >
          > > > bilabial approximant ([w] is considered a
          > 'labiovelar' approximant)
          > > , but the
          > >
          > > > sound you are producing, I would describe it as a
          > bilabial
          > > approximant. Sort
          > >
          > > > of like a [w] with flat unrounded lips as for
          > [b], but without the lips
          > >
          > > > meeting. I've practised this sound in front of
          > the mirror (before you
          > >
          > > > mentioned that you have practised this sound
          > also) in attempts to
          > > produce
          > >
          > > > whatever sound commentators have meant by the
          > 'Belgian w', when I
          > > have read
          > >
          > > > that it is slightly different from English /w/
          > but still bilabial. I
          > > like
          > >
          > > > this sound, it requires less work than English
          > /w/ (because there is no
          > >
          > > > rounding) but there is still no friction and it's
          > still bilabial and
          > >
          > > > therefore fully distinct from /v/ (it's often
          > very hard for me and I
          > > suspect
          > >
          > > > most English speakers to discern the difference
          > between the labiodental
          > >
          > > > approximant and the labiodental voiced
          > fricative).
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > I'm still not sure, however, that that (bilabial
          > approximant) is the
          > > sound
          > >
          > > > that the Antwerps speaker produces. To me it
          > still sounds more like a
          > >
          > > > labiodental approximant (or at least what I
          > imagine the labiodental
          > >
          > > > approximant should sound like), although sounds
          > transmitted through
          > >
          > > > electronic equipment might not be clear enough to
          > know their exact
          > > method of
          > >
          > > > production..
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > I do know that Wikipedia states that <w> is
          > pronounced as a bilabial
          > >
          > > > fricative in the Hasselt and Maastricht dialects.
          > Perhaps it is
          > > really the
          > >
          > > > above 'bilabial approximant' that I (and you)
          > describe?
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >So to your ears Northern Dutch w
          > (Netherlands) sounds like English
          > > v. But
          > >
          > > > >what does the Antwerp v sound like to you?
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > Well, I'm going by the Dutch speakers I have
          > heard here in Ottawa, when
          > >
          > > > I've been up close to them so that I could hear
          > them clearly. The
          > > ones I've
          > >
          > > > heard (and oddly enough they've all been women)
          > generally pronounced
          > > their
          > >
          > > > Dutch <w> as a sound that I recognized as
          > English /v/. I say 'generally'
          > >
          > > > because one woman (of the four or five I can
          > remember listening to)
          > >
          > > > pronounced her Dutch <w> almost the same as
          > English /w/, although I
          > > couldn't
          > >
          > > > quite make out exactly what the difference was.
          > And at least three
          > > of these
          > >
          > > > Dutch women pronounced their Dutch <v>'s as
          > a sound that I recognized as
          > >
          > > > English /f/ (even when one emphasized it by
          > lenghthening it and speaking
          > >
          > > > loudly - she clearly said [ffff!] when I asked
          > her to repeat her
          > > Dutch <v>
          > >
          > > > because I wanted to be sure of its pronunciation)
          > . It seemed to me
          > > at that
          > >
          > > > time that in Dutch, the letters <w> and
          > <v> are pronounced just the
          > > same as
          > >
          > > > in German, i.e. as [v] and [f] respectively. If
          > you remember, I even
          > > told
          > >
          > > > you about how I asked one woman to pronounce the
          > minimal pair
          > >
          > > > <winden~vinden> , and I was unable to
          > detect any difference in
          > > pronunciation
          > >
          > > > between the two words, even when she repeated
          > them (therefore she
          > > did not
          > >
          > > > pronounce /v/ as [f]). I guess my English ears
          > are just not attuned
          > > to the
          > >
          > > > subtle difference between Dutch /v/ (when it's
          > not pronounced as
          > > [f]) and
          > >
          > > > /P/ (the X-Sampa symbol for the labiodental
          > approximant) . She
          > > pointed out
          > >
          > > > that it's very difficult for Dutch speakers to
          > hear any difference in
          > >
          > > > pronunciation between the English words 'colour'
          > and 'collar', so
          > > it's tit
          > >
          > > > for tat (by the way, I find that a major
          > difference in my Canadian
          > >
          > > > pronunciation of these two words is that 'colour'
          > has a short first
          > > vowel,
          > >
          > > > while 'collar' has a somewhat long first vowel,
          > regardless of the
          > >
          > > > traditional ideas of what are 'short' and 'long'
          > vowels in English
          > > -- also
          > >
          > > > the low front vowel /æ/ I pronounce mostly as a
          > somewhat long vowel,
          > > usually
          > >
          > > > [a:] but sometimes
          > >
          > > > higher e.g. before nasals).
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > In any case, I have since listened to recordings
          > of Dutch speakers
          > > in the
          > >
          > > > Wikipedia article on Dutch phonology, and found
          > that these speakers
          > > clearly
          > >
          > > > pronounced a labiodental approximant, not
          > fricative, for their <w>.
          > > Maybe
          > >
          > > > that's what I heard those Dutch women
          > pronouncing, but at that time
          > > my ears
          > >
          > > > and mind were not sensitive enough to detect this
          > (I have no idea
          > > why they
          > >
          > > > should be any more sensitive now). Unfortunately
          > this Wikipedia
          > > article does
          > >
          > > > not have a sample of word-initial /v/, where one
          > might expect Amsterdam
          > >
          > > > devoicing to appear, but I found that even the
          > medial /v/ that was
          > > offered
          > >
          > > > sounded slightly devoiced to my English ear (at
          > first I thought I was
          > >
          > > > hearing [f], i.e. [o:f@n]).
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > The Antwerps /v/ sounds very much like English
          > /v/, i.e. very
          > > fricative and
          > >
          > > > very voiced, no devoicing at all. If they have a
          > labiodental
          > > approximant, I
          > >
          > > > can hear the difference between it and /v/ rather
          > clearly. But maybe I'm
          > >
          > > > really hearing the difference between a bilabial
          > approximant and /v/, if
          > >
          > > > you're right.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > Thanks for responding, Ingmar, I was afraid that
          > no one would show any
          > >
          > > > interest or worse that Dutch speakers might be
          > angered or offended or
          > >
          > > > insulted by my pronouncements on a language which
          > is not native to me.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > Andrew
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com, Andrew
          > Jarrette <anjarrette@ ...>
          > >
          > > > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > This is off the topic of the meaning and
          > recognition of 'bot' in the
          > >
          > > > Netherlands and in Belgium, but your citation of
          > the Antwerps
          > > Woordenboek
          > >
          > > > allowed me something I've wanted to know for a
          > long time:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > In the recordings of the pronunciation of
          > the Antwerps words, I
          > > finally
          > >
          > > > was able to hear how Dutch 'w' is pronounced in
          > Belgium. I had read
          > > that it
          > >
          > > > was pronounced the same as in English, that it is
          > slightly
          > > different, but
          > >
          > > > without stating how, that it is like French 'u'
          > in <huit>, that it is a
          > >
          > > > bilabial fricative, etc.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > What I heard is a phoneme that sounds very
          > similar to English 'w', but
          > >
          > > > there is a difference that is definitely audible.
          > What I heard
          > > sounded to me
          > >
          > > > like a genuine labiodental approximant, the
          > 'curled-v' symbol in the
          > > IPA. If
          > >
          > > > you don't listen closely it sounds close enough
          > to English 'w' to be
          > > taken
          > >
          > > > as identical, but when listening closely the
          > difference can be
          > > heard. But
          > >
          > > > *this* 'w' seems like the *real* labiodental
          > approximant, whereas what I
          > >
          > > > hear from speakers in the Netherlands sounds
          > exactly like English
          > > 'v', i.e.
          > >
          > > > a labiodental *fricative*. I know this is going
          > to annoy you Netherlands
          > >
          > > > Dutch speakers on this forum, because you will
          > insist that your 'w'
          > > is an
          > >
          > > > approximant, but I am only going on what I've
          > heard with my English
          > > ear. I
          > >
          > > > may be wrong, but I suspect and hope that I'm
          > not. What do you
          > > Netherlands
          > >
          > > > Dutch speakers think of the Antwerps 'w', if you
          > care to reply?
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > Andrew Jarrette
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > --- On Fri, 12/18/09, cody de Grauwe
          > <codeboy2@.. .> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > From: cody de Grauwe <codeboy2@..
          > ..>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: "Bot" in
          > Dutch.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > To: folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Received: Friday, December 18, 2009,
          > 2:49 AM
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > bot <http://www.antwerps .be/woord/ 1545>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > [bot]
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > zn. (m)
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > nen/den ~, botte(n), botteke/botshe
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > 1 *laars* - Fr. *botte*
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > ik koêp e nief paar *botte
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > :B
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > *
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:44 AM, cody
          > de Grauwe <codeboy2@.. .>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > I've looking around for it and the
          > word "bot" as boot
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > seems to be shunned
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > even all over the internet XD.
          > Hard to find anything
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > about it. Even some
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > books that call themselves
          > etymology of dialects
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > (referring to Dutch
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > dialect) seem to ignore this word
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > completely. I've checked 3 books
          > so far, trying to
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > find my "Antwerp Dutch"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > dictionary but I can't seem to
          > locate it.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > I did however found out that the
          > word laers has been
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > used since at least
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > 1640 which is roughly half a
          > century after the Belgian
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > area became victim of
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > the French and Spanish.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > Oh and that a word is probably
          > French just because the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > country has been
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > ruled by them is not a valid
          > argument.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > Even without French rulership one
          > might use French
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > words like bon bon vs
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > praline and beiaard vs carillon.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:12 AM,
          > chamavian <roerd096@.. .>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Most Dutch (i.e.
          > "Netherlanders" ) would
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > automatically assume that he's
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> talking about bones, not about
          > boots.. But within
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > this context, some would
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> understand that it's a kind of
          > footwear. Or people
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > that live close to the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Belgian border probably
          > recognize the word too.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> I think "bot" is a loan from
          > French, not an
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > archaic Frankish word in
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Belgian Dutch, because the
          > political border is a
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > language border here.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> That's a very strong
          > indication for a loan word
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > from French. In Belgium,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> French was the sole official
          > language for ages,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > also in Dutch speaking
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Flanders, and today it still
          > is very important.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > And of course, Belgium's
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> capital Bruxelles, situated as
          > an inclave in
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Flanders, is a predominantly
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> French speaking or bilingual
          > city, and the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Southern half of Belgium is
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> completely Francophone.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> So French "botte" may have
          > Germanic roots
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > originally, Belgian-Dutch "bot"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> probably has not.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> --- In folkspraak@yahoogro
          > ups.com
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups. com>,
          > "David"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> <parked@> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > So "laars" must be a
          > 'made up' word then.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Only in the Low Countries
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> would it be necessary to
          > specify when shoes are
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > made out of leather rather
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> than wood ;-)
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > There is a possibility
          > that the French word
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > is a borrowing from Germanic
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> (ie old Frankish) which would
          > make "bot" the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > native word.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > My question is still
          > whether a
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Netherlands- Dutch speaker (of the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Netherlands proper, on the
          > north side of the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > border) will recognize "bot" to
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> mean boot. When someone from
          > Belgium says "Mijn
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > voeten zijn erg pijnlijk,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> omdat mijn botten te krap
          > zijn.", do you
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > automatically assume that he is
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> talking about his footwear or
          > are left confused
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > because you don't understand
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> how bones can be tight?
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > --- In
          > folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups.
          > com>,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> "chamavian" <roerd096@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > Beste Cody,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > you wrote
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > "....the reason why
          > you might not find
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > [bot] in a dictionary is because
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> the dutch (referring to ppl of
          > the netherlands)
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > have replaced a lot of
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> original dutch words with
          > either foreign or made
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > up words..."
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > but in this case,
          > "bot" is the foreign
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > word of course, borrowed from
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> French, and "laars" the
          > original Dutch word (I
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > guess from "leer"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > +"schoen" =
          > leather+shoe) .
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > Groeten van de
          > ingesneeuwde noordenbuur
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > Ingmar
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > --- In
          > folkspraak@yahoogro ups.com
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > <folkspraak% 40yahoogroups.
          > .com>,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> cody de Grauwe
          > <codeboy2@> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > bot means both
          > bone and boot in
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > belgium. the reason why you might
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> not
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > find in a
          > dictionary is because the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > dutch (referring to ppl of the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > netherlands)
          > have replaced a lot of
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > original dutch words with either
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > foreign or made
          > up words.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > On 12/14/09,
          > David <parked@>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > Is this
          > word a valid Dutch
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > word for "boot" (the kind of shoe)?
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > I had it
          > recorded that dutch
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > had "bot". I think that I must have
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> put it into
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > my
          > Ueberlist years back. Now I
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > can't in any dutch dictionaries
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> find any
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > reference
          > to "bot" being a
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > synonym for "laars".
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > I can only
          > find "bot"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > translating as noun to "bone" or
          > "flounder"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> (the
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > fish).
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > Whether
          > "bot" is a Dutch word
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > for shoe affects the validity of my
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> Frenkisch
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > and FS
          > word "bott" as boot.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > However, I
          > have recently
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > discovered that Russian has
          > "shtiblety"
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> as a word
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > for boots.
          > This would make
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > "stivel" a valid word for Frenkisch,
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> based on DE
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > Stiefel,
          > Scandy
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > støvle/støvel/ stövel and Russian
          > shtiblety, in
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> accordance to
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > > FK's Rule
          > of Three.
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >> >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >>
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
          > been removed]
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > ------------ --------- ---------
          > ------
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > > folkspraak-fullfeat ured@yahoogroups
          > .com
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > >
          > > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          > > Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.115/2577 -
          > Release Date: 12/20/09 07:35:00
          > >
          > >   
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >     folkspraak-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.