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

Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Jarrette
    And should foreigners avoid [R]? ________________________________ From: Andrew Jarrette To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue,
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 21, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      And should foreigners avoid [R]?




      ________________________________
      From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
      To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
      Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

       
      What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
      where is each of these phonemes used?

      Andrew

      ________________________________
      From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
      To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
      Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

       
      Btw I like that Dutch prono site
      http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
      it's quite good.
      The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
      [r]...

      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
      >
      > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
      > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
      > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
      >[w]
      >
      > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely


      > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
      >pronunciation
      >
      > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
      > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
      > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
      > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
      >
      > Andrew
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
      > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
      > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
      >
      >  
      > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
      >
      >
      > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
      >[u],
      >
      > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
      >
      >
      > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our


      > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
      > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
      > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
      > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
      > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
      > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
      >
      >
      > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
      >
      >
      > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]

      >of
      >
      >
      > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
      >indeed
      >
      > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
      > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
      >[a]
      >
      >
      > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
      >That
      >
      >
      > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
      >
      >
      > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
      > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
      >[a]
      >
      > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
      > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but

      >I
      >
      > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
      >vowel). 
      >
      > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
      >
      >
      > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
      >
      >
      > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
      > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think

      >is
      >
      >
      > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
      > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with

      >an
      >
      >
      > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really


      > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
      > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
      > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
      > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
      >different
      >
      > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
      >
      >
      > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
      >simply
      >
      > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
      >these
      >
      > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
      >(myself
      >
      > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
      >
      >
      > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
      >our
      >
      >
      > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
      >heard
      >
      > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more


      > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a


      > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
      > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and

      >/A/
      >
      >
      > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
      >
      >
      > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
      > short.)
      >
      > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
      > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
      >
      >
      > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
      > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
      > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
      >
      >  
      >
      > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
      >and
      >
      >
      > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
      > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
      > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
      > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
      >
      > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
      >every
      >
      >
      > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
      > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
      > pronounce v.
      >
      > Ingmar
      >
      > Thanks Ingmar.
      >
      > Not another question, just a comment:
      >
      > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
      >
      >
      > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
      > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
      > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
      >not
      >
      >
      >
      > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
      > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
      >
      >
      > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
      >
      >
      > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
      > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
      > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
      > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
      > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
      >
      > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
      >
      >
      > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of


      > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
      > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting


      > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
      > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
      > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
      >
      >
      > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
      >
      >
      > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
      > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two


      > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
      >
      >
      > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
      > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
      > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some


      > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
      > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
      >some
      >
      >
      >
      > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
      >
      >
      > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
      >
      >
      > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
      >
      >
      > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
      >
      >
      > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond


      > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
      > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
      >and
      >
      >
      >
      > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
      > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
      >and
      >
      >
      >
      > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
      >"short"
      >
      >
      >
      > vowels.)
      >
      > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
      >initial
      >
      >
      >
      > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
      > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
      > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
      >
      > The website is the following:
      > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
      >
      > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things


      > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
      >realities
      >
      >
      >
      > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
      >
      >
      > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
      > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
      > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
      > Dutch.
      >
      > Andrew
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
      > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
      > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
      > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
      > > Dutch piet [pit].
      > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
      > > To: <roerd096@>
      > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
      > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
      > >
      > >
      > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
      > >
      > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
      > > this a
      > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
      > > seen
      > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
      > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
      > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
      > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
      > > that
      > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
      > > [pÅ"t].
      > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
      > > time
      > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
      > > those
      > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
      > > pronunciation
      > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
      > >
      > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
      > > what
      > > are the regional variants?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > Andrew
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume


      > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to


      > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement


      > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Andrew!
      > > > >
      > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere


      > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
      > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
      > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
      >
      >
      > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
      > >
      > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
      > > > >
      > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
      >
      >
      > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
      > >intervocally
      > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.

      >Ch
      >
      > >
      > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
      > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of


      > >native Dutch speakers.
      > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
      > > > > To:
      > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
      > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
      > > > >
      > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
      >
      >
      > >(e.g.
      > >
      > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
      >
      >
      > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
      > >Belgian
      > >
      > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
      >Germanic
      >
      >
      >
      > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative


      > >[j],
      > >
      > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
      >
      >
      > >Dutch
      > >
      > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
      > > > > pronunciation.
      > > > >
      > > > > Andrew
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

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




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Andrew Jarrette
      Question: Is the -es of everything originally a genitive singular ending, or is borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter
      Message 2 of 16 , Sep 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Question:

        Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
        <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.
        ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
        others that I don't know of?

        Andrew




        ________________________________
        From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
        Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

         
        And should foreigners avoid [R]?

        ________________________________
        From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
        Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

         
        What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
        where is each of these phonemes used?

        Andrew

        ________________________________
        From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
        To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
        Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

         
        Btw I like that Dutch prono site
        http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
        it's quite good.
        The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
        [r]...

        --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
        >
        > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
        > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
        > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
        >[w]
        >
        > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely


        > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
        >pronunciation
        >
        > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
        > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
        > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
        > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
        >
        > Andrew
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
        > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
        > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
        >
        >  
        > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
        >
        >
        >
        > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
        >[u],
        >
        > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
        >
        >
        >
        > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our


        > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
        > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
        > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
        > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
        > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
        > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
        >
        >
        >
        > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
        >
        >
        >
        > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]


        >of
        >
        >
        > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
        >indeed
        >
        > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
        > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
        >[a]
        >
        >
        > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
        >That
        >
        >
        > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
        >
        >
        >
        > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
        > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
        >[a]
        >
        > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
        > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but


        >I
        >
        > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
        >vowel). 
        >
        > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
        >
        >
        >
        > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
        >
        >
        >
        > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
        > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think


        >is
        >
        >
        > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
        > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with


        >an
        >
        >
        > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really


        > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
        > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
        > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
        > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
        >different
        >
        > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
        >
        >
        >
        > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
        >simply
        >
        > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
        >these
        >
        > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
        >(myself
        >
        > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
        >
        >
        >
        > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
        >our
        >
        >
        > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
        >heard
        >
        > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more


        > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a


        > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
        > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and


        >/A/
        >
        >
        > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
        >
        >
        >
        > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
        > short.)
        >
        > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
        > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
        >
        >
        >
        > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
        > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
        > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
        >
        >  
        >
        > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
        >and
        >
        >
        > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
        > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
        > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
        > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
        >
        > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
        >every
        >
        >
        > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
        > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
        > pronounce v.
        >
        > Ingmar
        >
        > Thanks Ingmar.
        >
        > Not another question, just a comment:
        >
        > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
        >
        >
        >
        > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
        > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
        > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
        >not
        >
        >
        >
        > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
        > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
        >
        >
        >
        > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
        >
        >
        >
        > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
        > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
        > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
        > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
        > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
        >
        > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
        >
        >
        >
        > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of


        > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
        > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting


        > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
        > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
        > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
        >
        >
        >
        > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
        >
        >
        >
        > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
        > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two


        > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
        >
        >
        >
        > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
        > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
        > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some


        > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
        > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
        >some
        >
        >
        >
        > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
        >
        >
        >
        > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
        >
        >
        >
        > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
        >
        >
        >
        > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
        >
        >
        >
        > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond


        > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
        > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
        >and
        >
        >
        >
        > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
        > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
        >and
        >
        >
        >
        > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
        >"short"
        >
        >
        >
        > vowels.)
        >
        > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
        >initial
        >
        >
        >
        > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
        > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
        > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
        >
        > The website is the following:
        > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
        >
        > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things


        > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
        >realities
        >
        >
        >
        > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
        >
        >
        >
        > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
        > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
        > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
        > Dutch.
        >
        > Andrew
        > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
        > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
        > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
        > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
        > > Dutch piet [pit].
        > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
        > > To: <roerd096@>
        > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
        > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
        > >
        > >
        > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
        > >
        > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
        > > this a
        > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
        > > seen
        > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
        > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
        > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
        > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
        > > that
        > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
        > > [pÅ"t].
        > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
        > > time
        > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
        > > those
        > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
        > > pronunciation
        > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
        > >
        > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
        > > what
        > > are the regional variants?
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > >
        > > Andrew
        > >
        > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume


        > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to


        > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement


        > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
        > > >
        > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi Andrew!
        > > > >
        > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere


        > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
        > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
        > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
        >
        >
        >
        > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
        > >
        > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
        > > > >
        > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
        >
        >
        >
        > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
        > >intervocally
        > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.


        >Ch
        >
        > >
        > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
        > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of


        > >native Dutch speakers.
        > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
        > > > > To:
        > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
        > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
        > > > >
        > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
        >
        >
        >
        > >(e.g.
        > >
        > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
        >
        >
        >
        > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
        > >Belgian
        > >
        > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
        >Germanic
        >
        >
        >
        > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative


        > >[j],
        > >
        > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
        >
        >
        >
        > >Dutch
        > >
        > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
        > > > > pronunciation.
        > > > >
        > > > > Andrew
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

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

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




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andrew Jarrette
        Last question (for now): Remember when I told you about how I was having a discussion with one of our cybalist members (the yahoo group that discusses
        Message 3 of 16 , Sep 21, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Last question (for now):

          Remember when I told you about how I was having a discussion with one of our
          cybalist members (the yahoo group that discusses historical linguistics and
          Indo-Europeanology) about the meaning of an utterance said by one of two Dutch
          girls we had found on Youtube?  I want to ask you again what does it mean: "Ik
          weet die zin niet" -- and what is the difference in meaning between that and "Ik
          weet de zin niet" with <de> rather than <die>; and would "Ik weet nog niet die
          zin" (or is it "Ik weet die zin nog niet"?) be equivalent in meaning to "Ik weet
          die zin niet"?

          Andrew




          ________________________________
          From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
          To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:08:54 PM
          Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

           
          Question:

          Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
          <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.
          ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
          others that I don't know of?

          Andrew

          ________________________________
          From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
          To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
          Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

           
          And should foreigners avoid [R]?

          ________________________________
          From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
          To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
          Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

           
          What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
          where is each of these phonemes used?

          Andrew

          ________________________________
          From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
          To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
          Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

           
          Btw I like that Dutch prono site
          http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
          it's quite good.
          The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
          [r]...

          --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
          >
          > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
          > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
          > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
          >[w]
          >
          > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely


          > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
          >pronunciation
          >
          > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
          > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
          > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
          > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
          >
          > Andrew
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
          > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
          > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
          >
          >  
          > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
          >[u],
          >
          > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our


          > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
          > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
          > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
          > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
          > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
          > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]


          >of
          >
          >
          > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
          >indeed
          >
          > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
          > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
          >[a]
          >
          >
          > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
          >That
          >
          >
          > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
          > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
          >[a]
          >
          > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
          > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but


          >I
          >
          > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
          >vowel). 
          >
          > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
          > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think


          >is
          >
          >
          > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
          > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with


          >an
          >
          >
          > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really


          > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
          > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
          > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
          > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
          >different
          >
          > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
          >simply
          >
          > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
          >these
          >
          > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
          >(myself
          >
          > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
          >our
          >
          >
          > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
          >heard
          >
          > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more


          > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a


          > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
          > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and


          >/A/
          >
          >
          > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
          > short.)
          >
          > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
          > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
          > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
          > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
          >
          >  
          >
          > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
          >and
          >
          >
          > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
          > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
          > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
          > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
          >
          > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
          >every
          >
          >
          > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
          > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
          > pronounce v.
          >
          > Ingmar
          >
          > Thanks Ingmar.
          >
          > Not another question, just a comment:
          >
          > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
          > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
          > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
          >not
          >
          >
          >
          > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
          > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
          > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
          > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
          > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
          > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
          >
          > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of


          > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
          > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting


          > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
          > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
          > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
          > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two


          > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
          > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
          > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some


          > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
          > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
          >some
          >
          >
          >
          > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond


          > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
          > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
          >and
          >
          >
          >
          > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
          > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
          >and
          >
          >
          >
          > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
          >"short"
          >
          >
          >
          > vowels.)
          >
          > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
          >initial
          >
          >
          >
          > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
          > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
          > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
          >
          > The website is the following:
          > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
          >
          > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things


          > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
          >realities
          >
          >
          >
          > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
          > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
          > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
          > Dutch.
          >
          > Andrew
          > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
          > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
          > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
          > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
          > > Dutch piet [pit].
          > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
          > > To: <roerd096@>
          > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
          > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
          > >
          > >
          > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
          > >
          > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
          > > this a
          > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
          > > seen
          > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
          > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
          > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
          > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
          > > that
          > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
          > > [pÅ"t].
          > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
          > > time
          > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
          > > those
          > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
          > > pronunciation
          > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
          > >
          > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
          > > what
          > > are the regional variants?
          > >
          > > Thanks,
          > >
          > > Andrew
          > >
          > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume


          > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to


          > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement


          > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
          > > >
          > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Hi Andrew!
          > > > >
          > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere


          > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
          > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
          > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
          > >
          > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
          > > > >
          > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
          > >intervocally
          > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.


          >Ch
          >
          > >
          > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
          > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of


          > >native Dutch speakers.
          > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
          > > > > To:
          > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
          > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
          > > > >
          > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >(e.g.
          > >
          > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
          > >Belgian
          > >
          > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
          >Germanic
          >
          >
          >
          > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative


          > >[j],
          > >
          > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >Dutch
          > >
          > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
          > > > > pronunciation.
          > > > >
          > > > > Andrew
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >

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

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

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




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • chamavian
          Alles is from German, in Low Saxon (in Germany) allet is used. About niets and iets I don t know, but my guess is that niets got its s because niet alone
          Message 4 of 16 , Sep 21, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Alles is from German, in Low Saxon (in Germany) "allet" is used.
            About niets and iets I don't know, but my guess is that "niets" got its s because "niet" alone means not, and iets (something) had to look the same as niets

            --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
            >
            > Question:
            >
            > Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
            > <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.
            > ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
            > others that I don't know of?
            >
            > Andrew
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
            > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
            > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
            >
            >  
            > And should foreigners avoid [R]?
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
            > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
            > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
            >
            >  
            > What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
            > where is each of these phonemes used?
            >
            > Andrew
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
            > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
            > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
            >
            >  
            > Btw I like that Dutch prono site
            > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
            > it's quite good.
            > The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
            > [r]...
            >
            > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
            > > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
            > > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
            > >[w]
            > >
            > > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely
            >
            >
            > > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
            > >pronunciation
            > >
            > > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
            > > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
            > > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
            > > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
            > >
            > > Andrew
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@>
            > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
            > >
            > >  
            > > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
            > >[u],
            > >
            > > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our
            >
            >
            > > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
            > > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
            > > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
            > > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
            > > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
            > > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]
            >
            >
            > >of
            > >
            > >
            > > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
            > >indeed
            > >
            > > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
            > > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
            > >[a]
            > >
            > >
            > > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
            > >That
            > >
            > >
            > > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
            > > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
            > >[a]
            > >
            > > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
            > > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but
            >
            >
            > >I
            > >
            > > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
            > >vowel). 
            > >
            > > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
            > > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think
            >
            >
            > >is
            > >
            > >
            > > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
            > > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with
            >
            >
            > >an
            > >
            > >
            > > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really
            >
            >
            > > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
            > > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
            > > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
            > > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
            > >different
            > >
            > > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
            > >simply
            > >
            > > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
            > >these
            > >
            > > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
            > >(myself
            > >
            > > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
            > >our
            > >
            > >
            > > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
            > >heard
            > >
            > > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more
            >
            >
            > > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a
            >
            >
            > > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
            > > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and
            >
            >
            > >/A/
            > >
            > >
            > > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
            > > short.)
            > >
            > > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
            > > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
            > >
            > > ________________________________
            > > From: chamavian <roerd096@>
            > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
            > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
            > > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
            > >
            > >  
            > >
            > > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
            > >and
            > >
            > >
            > > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
            > > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
            > > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
            > > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
            > >
            > > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
            > >every
            > >
            > >
            > > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
            > > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
            > > pronounce v.
            > >
            > > Ingmar
            > >
            > > Thanks Ingmar.
            > >
            > > Not another question, just a comment:
            > >
            > > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
            > > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
            > > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
            > >not
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
            > > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
            > > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
            > > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
            > > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
            > > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
            > >
            > > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of
            >
            >
            > > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
            > > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting
            >
            >
            > > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
            > > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
            > > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
            > > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two
            >
            >
            > > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
            > > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
            > > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some
            >
            >
            > > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
            > > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
            > >some
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond
            >
            >
            > > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
            > > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
            > >and
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
            > > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
            > >and
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
            > >"short"
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > vowels.)
            > >
            > > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
            > >initial
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
            > > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
            > > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
            > >
            > > The website is the following:
            > > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
            > >
            > > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things
            >
            >
            > > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
            > >realities
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
            > > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
            > > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
            > > Dutch.
            > >
            > > Andrew
            > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
            > > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
            > > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
            > > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
            > > > Dutch piet [pit].
            > > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
            > > >
            > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
            > > > To: <roerd096@>
            > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
            > > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
            > > >
            > > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
            > > > this a
            > > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
            > > > seen
            > > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
            > > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
            > > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
            > > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
            > > > that
            > > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
            > > > [pÅ"t].
            > > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
            > > > time
            > > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
            > > > those
            > > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
            > > > pronunciation
            > > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
            > > >
            > > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
            > > > what
            > > > are the regional variants?
            > > >
            > > > Thanks,
            > > >
            > > > Andrew
            > > >
            > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume
            >
            >
            > > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to
            >
            >
            > > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement
            >
            >
            > > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
            > > > >
            > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Hi Andrew!
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere
            >
            >
            > > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
            > > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
            > > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
            > > >
            > > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
            > > >intervocally
            > > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.
            >
            >
            > >Ch
            > >
            > > >
            > > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
            > > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of
            >
            >
            > > >native Dutch speakers.
            > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
            > > > > > To:
            > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
            > > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > >(e.g.
            > > >
            > > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
            > > >Belgian
            > > >
            > > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
            > >Germanic
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative
            >
            >
            > > >[j],
            > > >
            > > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > >Dutch
            > > >
            > > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
            > > > > > pronunciation.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Andrew
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Andrew Jarrette
            Sorry, for Ik weet die zin nog niet   I actually meant Ik weet die zin niet meer --- I imagine that would mean I don t remember that/the sentence .  But
            Message 5 of 16 , Sep 22, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry, for "Ik weet die zin nog niet"  I actually meant "Ik weet die zin niet
              meer" --- I imagine that would mean "I don't remember that/the sentence".  But
              does "Ik weet die zin niet" also mean "I don't remember that/the sentence", or
              is it different?

              Andrew




              ________________________________
              From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:55:19 PM
              Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

               
              Last question (for now):

              Remember when I told you about how I was having a discussion with one of our
              cybalist members (the yahoo group that discusses historical linguistics and
              Indo-Europeanology) about the meaning of an utterance said by one of two Dutch
              girls we had found on Youtube?  I want to ask you again what does it mean: "Ik
              weet die zin niet" -- and what is the difference in meaning between that and "Ik

              weet de zin niet" with <de> rather than <die>; and would "Ik weet nog niet die
              zin" (or is it "Ik weet die zin nog niet"?) be equivalent in meaning to "Ik weet

              die zin niet"?

              Andrew

              ________________________________
              From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:08:54 PM
              Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

               
              Question:

              Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
              <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.
              ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
              others that I don't know of?

              Andrew

              ________________________________
              From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
              Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

               
              And should foreigners avoid [R]?

              ________________________________
              From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
              Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

               
              What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
              where is each of these phonemes used?

              Andrew

              ________________________________
              From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
              To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
              Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

               
              Btw I like that Dutch prono site
              http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
              it's quite good.
              The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
              [r]...

              --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
              >
              > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
              > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
              > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
              >[w]
              >
              > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely


              > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
              >pronunciation
              >
              > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
              > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
              > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
              > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
              >
              > Andrew
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
              > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
              > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
              >
              >  
              > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
              >[u],
              >
              > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our


              > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
              > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
              > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
              > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
              > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
              > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]


              >of
              >
              >
              > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
              >indeed
              >
              > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
              > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
              >[a]
              >
              >
              > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
              >That
              >
              >
              > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
              > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
              >[a]
              >
              > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
              > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but


              >I
              >
              > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
              >vowel). 
              >
              > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
              > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think


              >is
              >
              >
              > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
              > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with


              >an
              >
              >
              > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really


              > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
              > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
              > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
              > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
              >different
              >
              > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
              >simply
              >
              > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
              >these
              >
              > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
              >(myself
              >
              > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
              >our
              >
              >
              > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
              >heard
              >
              > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more


              > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a


              > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
              > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and


              >/A/
              >
              >
              > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
              > short.)
              >
              > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
              > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
              > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
              > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
              >
              >  
              >
              > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
              >and
              >
              >
              > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
              > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
              > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
              > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
              >
              > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
              >every
              >
              >
              > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
              > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
              > pronounce v.
              >
              > Ingmar
              >
              > Thanks Ingmar.
              >
              > Not another question, just a comment:
              >
              > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
              > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
              > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
              >not
              >
              >
              >
              > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
              > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
              > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
              > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
              > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
              > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
              >
              > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of


              > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
              > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting


              > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
              > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
              > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
              > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two


              > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
              > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
              > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some


              > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
              > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
              >some
              >
              >
              >
              > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond


              > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
              > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
              >and
              >
              >
              >
              > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
              > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
              >and
              >
              >
              >
              > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
              >"short"
              >
              >
              >
              > vowels.)
              >
              > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
              >initial
              >
              >
              >
              > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
              > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
              > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
              >
              > The website is the following:
              > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
              >
              > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things


              > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
              >realities
              >
              >
              >
              > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
              > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
              > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
              > Dutch.
              >
              > Andrew
              > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
              > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
              > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
              > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
              > > Dutch piet [pit].
              > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
              > > To: <roerd096@>
              > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
              > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
              > >
              > >
              > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
              > >
              > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
              > > this a
              > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
              > > seen
              > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
              > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
              > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
              > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
              > > that
              > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
              > > [pÅ"t].
              > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
              > > time
              > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
              > > those
              > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
              > > pronunciation
              > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
              > >
              > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
              > > what
              > > are the regional variants?
              > >
              > > Thanks,
              > >
              > > Andrew
              > >
              > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume


              > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to


              > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement


              > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
              > > >
              > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > Hi Andrew!
              > > > >
              > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere


              > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
              > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
              > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
              > >
              > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
              > > > >
              > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
              > >intervocally
              > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.


              >Ch
              >
              > >
              > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
              > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of


              > >native Dutch speakers.
              > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
              > > > > To:
              > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
              > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
              > > > >
              > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >(e.g.
              > >
              > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
              > >Belgian
              > >
              > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
              >Germanic
              >
              >
              >
              > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative


              > >[j],
              > >
              > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >Dutch
              > >
              > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
              > > > > pronunciation.
              > > > >
              > > > > Andrew
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >

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

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

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

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




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • chamavian
              Ik weet die zin niet meer I don t remember that sentence (don t know anymore) Ik weet die zin niet I don t know that sentence but in the last case Ik ken
              Message 6 of 16 , Sep 22, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                "Ik weet die zin niet meer" I don't remember that sentence (don't know anymore)
                "Ik weet die zin niet" I don't know that sentence
                but in the last case
                "Ik ken die zin niet" would be more correct

                De zin = the sentence/line
                Die zin = that sentince/line

                --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
                >
                > Sorry, for "Ik weet die zin nog niet"  I actually meant "Ik weet die zin niet
                > meer" --- I imagine that would mean "I don't remember that/the sentence".  But
                > does "Ik weet die zin niet" also mean "I don't remember that/the sentence", or
                > is it different?
                >
                > Andrew
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:55:19 PM
                > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                >
                >  
                > Last question (for now):
                >
                > Remember when I told you about how I was having a discussion with one of our
                > cybalist members (the yahoo group that discusses historical linguistics and
                > Indo-Europeanology) about the meaning of an utterance said by one of two Dutch
                > girls we had found on Youtube?  I want to ask you again what does it mean: "Ik
                > weet die zin niet" -- and what is the difference in meaning between that and "Ik
                >
                > weet de zin niet" with <de> rather than <die>; and would "Ik weet nog niet die
                > zin" (or is it "Ik weet die zin nog niet"?) be equivalent in meaning to "Ik weet
                >
                > die zin niet"?
                >
                > Andrew
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:08:54 PM
                > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                >
                >  
                > Question:
                >
                > Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
                > <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.
                > ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
                > others that I don't know of?
                >
                > Andrew
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
                > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                >
                >  
                > And should foreigners avoid [R]?
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
                > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                >
                >  
                > What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
                > where is each of these phonemes used?
                >
                > Andrew
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
                > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                >
                >  
                > Btw I like that Dutch prono site
                > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
                > it's quite good.
                > The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
                > [r]...
                >
                > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
                > > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
                > > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial
                > >[w]
                > >
                > > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers definitely
                >
                >
                > > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
                > >pronunciation
                > >
                > > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the
                > > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other words
                > > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like
                > > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
                > >
                > > Andrew
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@>
                > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
                > >
                > >  
                > > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to the
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
                > >[u],
                > >
                > > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many foreign
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as our
                >
                >
                > > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
                > > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French teachers
                > > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
                > > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to English
                > > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
                > > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first element
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound rounded to
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce [aU]
                >
                >
                > >of
                > >
                > >
                > > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
                > >indeed
                > >
                > > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a frequent
                > > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which
                > >[a]
                > >
                > >
                > > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central vowel. 
                > >That
                > >
                > >
                > > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and in
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned is
                > > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel, and
                > >[a]
                > >
                > > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
                > > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a], but
                >
                >
                > >I
                > >
                > > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
                > >vowel). 
                > >
                > > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between [E]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often they will
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and
                > > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I think
                >
                >
                > >is
                > >
                > >
                > > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools itself
                > > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled with
                >
                >
                > >an
                > >
                > >
                > > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but really
                >
                >
                > > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this U.S.
                > > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However, before
                > > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
                > > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
                > >different
                > >
                > > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still recognize it
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce /æ/
                > >simply
                > >
                > > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do
                > >these
                > >
                > > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
                > >(myself
                > >
                > > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that represents
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find that
                > >our
                > >
                > >
                > > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have
                > >heard
                > >
                > > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much more
                >
                >
                > > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/ as a
                >
                >
                > > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
                > > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/ ([a]) and
                >
                >
                > >/A/
                > >
                > >
                > > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid vowels
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
                > > short.)
                > >
                > > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
                > > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how it is
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
                > >
                > > ________________________________
                > > From: chamavian <roerd096@>
                > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
                > > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
                > >
                > >  
                > >
                > > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou
                > >and
                > >
                > >
                > > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is
                > > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
                > > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
                > > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
                > >
                > > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
                > >every
                > >
                > >
                > > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
                > > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
                > > pronounce v.
                > >
                > > Ingmar
                > >
                > > Thanks Ingmar.
                > >
                > > Not another question, just a comment:
                > >
                > > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second link
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
                > > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
                > > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm
                > >not
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
                > > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>, <tuin>,
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>, <brown>
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
                > > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
                > > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
                > > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
                > > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
                > >
                > > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very frequently
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired of
                >
                >
                > > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
                > > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down contrasting
                >
                >
                > > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
                > > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English
                > > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded like
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were deliberately
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
                > > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the two
                >
                >
                > > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference is
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical
                > > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
                > > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction. Some
                >
                >
                > > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
                > > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
                > >some
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can reproduce
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v] which
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction is
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really Low
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I correspond
                >
                >
                > > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have
                > > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,
                > >and
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
                > > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,
                > >and
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
                > >"short"
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > vowels.)
                > >
                > > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
                > >initial
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess
                > > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region
                > > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
                > >
                > > The website is the following:
                > > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
                > >
                > > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating things
                >
                >
                > > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
                > >realities
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't much
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or
                > > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!
                > > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than
                > > Dutch.
                > >
                > > Andrew
                > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
                > > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
                > > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
                > > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like
                > > > Dutch piet [pit].
                > > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
                > > >
                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
                > > > To: <roerd096@>
                > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
                > > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
                > > >
                > > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Å"]? You may find
                > > > this a
                > > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have
                > > > seen
                > > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Å"] like French <eu> in
                > > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have said
                > > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus equal in
                > > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
                > > > that
                > > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
                > > > [pÅ"t].
                > > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the
                > > > time
                > > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
                > > > those
                > > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
                > > > pronunciation
                > > > probably would have [pÅ"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
                > > >
                > > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and
                > > > what
                > > > are the regional variants?
                > > >
                > > > Thanks,
                > > >
                > > > Andrew
                > > >
                > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I assume
                >
                >
                > > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like to
                >
                >
                > > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of refinement
                >
                >
                > > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hi Andrew!
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc. Elsewhere
                >
                >
                > > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
                > > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
                > > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce it
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
                > > >
                > > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is always
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
                > > >intervocally
                > > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in Sampa.
                >
                >
                > >Ch
                > >
                > > >
                > > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
                > > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 % of
                >
                >
                > > >native Dutch speakers.
                > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
                > > > > > To:
                > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
                > > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced [G]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > >(e.g.
                > > >
                > > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to be
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
                > > >Belgian
                > > >
                > > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
                > >Germanic
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a fricative
                >
                >
                > > >[j],
                > > >
                > > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary says
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > >Dutch
                > > >
                > > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
                > > > > > pronunciation.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Andrew
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • Andrew Jarrette
                So if Ik weet die zin niet means I don t know that sentence could that possibly imply that she means I don t know how to translate that sentence (into
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 23, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  So if "Ik weet die zin niet" means "I don't know that sentence" could that
                  possibly imply that she means "I don't know how to translate that sentence"
                  (into Dutch), since it's an English sentence she's referring to?

                  Andrew




                  ________________________________
                  From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                  To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thu, September 23, 2010 12:11:49 AM
                  Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)

                   
                  "Ik weet die zin niet meer" I don't remember that sentence (don't know anymore)
                  "Ik weet die zin niet" I don't know that sentence
                  but in the last case
                  "Ik ken die zin niet" would be more correct

                  De zin = the sentence/line
                  Die zin = that sentince/line

                  --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Sorry, for "Ik weet die zin nog niet"  I actually meant "Ik weet die zin niet

                  > meer" --- I imagine that would mean "I don't remember that/the sentence".  But
                  >
                  > does "Ik weet die zin niet" also mean "I don't remember that/the sentence", or

                  > is it different?
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                  > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:55:19 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                  >
                  >  
                  > Last question (for now):
                  >
                  > Remember when I told you about how I was having a discussion with one of our
                  > cybalist members (the yahoo group that discusses historical linguistics and
                  > Indo-Europeanology) about the meaning of an utterance said by one of two Dutch

                  > girls we had found on Youtube?  I want to ask you again what does it mean: "Ik
                  >
                  > weet die zin niet" -- and what is the difference in meaning between that and
                  >"Ik
                  >
                  >
                  > weet de zin niet" with <de> rather than <die>; and would "Ik weet nog niet die

                  > zin" (or is it "Ik weet die zin nog niet"?) be equivalent in meaning to "Ik
                  >weet
                  >
                  >
                  > die zin niet"?
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                  > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:08:54 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                  >
                  >  
                  > Question:
                  >
                  > Is the -es of <alles> "everything" originally a genitive singular ending, or is
                  >
                  > <alles> borrowed from German where the -es is the regular neuter nom./acc. sg.

                  > ending, from Germanic *-at (after *þat)?  What about <iets>, <niets>, and any
                  >
                  > others that I don't know of?
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                  > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:42:21 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                  >
                  >  
                  > And should foreigners avoid [R]?
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
                  > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:24:48 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                  >
                  >  
                  > What would you say are the percentages of Dutch folk who use [R] vs. [r], and
                  > where is each of these phonemes used?
                  >
                  > Andrew
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: chamavian <roerd096@...>
                  > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 5:11:25 PM
                  > Subject: [folkspraak] Re: (unknown)
                  >
                  >  
                  > Btw I like that Dutch prono site
                  > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
                  > it's quite good.
                  > The only thing I find a shame is that r is pronounced as [R] here, instead of
                  > [r]...
                  >
                  > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I forgot to say that upon further listening to the voice samples of Dutch
                  > > pronunciation from that website, I have found that often initial <v> sounds
                  > > almost like [fv], i.e. at first voiceless but becoming voiced, while initial

                  > >[w]
                  > >
                  > > sounds like English <v> [v] - to me.  Although one of the speakers
                  >definitely
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > uses [P], I can recognize it as different from the other speakers'
                  > >pronunciation
                  > >
                  > > of <w>, but still a phoneme that is hard for me to reproduce accurately, the

                  > > Dutch way.  Also I noticed that medial <v> in <zilver> and some other
                  >words
                  >
                  > > sounds less voiced than English <v> in <silver>, it sounds somewhat [f]-like

                  > > (though probably not exactly like [f]).
                  > >
                  > > Andrew
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@>
                  > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 3:49:44 PM
                  > > Subject: Re: [folkspraak] (unknown)
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > > I guess my inability to distinguish ui and ou/au ([9Y] and [aU]) relates to
                  >the
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > fact that in English there is no [y] phoneme.  We tend to pronounce [y] as
                  >
                  > >[u],
                  > >
                  > > or actually since our [u] is a little more central than the [u] of many
                  >foreign
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > languages, as something close to [}].  And conversely we recognize [y] as
                  >our
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > [u].  When we learn French here in Canada, so many people are unable to
                  > > pronounce French <u> [y] correctly, and substitute our [u].  French
                  >teachers
                  >
                  > > have to devote a lot of time to getting English speakers to pronounce this
                  > > phoneme correctly.  So similarly [Y] and [U] will sound the same to
                  >English
                  >
                  > > speakers, including as the final member of diphthongs (and I have to say that
                  >
                  > > your <put> sounds almost the same as our <put> to me!).  But the first
                  >element
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > of <ui> really sounds like [a] to me, or even [æ], it doesn't sound
                  >rounded to
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > me.  Note that many North Americans (as also Australians) will pronounce
                  >[aU]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >of
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > "out" etc. as [æU] or sometimes even so far as [EU], so if Dutch <ui> is
                  > >indeed
                  > >
                  > > more like [æY] as it sounds to me, then it will be very close to a
                  >frequent
                  >
                  > > North American pronunciation of [aU]. (By the way, I learned an IPA in which

                  > >[a]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > was considered the lowest front vowel, and not considered a central
                  >vowel. 
                  >
                  > >That
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > is why I so often insist that here in Canada, and in California English, and
                  >in
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > most of Britain, we have [a] rather than [æ] (which in the IPA I learned
                  >is
                  >
                  > > between [E] and [a]).  But if [æ] is considered the lowest front vowel,
                  >and
                  >
                  > >[a]
                  > >
                  > > is a central vowel, then most of us don't really have [a], we have [æ]
                  > > (including Scotsmen and Northern Englishmen who are supposed to have [a],
                  >but
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >I
                  > >
                  > > think even for them it is really a very low front vowel, not a central
                  > >vowel). 
                  > >
                  > > I have only heard a true [æ], according to the IPA I learned, i.e. between
                  >[E]
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > and [a], in some regional varieties of U.S. English, but most often
                  >they will
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > instead substitute [Ea] or [E@] or similar because it is so close to [E] and

                  > > therefore hard to distinguish from [E].  In fact, I suspect that what I
                  >think
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >is
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [æ] in these U.S. pronunciations is actually [E], but the brain fools
                  >itself
                  >
                  > > into thinking that it hears [æ] because we know that the word is spelled
                  >with
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >an
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > 'a' and therefore must have a different sound than short 'e' [E] -- but
                  >really
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > it's the same sound in these U.S. varieties.  I'm pretty sure that this
                  >U.S.
                  >
                  > > pronunciation is a relatively small minority pronunciation.  However,
                  >before
                  >
                  > > nasals the vast majority of North Americans pronounce /æ/ as [Ea] or [E@],
                  >
                  > > occasionally even [I@] and I think I have even heard [i@].  It's very
                  > >different
                  > >
                  > > from /æ/ before other consonants, it's a wonder that people still
                  >recognize it
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > as the same phoneme.  Also before /r/ most North Americans pronounce
                  >/æ/
                  >
                  > >simply
                  > >
                  > > as [E], merging "marry" and "merry".  However, not all North Americans do

                  > >these
                  > >
                  > > things, and many pronounce /æ/ as [a] also before nasals and before /r/
                  > >(myself
                  > >
                  > > included) -- using the /a/ that I learned from the IPA, the /a/ that
                  >represents
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > the lowest possible front vowel, as opposed to a central vowel.  I find
                  >that
                  >
                  > >our
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > /æ/, which I think is this [a], sounds the same as Dutch <aa> that I have

                  > >heard
                  > >
                  > > on that website, except before nasals and /r/ where our sound sounds much
                  >more
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > front and higher by the majority of speakers.  I even pronounce our /æ/
                  >as a
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > long vowel very often ([a:]), especially before voiced consonants, but also
                  > > often before voiceless consonants.  In general, our low vowels /æ/
                  >([a]) and
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >/A/
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > tend to be pronounced long in much of North America, while the lower mid
                  >vowels
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > /E/ and /V/, which are just above /æ/ ([a]) and /A/, are always pronounced
                  >
                  > > short.)
                  > >
                  > > Don't you mean that you have your upper teeth on your lower lip when you
                  > > pronounce <v> [v], and not when you pronounce <w> [P]?  I don't see how
                  >it is
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > possible to pronounce [v] without putting the upper teeth on the lower lip!?
                  > >
                  > > ________________________________
                  > > From: chamavian <roerd096@>
                  > > To: folkspraak@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 1:33:28 AM
                  > > Subject: [folkspraak] (unknown)
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > >
                  > > The difference between ui and ou, au is that ui is pronounced [9Y], where ou

                  > >and
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > au are both [aU]. So ui is palatal and ou/au a round diphthong. For me it is

                  > > very easy to distinguish,on the site you refer to, but I know many English
                  > > speakers pronounce ui as ou when speaking g Dutch.
                  > > A prono tip for ui: pronounce it as [a] + [y], and it sounds almost the same.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > V or W? Well, on the site you gave the difference was very clear for me in
                  > >every
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > word, but I can imagine that is harder for foreigners.
                  > > I myself have my upper teeth on my lower lip when I say w, but not when I
                  > > pronounce v.
                  > >
                  > > Ingmar
                  > >
                  > > Thanks Ingmar.
                  > >
                  > > Not another question, just a comment:
                  > >
                  > > I realized I could look up Dutch pronunciation on the Internet. The second
                  >link
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > my Google search gave me sent me to a website with recorded Dutch
                  > > pronunciation. As you said, Dutch short <u> is [2] (though they say on the
                  > > website that it's the same as Dutch unstressed <e> as in <me, je, we> -- I'm

                  > >not
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > sure that that is true). But two things struck me: one is that Dutch <ui>
                  > > sounds indistinguishable from our <ou> in <out>, such that Dutch <uit>,
                  ><tuin>,
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > <vuil>, <bruin> sound indistinguishable from our <out>, <town>, <foul>,
                  ><brown>
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > (to which they are etymologically cognate). Now that's to my English ear (and
                  >
                  > > I'm sure to any other English ear). To your Dutch ear there will of course be
                  >
                  > > an audible difference from your <ou> of <hout> or <au> of <nauw>. As of yet I
                  >
                  > > am unable to hear the difference. They both sound like our <ou, ow> as in the
                  >
                  > > words above, to my untrained undutch ear.
                  > >
                  > > The other thing that struck me is the one that I have commented very
                  >frequently
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > on before: the difference between <v> and <w>. I know you're probably tired
                  >of
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > hearing me complain that I can't tell the difference or reproduce the
                  > > difference, but I have to say that even when the website laid down
                  >contrasting
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > pairs for foreigners to hear, I still found it very difficult to make out the
                  >
                  > > difference between these two sounds. In most cases both sounded like English

                  > > [v] to me, although <v> sounded sometimes like long [v:] while <w> sounded
                  >like
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > short [v]. I don't know whether this was because the speakers were
                  >deliberately
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > trying to emphasize the difference between the two sounds, so they pronounced
                  >
                  > > one of them longer than the other. I do have to say that if I describe the
                  >two
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > sounds carefully there is a very slight difference, but what that difference
                  >is
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > is elusive to us English folk (or at least to me). I know what the technical

                  > > difference is, that one is a semivowel without friction, while the other is a
                  >
                  > > fricative with friction, but often <w> still sounds like it has friction.
                  >Some
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > speakers pronounce it with friction, at least one pronounces it without
                  > > friction, so this speaker at least produces a <w> that I can distinguish to
                  > >some
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > degree from <v>, but it's hard for me to reproduce his sound -- I can
                  >reproduce
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > it once or twice, but when I start speaking more quickly, I revert to [v]
                  >which
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > is easier for me -- but to me this is the same as Dutch <w>! The distinction
                  >is
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > so subtle, I really don't know how you Dutch speakers (I know you're really
                  >Low
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Saxon, but you're the only native or semi-native speaker of Dutch I
                  >correspond
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > with) can distinguish them. But I can't complain because Dutch speakers have

                  > > pointed out to me how close the English vowels in <colour> and <collar> are,

                  > >and
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > how difficult they are to distinguish for Dutch speakers as well as other
                  > > foreigners sometimes. (To tell the truth, for me <colour> has a short vowel,

                  > >and
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > <collar> has a long vowel, even though they're both traditionally called
                  > >"short"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > vowels.)
                  > >
                  > > I have to acknowledge that none of the speakers on this website devoiced
                  > >initial
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > <v>, it was always (or mostly) fully voiced, as it's supposed to be. I guess

                  > > here in Ottawa I had encountered a higher proportion of people from a region

                  > > which does have devoicing of initial <v>.
                  > >
                  > > The website is the following:
                  > > http://web.me.com/schuffelen/Site/DutchPronunciation.html
                  > >
                  > > Hope this was of interest to you and not annoying! I know I'm repeating
                  >things
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > I've said before, but I want you to know my emotional reactions to the
                  > >realities
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > of Dutch! I also know you're more interested in Low Saxon, but there isn't
                  >much
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > learning material about it, nor is there as much of a national literature or

                  > > international importance, as Dutch has. Not that I'm putting down Low Saxon!

                  > > Just that you must understand that it's harder for me to learn about it than

                  > > Dutch.
                  > >
                  > > Andrew
                  > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > In Dutch of the Netherlands, short u = [2] like the French short eu.
                  > > > In several Belgian Brabantish dialects, and also in their accent when
                  > > > speaking standard Dutch, it's between short [y] and [Y].
                  > > > In my ears, Belgian put sounds like Dutch puut [pyt], and Belgian pit like

                  > > > Dutch piet [pit].
                  > > > In Low Saxon dialects, Dutch u is often ö
                  > > >
                  > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
                  > > > To: <roerd096@>
                  > > > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 6:35 AM
                  > > > Subject: Another Dutch Pronunciation Question
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Ingmar, one last (I think) question about Dutch pronunciation:
                  > > >
                  > > > Is Dutch short <u> as in <put> pronounced as [Y] or as [Ã…"]? You may find

                  > > > this a
                  > > > strange question, but several dictionaries and teach-yourself books I have

                  > > > seen
                  > > > have said that the short <u> in Dutch is pronounced [Ã…"] like French <eu>
                  >in
                  > > > <neuf>. Since then, I have only seen books and dictionarires that have
                  said
                  > > > that short <u> is pronounced [Y] like German <ü> in <dünn> (thus
                  >equal in
                  > > > pronunciation to Dutch <dun>). I saw a Belgian movie once, and I remember
                  > > > that
                  > > > one of the main characters pronounced <put> distinctly as [pYt], not as
                  > > > [pÃ…"t].
                  > > > His [Y] was very high, it sounded close to [y] to me. But I thought at the

                  > > > time
                  > > > that this must be Belgian pronunciation (since I hadn't yet encountered
                  > > > those
                  > > > books that said that Dutch short <u> is [Y]), and that Netherlands
                  > > > pronunciation
                  > > > probably would have [pÃ…"t] as in the earlier books I had seen.
                  > > >
                  > > > So what is the real story about Dutch short <u>? How is it pronounced, and

                  > > > what
                  > > > are the regional variants?
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks,
                  > > >
                  > > > Andrew
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David" <parked@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In a word initial position such as "geven", is it [G] or [x]? And I
                  >assume
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >that varies a lot by region, so I as a foreign learner of Dutch would like
                  >to
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >know the way is it MEANT to be pronounced by respectable people of
                  >refinement
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >and taste, rather than the way it is really pronounced.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "chamavian" <roerd096@> wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Hi Andrew!
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Yes, intervocally Dutch "g" is [G], e.g. in wagen, zeggen etc.
                  >Elsewhere
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >it's [x], although some people from the East (Low Saxon)
                  > > > > > have [G] initially too, but I yhink not in clusters as gl-, gr-, gn-.
                  > > > > > Of course "ch" is [x] as in lachen etc. but I myself tend to pronounce
                  >it
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >as [G] after a long vowel as in juichen.
                  > > >
                  > > > > > Probably this is dew to a small Low Saxon accent in my Dutch.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > In Belgium and the Southern Netherlands, the pronunciation of G is
                  >always
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >palatal, word finally it's like the German Ich-laut [C] but initially and
                  > > >intervocally
                  > > > > > as the voiced equivalent of that, don't know how to write that in
                  >Sampa.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >Ch
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > >is always palatal here too [C]. In the same area Dutch w = [w].
                  > > > > > Actually it's not a small minority prono, but that of maybe 40 - 45 %
                  >of
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >native Dutch speakers.
                  > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > > > From: "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
                  > > > > > To:
                  > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:36 AM
                  > > > > > Subject: Re: Dutch pronunciation
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Hi, Ingmar, just a small question about Dutch pronunciation:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Is Dutch <g> pronounced [x] everywhere, or is it sometimes pronounced
                  >[G]
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >(e.g.
                  > > >
                  > > > > > intervocalically)? My dictionary (Routledge) says that Dutch <g> is to
                  >be
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > > > pronounced [G] everywhere except final, but I understand that this is
                  > > >Belgian
                  > > >
                  > > > > > pronunciation, is it not? Also Alwyn on the Foreign Languages and
                  > >Germanic
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > > > Philology yahoo groups says that Belgian [G] is palatalized, a
                  >fricative
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > >[j],
                  > > >
                  > > > > > except after back vowels. By the way, that same Routledge dictionary
                  >says
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > >Dutch
                  > > >
                  > > > > > <w> is to be pronounced [w] -- but I know that this is a small minority
                  >
                  > > > > > pronunciation.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Andrew
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.