An unusal last name

[anal...@hotmail.com]

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html

"Carol Sbarge"

She seems to be saying her last name with word-initial [sb] which
(even for a proper name) seems unusual.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birth...

>
> "Carol Sbarge"
>
> She seems to be saying her last name with word-initial [sb] which
> (even for a proper name) seems unusual.

She doesn't know Italian? She's never been to a mall food court and
seen a Sbarro's Pizza?

[ranjit_...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birth...

> "Carol Sbarge"
> She seems to be saying her last name with word-initial [sb]

[zb]

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 30, 6:02 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

> > which (even for a proper name) seems unusual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


That video seems to be gone, but here is another one in which both the
anchor and Carol say the name - sounds like [sp] to me - so may be it
is true that after [s] unaspirated [p] and [b] sound alike. If Nathan
runs the clip through his machines, we can tell for sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmHyEU7VoDk

I wonder what "Ms. Sbarge" would sound like.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<7ea78872-ae57-461a...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

"anal...@hotmail.com" <anal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 6:02 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birth...
> > > "Carol Sbarge"
> > > She seems to be saying her last name with word-initial [sb]
> >
> > [zb]
> >
> > > which (even for a proper name) seems unusual.
>

> That video seems to be gone, but here is another one in which both the
> anchor and Carol say the name - sounds like [sp] to me - so may be it
> is true that after [s] unaspirated [p] and [b] sound alike. If Nathan
> runs the clip through his machines, we can tell for sure.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmHyEU7VoDk
>
> I wonder what "Ms. Sbarge" would sound like.

It's definitely [sp]. Here's the waveform and spectrogram for Carol's
pronunciation (the anchor's pronunciation looks the same as hers):

http://sanders.phonologist.org/sbarge.png

The vertical red dotted line marks the boundary between the <s> and
<b>. Voicing is indicated by blue lines: the vertical blue lines in
the top portion show the individual vibrations of the vocal cords, and
the horizontal blue track in the bottom portion graphs the pitch over
time. The voicing ends right as the <s> begins, and doesn't pick back
up until the end of the <b>.

This isn't surprising: unaspirated /p/ in English (as in a /sp/ onset
cluster) sounds like a word-initial /b/ in English, because
word-initial /b/ in English is often mostly, if not entirely,
voiceless (and of course, is unaspirated).

This fact forms the basis of a common demonstration in English
phonetics classes: the professor plays a recording of a pair like
"spill" and "bill", then clips out the /s/ from "spit" and plays both
back. They sound identical to native speakers, and when the acoustics
are examined as above, they look identical, too. (The same is true
for "still/dill" and "skill/gill", too, of course.)

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[wugi]

Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> I wonder what "Ms. Sbarge" would sound like.
>
> It's definitely [sp]. Here's the waveform and spectrogram for Carol's
> pronunciation (the anchor's pronunciation looks the same as hers):

(...)

> This isn't surprising: unaspirated /p/ in English (as in a /sp/ onset
> cluster) sounds like a word-initial /b/ in English, because
> word-initial /b/ in English is often mostly, if not entirely,
> voiceless (and of course, is unaspirated).

If that were the case then 'Beijing' should sound rather like its Chinese
original. But in reality the 'B' (as the 'j') sound very heavy and voiced,
taking the name further away from its Chinese counterpart than did the
former 'Peking'. So far for the obsession to approach better the locals'
pronunciation...

> This fact forms the basis of a common demonstration in English
> phonetics classes: the professor plays a recording of a pair like
> "spill" and "bill", then clips out the /s/ from "spit" and plays both
> back. They sound identical to native speakers, and when the acoustics
> are examined as above, they look identical, too. (The same is true
> for "still/dill" and "skill/gill", too, of course.)

Perhaps because 'initial aspirers' have the ear less well tuned to
distinguishing b and unaspired p...

guido google:wugi

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <jg9k94$qpu$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

As I said, "when the acoustics [of voicing in the stops] are examined
as above, they look identical, too". That is, this isn't just a
perceptual illusion for impoverished native English speakers; it is an
objectively measurable acoustic fact. Initial "voiced" stops in
English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
ordinary circumstances.

Now, there may very well be some acoustic differences between English
initial /b/ and Mandarin initial /p/ that make the English one sound
"very heavy". But in the general case, stop voicing is not one of
those differences.

Also note that in many non-ordinary circumstances (citation forms,
emphasis, deliberate speech, talking to a foreigner, child-directed
speech, mimicry, etc.), initial voiced stops in English are much more
likely to be voiced. I'm not talking about those circumstances; I'm
only talking about ordinary connected speech, at regular speed, with
regular prosody, and with adult native speakers as the only
participants in the conversation.

[wugi]

Well, it's not my impoverished perception...

> English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
> ordinary circumstances.
>
> Now, there may very well be some acoustic differences between English
> initial /b/ and Mandarin initial /p/ that make the English one sound
> "very heavy". But in the general case, stop voicing is not one of
> those differences.
>
> Also note that in many non-ordinary circumstances (citation forms,
> emphasis, deliberate speech, talking to a foreigner, child-directed
> speech, mimicry, etc.), initial voiced stops in English are much more
> likely to be voiced. I'm not talking about those circumstances; I'm
> only talking about ordinary connected speech, at regular speed, with
> regular prosody, and with adult native speakers as the only
> participants in the conversation.

...but then, I'm a non-aspirer, and foreign...

guido google:wugi

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jan 31, 3:51 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders wrote:
> >> I wonder what "Ms. Sbarge" would sound like.
>
> > It's definitely [sp].  Here's the waveform and spectrogram for Carol's
> > pronunciation (the anchor's pronunciation looks the same as hers):
> (...)
> > This isn't surprising: unaspirated /p/ in English (as in a /sp/ onset
> > cluster) sounds like a word-initial /b/ in English, because
> > word-initial /b/ in English is often mostly, if not entirely,
> > voiceless (and of course, is unaspirated).
>
> If that were the case then 'Beijing' should sound rather like its Chinese
> original. But in reality the 'B' (as the 'j') sound very heavy and voiced,
> taking the name further away from its Chinese counterpart than did the
> former 'Peking'. So far for the obsession to approach better the locals'
> pronunciation...

Pinyin was devised by Chinese linguists (and politicians) for Chinese
use. How its letters are interpreted by users of other orthographies
is beside the point.

> > This fact forms the basis of a common demonstration in English
> > phonetics classes: the professor plays a recording of a pair like
> > "spill" and "bill", then clips out the /s/ from "spit" and plays both
> > back.  They sound identical to native speakers, and when the acoustics
> > are examined as above, they look identical, too.  (The same is true
> > for "still/dill" and "skill/gill", too, of course.)
>
> Perhaps because 'initial aspirers' have the ear less well tuned to
> distinguishing b and unaspired p...

Aspirated voiced stops sound very weird in English.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 31, 11:21 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <7ea78872-ae57-461a-9c9d-a5a74668a...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks. I suppose "Carol's barge" would have [zb] ?

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<f10498aa-9138-4004...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> Thanks. I suppose "Carol's barge" would have [zb] ?

Yep. The word-initial devoicing of /b/ happens after a pause or a
voiceless sound (cf. "house boat", which would have [sp]).

[wugi]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:51 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>> Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>>> I wonder what "Ms. Sbarge" would sound like.
>>
>>> It's definitely [sp]. Here's the waveform and spectrogram for
>>> Carol's pronunciation (the anchor's pronunciation looks the same as
>>> hers): (...) This isn't surprising: unaspirated /p/ in English (as
>>> in a /sp/ onset cluster) sounds like a word-initial /b/ in English,
>>> because word-initial /b/ in English is often mostly, if not
>>> entirely, voiceless (and of course, is unaspirated).
>>
>> If that were the case then 'Beijing' should sound rather like its
>> Chinese original. But in reality the 'B' (as the 'j') sound very
>> heavy and voiced, taking the name further away from its Chinese
>> counterpart than did the former 'Peking'. So far for the obsession
>> to approach better the locals' pronunciation...
>
> Pinyin was devised by Chinese linguists (and politicians) for Chinese
> use. How its letters are interpreted by users of other orthographies
> is beside the point.

As long as they don't pretend that now they're better mimicking the original
than with the non-pinyin versions.

>>> This fact forms the basis of a common demonstration in English
>>> phonetics classes: the professor plays a recording of a pair like
>>> "spill" and "bill", then clips out the /s/ from "spit" and plays
>>> both back. They sound identical to native speakers, and when the
>>> acoustics are examined as above, they look identical, too. (The
>>> same is true for "still/dill" and "skill/gill", too, of course.)
>>
>> Perhaps because 'initial aspirers' have the ear less well tuned to
>> distinguishing b and unaspired p...
>
> Aspirated voiced stops sound very weird in English.

You bhet they dho!;-)

guido google:wugi

[Ruud Harmsen]

Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:

>As I said, "when the acoustics [of voicing in the stops] are examined
>as above, they look identical, too". That is, this isn't just a
>perceptual illusion for impoverished native English speakers; it is an
>objectively measurable acoustic fact. Initial "voiced" stops in
>English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
>ordinary circumstances.

Of course I believe what you tell is true.

Strange it is however, that I can't remember ever having mistaken an
English initial /b/ for a [p], although it must sound quite similar to
a Dutch /p/ unaspirated.

Part of my accent in English is probably that I don't properly
aspirate my /p/'s, and after what you wrote above, also that my
English /b/'s are too voiced.

But how can it not lead to misunderstandigs?

I also read that final d, b, and g are usually voiceless in English.
If so, why is it conspicable when Germans and Dutch (but not me)
pronounce them as [p], [t] and [k]?

--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <e59ji7903dasc366o...@4ax.com>,

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>
> >As I said, "when the acoustics [of voicing in the stops] are examined
> >as above, they look identical, too". That is, this isn't just a
> >perceptual illusion for impoverished native English speakers; it is an
> >objectively measurable acoustic fact. Initial "voiced" stops in
> >English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
> >ordinary circumstances.
>
> Of course I believe what you tell is true.

"say" :-)

> Strange it is however, that I can't remember ever having mistaken an
> English initial /b/ for a [p], although it must sound quite similar to
> a Dutch /p/ unaspirated.

There are other acoustic properties that you may differ and that you
may be sensitive to: release burst intensity, closure duration, etc.

> Part of my accent in English is probably that I don't properly
> aspirate my /p/'s, and after what you wrote above, also that my
> English /b/'s are too voiced.
>
> But how can it not lead to misunderstandigs?

It certainly can! I recall misunderstanding Spanish and French
speakers speaking English precisely because of their lack of
aspiration, hearing what I thought was a word-initial /bdg/, when in
fact, they were attempting to say /ptk/, which are unaspirated for
them.

> I also read that final d, b, and g are usually voiceless in English.
> If so, why is it conspicable when Germans and Dutch (but not me)
> pronounce them as [p], [t] and [k]?

Probably because you don't lengthen the preceding vowel like we do in
English. For many English speakers, "bet" and "bed" also differ in
vowel duration, so if you devoice "bed" without lengthening the vowel,
it sounds weird to us.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-02-01, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> In article <e59ji7903dasc366o...@4ax.com>,
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>
>> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>>
>> >As I said, "when the acoustics [of voicing in the stops] are examined
>> >as above, they look identical, too". That is, this isn't just a
>> >perceptual illusion for impoverished native English speakers; it is an
>> >objectively measurable acoustic fact. Initial "voiced" stops in
>> >English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
>> >ordinary circumstances.
>>
>> Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
> "say" :-)

"What Itell you three times is true."
:-P

>> I also read that final d, b, and g are usually voiceless in English.
>> If so, why is it conspicable when Germans and Dutch (but not me)
>> pronounce them as [p], [t] and [k]?
>
> Probably because you don't lengthen the preceding vowel like we do in
> English. For many English speakers, "bet" and "bed" also differ in
> vowel duration, so if you devoice "bed" without lengthening the vowel,
> it sounds weird to us.

How close is this to the shit/sheet piss/piece question for English
speakers listening to French people speaking English?


--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with
your wife. [Ray Magliozzi, ep. 2011-36]

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <27nov8x...@news.ducksburg.com>,

That's a different issue, since French doesn't have /I/ at all, so
until they master the sound, they have to substitute in the closest
one they have.

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/01 21:51, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Nathan Sanders<san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>
>> As I said, "when the acoustics [of voicing in the stops] are examined
>> as above, they look identical, too". That is, this isn't just a
>> perceptual illusion for impoverished native English speakers; it is an
>> objectively measurable acoustic fact. Initial "voiced" stops in
>> English are mostly, if not entirely, voiceless for most speakers in
>> ordinary circumstances.
>
> Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
> Strange it is however, that I can't remember ever having mistaken an
> English initial /b/ for a [p], although it must sound quite similar to
> a Dutch /p/ unaspirated.
>
> Part of my accent in English is probably that I don't properly
> aspirate my /p/'s, and after what you wrote above, also that my
> English /b/'s are too voiced.
>
> But how can it not lead to misunderstandigs?

There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
gives the pronunciation [vɑn ˈɣɔχ], but the checking the sound-file, the
[ɣ] seems not voiced. Also, should not the [v] be [f]?

Hans

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-02-01, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> In article <27nov8x...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-01, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>> > In article <e59ji7903dasc366o...@4ax.com>,
>> > Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

>> >> I also read that final d, b, and g are usually voiceless in English.
>> >> If so, why is it conspicable when Germans and Dutch (but not me)
>> >> pronounce them as [p], [t] and [k]?
>> >
>> > Probably because you don't lengthen the preceding vowel like we do in
>> > English. For many English speakers, "bet" and "bed" also differ in
>> > vowel duration, so if you devoice "bed" without lengthening the vowel,
>> > it sounds weird to us.
>>
>> How close is this to the shit/sheet piss/piece question for English
>> speakers listening to French people speaking English?
>
> That's a different issue, since French doesn't have /I/ at all, so
> until they master the sound, they have to substitute in the closest
> one they have.

OK, I know /I/ is missing from French, but I wasn't sure if length
might be involved too. Thanks.


--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."

[Ruud Harmsen]

Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:

>> Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
>"say" :-)

Yes! Slip of the pen. Maybe I meant to type "tell me" or "tell us".
English requires that pronoun, Dutch doesn't. But I thought it was a
mistake only other Dutch speakers make.

>> Strange it is however, that I can't remember /

Or I was already focusing on this deliberately un-English sentence
structure, that I wanted to try out nevertheless.
.
>> / ever having mistaken an English initial /b/ for a [p], although

>> it must sound quite similar to a Dutch /p/ unaspirated.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh

>gives the pronunciation [v?n ????], but the checking the sound-file, the
>[?] seems not voiced. Also, should not the [v] be [f]?

Sensitive issue! Can of worms! Virtual wars have been fought over
this! I prefer not to speak about it!

Well, OK, let me say this:

For most Dutch speakers, /f/ and /v/, /s/ and /z/, and /G/ and /X/ are
different phonemes. For some speakers they have merged, but I think
there are a small minority. (But some of my compatriots don't agree!)

If I take by own speech as an example, and I think it is pretty
average in this respect: /v/, /z/ and /G/ are fully voiced between
vowels, voiceless at the end (except when a word follows that start
with a vowel), but initially, /v/ is not fully /f/ and /G/ is not
fully /X/, but it goes in the direction. (/z/ remains [z], though).

So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with
the previous <t>), but the first <g> is voiced (the n doesn't
devoice).
But in 'Jan van Dijk', the <v> is voiced. In an isolated "Van Gogh",
it's probably in between: weakly voiced, not convincingly lax.

And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
geld vragen", even the <gh> (which would be spelled <ch> in modern
words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/03 15:24, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
>> gives the pronunciation [v?n ????], but the checking the sound-file, the
>> [?] seems not voiced. Also, should not the [v] be [f]?
>
> Sensitive issue! Can of worms! Virtual wars have been fought over
> this! I prefer not to speak about it!
>
> Well, OK, let me say this:
>
> For most Dutch speakers, /f/ and /v/, /s/ and /z/, and /G/ and /X/ are
> different phonemes. For some speakers they have merged, but I think
> there are a small minority. (But some of my compatriots don't agree!)
>
> If I take by own speech as an example, and I think it is pretty
> average in this respect: /v/, /z/ and /G/ are fully voiced between
> vowels, voiceless at the end (except when a word follows that start
> with a vowel), but initially, /v/ is not fully /f/ and /G/ is not
> fully /X/, but it goes in the direction. (/z/ remains [z], though).
>
> So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with

> the previous<t>), ...

The audio file also used [f] on "Vincent".

> ...but the first<g> is voiced (the n doesn't

> devoice).
> But in 'Jan van Dijk', the<v> is voiced. In an isolated "Van Gogh",
> it's probably in between: weakly voiced, not convincingly lax.
>
> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
> geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in modern
> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.

OK. Thank you. I will keep practicing the voiced [vɑn ˈɣɔχ], which I
learned a long time ago. A Swedish encyclopedia from the 1960s gives the
pronunciation for "Gogh" but not for "van".

Also note the similarity with Swedish:
Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
frågor.

Dutchmen are often good at learning Swedish. One famous here in Sweden
is former Cornelis Vreeswijk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Vreeswijk

Hans

[Ruud Harmsen]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
>> geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in modern
>> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.

[...]

>Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
>frågor.

English is the odd man out!

>Dutchmen are often good at learning Swedish.

Not me. I hardly understand a word of it and find ik very hard to read
too! I understand more of Italian than of any Skandinavian language.

>One famous here in Sweden
>is former Cornelis Vreeswijk
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Vreeswijk

Yes, but he was bilingual, I think, or started learning the language
at a relatively early age.

(Interesting surname, BTW., I more or less live there, because
Vreeswijk and Jutphaas were the constituents of the merger city where
I live).

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>
>>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
>>> geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in modern
>>> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>
> [...]
>
>> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
>> frågor.
>
> English is the odd man out!

But there is an "is" above, isn't there. Some Dutch loanwords are "dike"
(English "dyke"), which in Dutch is the stuff one dug up, not what was
left, I recall. And Swedish "stiltje" (calm winds).

>> Dutchmen are often good at learning Swedish.
>
> Not me. I hardly understand a word of it and find ik very hard to read
> too! I understand more of Italian than of any Skandinavian language.

You don't have to. :-) - I had in mind those that do take up the quest.
But the Netherlands is at a linguistic crossroads, so there might be
ample of opportunities picking up various languages.

>> One famous here in Sweden
>> is former Cornelis Vreeswijk
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Vreeswijk
>
> Yes, but he was bilingual, I think, or started learning the language
> at a relatively early age.

At age 12, the page says. I couldn't hear an accent.

> (Interesting surname, BTW., I more or less live there, because
> Vreeswijk and Jutphaas were the constituents of the merger city where
> I live).

I haven't though much about where the same comes from. Interesting, though.

Hans

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 9:13 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:

>
> >> Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
> >"say"  :-)
>
> Yes! Slip of the pen. Maybe I meant to type "tell me" or "tell us".
> English requires that pronoun, Dutch doesn't. But I thought it was a
> mistake only other Dutch speakers make.

It's a characteristic mistake of Russian-speakers, but surely lexical
rather than grammatical -- to use "tell" instead of "say." One would
like to see how the Soviet-era standard textbook for elementary
English classes introduced the word(s) and the examples.

> >> Strange it is however, that I can't remember /
>
> Or I was already focusing on this deliberately un-English sentence
> structure, that I wanted to try out nevertheless.

Poetic, rather than un-English.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
> "say" :-)

The version with "tell" doesn't sound ungrammatical to me.
Let's google <"what you tell is">... Lots and lots of hits.
I find it hard to believe that these are all L2 speakers.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 3:42 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>
> > "say"  :-)
>
> The version with "tell" doesn't sound ungrammatical to me.
> Let's google <"what you tell is">...  Lots and lots of hits.
> I find it hard to believe that these are all L2 speakers.

They _could_ be responses to a question "What can you tell from [such-
and-such a phenomenon]?"

Cf. from "The Hunting of the Snark" -- "What I tell you three times is
true."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 3, 12:23 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> > Hans Aberg<haberg-n...@telia.com>  schreef/wrote:

>
> >>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
> >>> geld vragen", even the<gh>   (which would be spelled<ch>   in modern
> >>> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
> >> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
> >> frågor.
>
> > English is the odd man out!
>
> But there is an "is" above, isn't there. Some Dutch loanwords are "dike"
> (English "dyke"), which in Dutch is the stuff one dug up, not what was
> left, I recall. And Swedish "stiltje" (calm winds).

A dike is a thick wall that keeps the sea out. A dyke is a lesbian.

[wugi]

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>
>> There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
>> gives the pronunciation [v?n ????], but the checking the sound-file,
>> the [?] seems not voiced. Also, should not the [v] be [f]?
>
> Sensitive issue! Can of worms! Virtual wars have been fought over
> this! I prefer not to speak about it!
>
> Well, OK, let me say this:
>
> For most Dutch speakers, /f/ and /v/, /s/ and /z/, and /G/ and /X/ are

(and nigh all Flemish)

> different phonemes. For some speakers they have merged, but I think
> there are a small minority. (But some of my compatriots don't agree!)
>
> If I take by own speech as an example, and I think it is pretty
> average in this respect: /v/, /z/ and /G/ are fully voiced between
> vowels, voiceless at the end (except when a word follows that start
> with a vowel), but initially, /v/ is not fully /f/ and /G/ is not
> fully /X/, but it goes in the direction. (/z/ remains [z], though).
>
> So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with
> the previous <t>), but the first <g> is voiced (the n doesn't
> devoice).
> But in 'Jan van Dijk', the <v> is voiced. In an isolated "Van Gogh",
> it's probably in between: weakly voiced, not convincingly lax.
>
> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
> geld vragen", even the <gh> (which would be spelled <ch> in modern

I'd rather put my bet on "Van Gog", toch nog?

> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.

guido google:wugi

[wugi]

Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>
>>>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn
>>>> broer om geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in
>>>> modern words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>>> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om
>>> penning- frågor.

Swedish is rather like English in its word order (with the odd German-like
byphrase) as can be seen in the example above.

>> English is the odd man out!

Actually I suppose English lost its original German-like word order greatly
under the influence of Skandinavian (and French).

> But there is an "is" above, isn't there. Some Dutch loanwords are
> "dike" (English "dyke"), which in Dutch is the stuff one dug up, not
> what was left, I recall. And Swedish "stiltje" (calm winds).
>
>>> Dutchmen are often good at learning Swedish.

I knew some Dutch in Ethiopia who mastered nicely the Swedish language. Felt
jealous about it:-o) Also we have a Flemish tv-quiz presentator (or how's
them called?), Herman Van Molle, who is quite at home in Sweden and
comfortable in Swedish.

>> Not me. I hardly understand a word of it and find ik very hard to
>> read too! I understand more of Italian than of any Skandinavian
>> language.

But reading a few chapters in my "Swedish in three months" suffice to get
the feel of deciphering new text. The main problem is pronunciation, and
assimilating spoken language differing greatly from written. How often I
think by meself how nicer languages like Portuguese or Swedish would sound
if they were but spoken as they are written;-) But as it is, they aren't.
(And I don't feel the same about English and French, maybe due to earlier
exposure?).

guido google:wugi

[Hans Aberg]

In the case of Swedish, it is because it has drifted a lot in
pronunciation. The incomprehensible dialects, as Icelandic to Swedes,
may be those that have not drifted as much.

Nice post, though a lot are comments of what Ruud Harmsen wrote, not me,
as the reply headers suggests.

Hans

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 4, 5:23 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:

> Also we have a Flemish tv-quiz presentator (or how's
> them called?), Herman Van Molle, who is quite at home in Sweden and
> comfortable in Swedish.

emcee (for master of ceremonies, a term borrowed from high-church
liturgical usage), or host

[wugi]

Sounds like our Flemish dialects, tending sonantly towards English in the
West, German in the East, but each with its own set of (at times rather
foul:) phonemes.

> Nice post, though a lot are comments of what Ruud Harmsen wrote, not
> me, as the reply headers suggests.

Thanks, and yes, I know, sorry, but I like to condense, and not reply my
multip-, eh, not multiply my replies ;-o)

guido google:wugi

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/05 10:27, wugi wrote:
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>> On 2012/02/04 23:23, wugi wrote:
>
>>> But reading a few chapters in my "Swedish in three months" suffice
>>> to get the feel of deciphering new text. The main problem is
>>> pronunciation, and assimilating spoken language differing greatly
>>> from written. How often I think by meself how nicer languages like
>>> Portuguese or Swedish would sound if they were but spoken as they
>>> are written;-) But as it is, they aren't. (And I don't feel the same
>>> about English and French, maybe due to earlier exposure?).
>>
>> In the case of Swedish, it is because it has drifted a lot in
>> pronunciation. The incomprehensible dialects, as Icelandic to Swedes,
>> may be those that have not drifted as much.
>
> Sounds like our Flemish dialects, tending sonantly towards English in the
> West, German in the East, but each with its own set of (at times rather
> foul:) phonemes.

That is a common phenomenon. For example, Scanian (Skånska), the dialect
of southernmost Sweden, has picked up the French guttural R.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttural_R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanian_dialects

And the tonal word accent present in the main Swedish dialect, Finland
Swedish has lost, an influence of Finnish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_Swedish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_accent

>> Nice post, though a lot are comments of what Ruud Harmsen wrote, not
>> me, as the reply headers suggests.
>
> Thanks, and yes, I know, sorry, but I like to condense, and not reply my
> multip-, eh, not multiply my replies ;-o)

You do what you like, of course, but those that you respond to may miss it.

Hans

[Ruud Harmsen]

>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>> There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh

>> So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with
>> the previous<t>), ...
>
>The audio file also used [f] on "Vincent".

No. That's definitely not a Dutch /f/, but /v/. Not as voiced and as
lax as an English of French v, but certainly not an [f].

[Ruud Harmsen]

"wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> schreef/wrote:

>Hans Aberg wrote:
>> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn
>>>>> broer om geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in
>>>>> modern words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>>>> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om
>>>> penning- frågor.
>
>Swedish is rather like English in its word order (with the odd German-like
>byphrase) as can be seen in the example above.

So why does that sentence correspond to Dutch and German word for
word?

>How often I
>think by meself how nicer languages like Portuguese or Swedish would sound
>if they were but spoken as they are written;-)

That's easy for Portuguese: just listen to some Galician.

>But as it is, they aren't.

The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.

>(And I don't feel the same about English and French, maybe due to earlier
>exposure?).

[Ruud Harmsen]

"wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> schreef/wrote:

>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
>> geld vragen", even the <gh> (which would be spelled <ch> in modern
>
>I'd rather put my bet on "Van Gog", toch nog?

Also a possibility.

I still haven't been able to find clues as to whether the name
originated from the now German town of Goch (been there a couple of
months ago). It might be, because that area was once part of Gerle,
which obviously gave its name to the modern Netherlands province
Gelderland (capital: Arnhem), but the name was derived from the town
Geldern, which is now also on German territory.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geldern
"De stad is de oorsprong en oorspronkelijke hoofdstad van het
historische hertogdom Gelre.".

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=geldern,+germany&daddr=goch&hl=en&ll=51.600107,6.242981&spn=0.468301,1.234589&sll=38.341656,-95.712891&sspn=37.550588,79.013672&geocode=FbwjEgMdHoZgAClnhjdnhWDHRzETA8w2YXv_1Q%3BFfCSFAMdCPFdACknhBEUEG7HRzGAdFQxgfInBA&mra=ls&t=h&z=10

[Hans Aberg]

I checked the sound spectrum. It is not voiced. So it is [f] in the
recording.

This is why I wondered if there is something similar going on in Dutch
as in English: one is convinced it is voiced, even though in reality, it
is not.

Hans

[wugi]

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> "wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> schreef/wrote:
>
>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn
>>>>>> broer om geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be
>>>>>> spelled<ch> in modern words) might become voiced due to the
>>>>>> vowel that follows.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>>>>> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om
>>>>> penning- frågor.
>>
>> Swedish is rather like English in its word order (with the odd
>> German-like byphrase) as can be seen in the example above.
>
> So why does that sentence correspond to Dutch and German word for
> word?

Not word *before* word, or it would be:
.... men måste frågor(?) sin bror om penning fråga.
.... but had to earlier his brother for money ask.

>> How often I
>> think by meself how nicer languages like Portuguese or Swedish would
>> sound if they were but spoken as they are written;-)
>
> That's easy for Portuguese: just listen to some Galician.
>
>> But as it is, they aren't.
>
> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.

Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In such
case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like, well, German or
Dutch.

>> (And I don't feel the same about English and French, maybe due to
>> earlier exposure?).

Now and then we divert one another by 'speaking' E. or F. according to
Dutch(Flemish) spelling rules. With Spanish, that game has little or no
effect :-)

guido google:wugi

[António Marques]

wugi wrote (05-02-2012 11:22):

> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>
> Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In such
> case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like, well, German or
> Dutch.

What can we do? The latin alphabet has 5 vowels, our language has 9. We rely
on phonotaxis to reduce the amount of diacritics.

> Now and then we divert one another by 'speaking' E. or F. according to
> Dutch(Flemish) spelling rules.

From where did you get 'divert X' = 'make X have fun'?

[António Marques]

Ruud Harmsen wrote (05-02-2012 10:27):

> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.

I think I once saw someone claim even Danish corresponded to its spelling.

[Trond Engen]

António Marques:

Danish correesponds to _any_ spelling.

--
Trond Engen

[Ruud Harmsen]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>On 2012/02/05 11:22, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>>>> There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
>>>> So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with
>>>> the previous<t>), ...
>>>
>>> The audio file also used [f] on "Vincent".
>>
>> No. That's definitely not a Dutch /f/, but /v/. Not as voiced and as
>> lax as an English of French v, but certainly not an [f].
>
>I checked the sound spectrum. It is not voiced. So it is [f] in the
>recording.

Voicing isn't the only difference between [f] and [v]. It's probably
lax and voiceless.

>This is why I wondered if there is something similar going on in Dutch
>as in English: one is convinced it is voiced, even though in reality, it
>is not.

Many Dutch speakers (e.g. in nl.taal) deny the difference, even though
I hear them make it themselves.

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/05 23:37, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>
>> On 2012/02/05 11:22, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>>>>> There seems to be a similar thing going on in Dutch. This page
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh
>>>>> So in Vincent van Gogh I probably use a full [f] (assimilation with
>>>>> the previous<t>), ...
>>>>
>>>> The audio file also used [f] on "Vincent".
>>>
>>> No. That's definitely not a Dutch /f/, but /v/. Not as voiced and as
>>> lax as an English of French v, but certainly not an [f].
>>
>> I checked the sound spectrum. It is not voiced. So it is [f] in the
>> recording.
>
> Voicing isn't the only difference between [f] and [v]. It's probably
> lax and voiceless.

WP says it is [f] in that case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_labiodental_fricative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_labiodental_fricative

I listened to the recording again (also see below). In "Vincent" it
starts with [f] that goes over to [v] before the vowel sounds: when I
cut out the [f] part, it sounds as though there is an initial [v] in the
sound part. As for "van", there is no [v] over the voiced "a"; so it
sounds as only [f] here.

>> This is why I wondered if there is something similar going on in Dutch
>> as in English: one is convinced it is voiced, even though in reality, it
>> is not.
>
> Many Dutch speakers (e.g. in nl.taal) deny the difference, even though
> I hear them make it themselves.

The WP says that in some northern dialects, the voiced have almost
completely merged with the voiceless ones. In particular, [v] is usually
realized as [f].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology

So that seems what is going on in this recording.

Hans

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 5, 4:58 pm, António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> wugi wrote (05-02-2012 11:22):
>
> > Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
> >> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>
> > Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In such
> > case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like, well, German or
> > Dutch.
>
> What can we do? The latin alphabet has 5 vowels, our language has 9. We rely
> on phonotaxis to reduce the amount of diacritics.

Why not digraphs?

> > Now and then we divert one another by 'speaking' E. or F. according to
> > Dutch(Flemish) spelling rules.
>
>  From where did you get 'divert X' = 'make X have fun'?

Back-formating from "diverting" and "diversion" and "divertissement"?
It's in the dictionary, but there isn't much call for a transitive
verb with that nuance. It's 'amuse by diverting attention from
something serious'.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>I listened to the recording again (also see below). In "Vincent" it
>starts with [f] that goes over to [v] before the vowel sounds: when I
>cut out the [f] part, it sounds as though there is an initial [v] in the
>sound part.

Bingo! I think you found it. Might we call this 'lazy voicing'?

>As for "van", there is no [v] over the voiced "a"; so it
>sounds as only [f] here.

>> Many Dutch speakers (e.g. in nl.taal) deny the difference, even though
>> I hear them make it themselves.
>
>The WP says that in some northern dialects, the voiced have almost
>completely merged with the voiceless ones. In particular, [v] is usually
>realized as [f].
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_phonology

Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.
But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
doesn't English have that word? I need it!) a carrier as a youth
program telefishion pressenter.

>So that seems what is going on in this recording.

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/06 10:04, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>> I listened to the recording again (also see below). In "Vincent" it
>> starts with [f] that goes over to [v] before the vowel sounds: when I
>> cut out the [f] part, it sounds as though there is an initial [v] in the
>> sound part.
>
> Bingo! I think you found it. Might we call this 'lazy voicing'?

Perhaps it is related to the issue below, how for example [v] slowly can
migrate becoming [f] via intermediate forms: just delay the voicing of
the [v] until it disappears completely in the consonant part, in which
case, it has become a true [f].

In the Swedish I know (main dialect), there is no [f] part at all of a
[v], which perhaps makes me particularly sensitive to it.

Hans

[Hans Aberg]

A Swede, trying to learn Danish, found it particularly difficult,
because of the poor correspondence between written and spoken forms.

On Iceland, they learn Danish, because the country once belonged to
Denmark, but it would be easier for them to learn to speak Swedish or
Norwegian, being closer to Icelandic. However, the traditional written
Norwegian Bokmål is an adaptation of written Danish, which caused the
Nynorsk to be created. So it might be easiest for the Icelandic to learn
Swedish.

Hans

[Ruud Harmsen]

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> schreef/wrote:

>Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.
>But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
>doesn't English have that word? I need it!) a carrier as a youth
>program telefishion pressenter.

Career (en). Carrière (nl and fr).

[Ruud Harmsen]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>Perhaps it is related to the issue below, how for example [v] slowly can
>migrate becoming [f] via intermediate forms: just delay the voicing of
>the [v] until it disappears completely in the consonant part, in which
>case, it has become a true [f].
>
>In the Swedish I know (main dialect), there is no [f] part at all of a
>[v], which perhaps makes me particularly sensitive to it.

Exactly. That is the conspicuous pronunciation deficit in Abba's
otherwise quite reasonable sounding English.

In my type of Dutch (but other types exist) I don't have that problem,
an intervocalic [z] or [v] or [G] comes naturally to me.

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/06 12:33, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen<r...@rudhar.com> schreef/wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.

This is supposed to be true in some German dialects, too. Swedish does
not have [z], so when speaking English the tendency is to use [s]. There
seems to be the same with Irish and Scottish Gaelic phonology, no [z],
so perhaps they may use [s] instead when speaking English (like Irish
English may use "t" instead of "th").

>> But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
>> doesn't English have that word? I need it!) a carrier as a youth
>> program telefishion pressenter.
>
> Career (en). Carrière (nl and fr).

You forgot to nest the parenthesizes properly, so put one back:-)

Hans

[sigvaldi]

On Feb 6, 9:33 am, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
> On 2012/02/05 23:00, António Marques wrote:
>
> > Ruud Harmsen wrote (05-02-2012 10:27):
>
> >> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
> >> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>
> > I think I once saw someone claim even Danish corresponded to its spelling.
>
> A Swede, trying to learn Danish, found it particularly difficult,
> because of the poor correspondence between written and spoken forms.
>

> OnIceland, they learn Danish, because the country once belonged to

> Denmark, but it would be easier for them to learn to speak Swedish or

> Norwegian, being closer toIcelandic. However, the traditional written

> Norwegian Bokmål is an adaptation of written Danish, which caused the
> Nynorsk to be created. So it might be easiest for theIcelandicto learn
> Swedish.

The west Norwegian dialects are many quite like Icelandic and the
Nynorsk was based on those dialects (with written Icelandic as
reference)
I belive it would be easiest for Icelanders to learn Norwegian,
Swedish only slightly less easy.
Having studied Danish in school, an Icelander can easily make himself
understood in Norway and Sweden but he usually has a far greater
difficulty in Denmark.

Sigvaldi

[wugi]

António Marques wrote:
> wugi wrote (05-02-2012 11:22):
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>>
>> Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In
>> such case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like,
>> well, German or Dutch.
>
> What can we do? The latin alphabet has 5 vowels, our language has 9.

Dutch has 13 ...
The problem in Pt. is not so much the basic sounds, but the dependence of
position/emphasis, and whether a syllable is going to be "swallowed" or not.
In an article when the escudo was still of actuality, we were taught it was
pronounced "sjkoed", in English that would read "shkood".
But yes, these features are yet much trickier in Russian and English.

> We rely on phonotaxis to reduce the amount of diacritics.

... but no diacritics for those. (phono-qué?)

>> Now and then we divert one another by 'speaking' E. or F. according
>> to Dutch(Flemish) spelling rules.
>
> From where did you get 'divert X' = 'make X have fun'?

Admittedly, thinking of Sp. divertir when trying to avoid "amuse", checking
the dico eg.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divert ("2. (tr) to entertain; amuse"),
and naively presuming being covered by dictionarial definitions :-o)

guido google:wugi

[António Marques]

On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> António Marques wrote:
> > wugi wrote (05-02-2012 11:22):
> >> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
> >>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>
> >> Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In
> >> such case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like,
> >> well, German or Dutch.
>
> > What can we do? The latin alphabet has 5 vowels, our language has 9.
>
> Dutch has 13 ...

Only 8 once you omit the long/short distinction.

> The problem in Pt. is not so much the basic sounds, but the dependence of
> position/emphasis,

All regular and you can always tell from the spelling which syllable
is stressed.

> and whether a syllable is going to be "swallowed" or not.

What swallowed syllables? We don't swallow no syllables!

> In an article when the escudo was still of actuality, we were taught it was
> pronounced "sjkoed", in English that would read "shkood".

Well, yes, because they didn't take into account the sounds which
don't exist in dutch - the initial short [+] and the closing short [U]/
[barred-u]. Both can be very short, and absorbed into a preceding/
following vowel.

> But yes, these features are yet much trickier in Russian and English.

My point was just that they're regular and fully covered by the
spelling, which is not the case in english.

Yes, there are spelling ambiguities, but only regarding features that
aren't transcribed at all, such as secondary stress (which is hardly
ever important) or the pronunciation of unstressed <i> before a
stressed <i> (which isn't set in stone). There are no half-transcribed
features.

> > We rely on phonotaxis to reduce the amount of diacritics.
>
> ... but no diacritics for those. (phono-qué?)

Sorry, it's phonotactics in english (which answers your remark).

> >> Now and then we divert one another by 'speaking' E. or F. according
> >> to Dutch(Flemish) spelling rules.
>
> > From where did you get 'divert X' = 'make X have fun'?
>
> Admittedly, thinking of Sp. divertir when trying to avoid "amuse", checking
> the dico eg.

>  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divert("2. (tr) to entertain; amuse"),

> and naively presuming being covered by dictionarial definitions :-o)

I'd certainly never met that usage in english. Interesting. Diverting,
even.

[António Marques]

On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:

> The problem in Pt. is not so much the basic sounds, but the dependence of
> position/emphasis, and whether a syllable is going to be "swallowed" or not.

Another way to look at it is that whatever difficulties one may find
belong to the language, not the spelling.

Oh, unless one decides to use the horrendous 'new' spellings, but
that's not my concern.

[Joe Fineman]

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> writes:

> But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
> doesn't English have that word? I need it!)

"Aspire to" comes close. But perhaps, in this supercilious context,
"fancy" would do best. %^)

> a [career] as a youth program telefishion pressenter.

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: People who have what they want are fond of telling people :||
||: who don't that they don't really want it. :||

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2f130d90-ac78-4190...@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 9:13 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> schreef/wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course I believe what you tell is true.
>>
>> >"say" :-)
>>
>> Yes! Slip of the pen. Maybe I meant to type "tell me" or "tell us".
>> English requires that pronoun, Dutch doesn't. But I thought it was a
>> mistake only other Dutch speakers make.
>
> It's a characteristic mistake of Russian-speakers, but surely lexical
> rather than grammatical -- to use "tell" instead of "say." One would
> like to see how the Soviet-era standard textbook for elementary
> English classes introduced the word(s) and the examples.
>
>> >> Strange it is however, that I can't remember /
>>
>> Or I was already focusing on this deliberately un-English sentence
>> structure, that I wanted to try out nevertheless.
>
> Poetic, rather than un-English.

It is still far from Yoda, who, I guess, would say something like:
"It however strange, that I can't remember, is" :-)
pjk

>> >> / ever having mistaken an English initial /b/ for a [p], although
>> >> it must sound quite similar to a Dutch /p/ unaspirated.

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:9ad55eee-0ba3-4a3f...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 12:23 pm, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
>> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> > Hans Aberg<haberg-n...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:

>>
>> >>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
>> >>> geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in modern
>> >>> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> >> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>> >> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
>> >> frågor.
>>

>> > English is the odd man out!
>>
>> But there is an "is" above, isn't there. Some Dutch loanwords are "dike"
>> (English "dyke"), which in Dutch is the stuff one dug up, not what was
>> left, I recall. And Swedish "stiltje" (calm winds).
>
> A dike is a thick wall that keeps the sea out. A dyke is a lesbian.

AFAIR, a dyke can also mean a levee, but a dike is indeed never a lesbian.
At least I hope Dike, one of the Horai, even though a female, wasn't one.

pjk

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <ent...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8692bc84-0e06-449c...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, "wugi" <wugiB...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>> António Marques wrote:
>> > wugi wrote (05-02-2012 11:22):
>> >> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>> >>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>>
>> >> Corresponding yes, reflecting not really, to my taste at least:-) In
>> >> such case Pt would sound a lot more like Sp., and Sw. more like,
>> >> well, German or Dutch.
>>
>> > What can we do? The latin alphabet has 5 vowels, our language has 9.
>>
>> Dutch has 13 ...
>
> Only 8 once you omit the long/short distinction.

How can you omit them if they are phonemic?
It's like saying "Only 8 if you omit first 5".
pjk

[...]

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/04 00:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:23 pm, Hans Aberg<haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
>> On 2012/02/03 18:02, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Hans Aberg<haberg-n...@telia.com> schreef/wrote:
>>
>>>>> And in "Van Gogh is nu wereldberoemd, maar moest vroeger zijn broer om
>>>>> geld vragen", even the<gh> (which would be spelled<ch> in modern
>>>>> words) might become voiced due to the vowel that follows.
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> Also note the similarity with Swedish:
>>>> Van Gogh är nu(mera) världsberömd, men måste fråga sin bror om penning-
>>>> frågor.
>>
>>> English is the odd man out!
>>
>> But there is an "is" above, isn't there. Some Dutch loanwords are "dike"
>> (English "dyke"), which in Dutch is the stuff one dug up, not what was
>> left, I recall. And Swedish "stiltje" (calm winds).
>
> A dike is a thick wall that keeps the sea out. A dyke is a lesbian.

The origin of the latter is unknown. And there is to Dick Van Dyke,
whose name, in its parts, is probably unrelated, too. :-)

Hans

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/06 19:36, sigvaldi wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:33 am, Hans Aberg<haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
>> On 2012/02/05 23:00, António Marques wrote:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote (05-02-2012 10:27):
>>
>>>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>>>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>>
>>> I think I once saw someone claim even Danish corresponded to its spelling.
>>
>> A Swede, trying to learn Danish, found it particularly difficult,
>> because of the poor correspondence between written and spoken forms.
>>
>> OnIceland, they learn Danish, because the country once belonged to
>> Denmark, but it would be easier for them to learn to speak Swedish or
>> Norwegian, being closer toIcelandic. However, the traditional written
>> Norwegian Bokmål is an adaptation of written Danish, which caused the
>> Nynorsk to be created. So it might be easiest for theIcelandicto learn
>> Swedish.
>
> The west Norwegian dialects are many quite like Icelandic and the
> Nynorsk was based on those dialects (with written Icelandic as
> reference)
> I belive it would be easiest for Icelanders to learn Norwegian,
> Swedish only slightly less easy.

The difference dates back to Old Norse, were West Norse, consisting of
Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese, was different from East Norse,
consisting of Swedish and Danish.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Östnordiska_språk
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Västnordiska_språk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

> Having studied Danish in school, an Icelander can easily make himself
> understood in Norway and Sweden but he usually has a far greater
> difficulty in Denmark.

From Swedish, Icelandic can be understood when explained. For example,
the name Eyjafjallajökull, is in Swedish ö-fjäll-jökeln,
Eyja-fjalla-jökull, which quite similar, but hard to guess.

Hans

[Ruud Harmsen]

"wugi" <wugi...@scarlet.be> schreef/wrote:

>The problem in Pt. is not so much the basic sounds, but the dependence of
>position/emphasis, and whether a syllable is going to be "swallowed" or not.

That's easy, because the rules for that are quite easy:
Unstressed <e> = /1/, <i> = /i/ and <o> = /u/ are reduced of absent,
anything else isn't.
There are a few exceptions (esquecer [SkE'ser], procura (prO'kur3),
but these are rare enough so they cause hardly any problems.

>In an article when the escudo was still of actuality, we were taught it was
>pronounced "sjkoed", in English that would read "shkood".

Yes, but that is one hundred percent regular, see rules above.
The u at the end is actually present, but very short and often
whispered.

[Ruud Harmsen]

António Marques <ent...@gmail.com> schreef/wrote:

These are not difficult either, only ugly and stupid.

[Trond Engen]

Hans Aberg:

> On 2012/02/06 19:36, sigvaldi wrote:
>
>> On Feb 6, 9:33 am, Hans Aberg <haberg-n...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012/02/05 23:00, António Marques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote (05-02-2012 10:27):
>>>
>>>>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>>>>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know
>>>>> how.
>>>
>>>> I think I once saw someone claim even Danish corresponded to its
>>>> spelling.
>>>
>>> A Swede, trying to learn Danish, found it particularly difficult,
>>> because of the poor correspondence between written and spoken
>>> forms.
>>>
>>> OnIceland, they learn Danish, because the country once belonged to
>>> Denmark, but it would be easier for them to learn to speak Swedish
>>> or Norwegian, being closer toIcelandic. However, the traditional
>>> written Norwegian Bokmål is an adaptation of written Danish, which
>>> caused the Nynorsk to be created. So it might be easiest for the

>>> Icelandic to learn Swedish.

>>
>> The west Norwegian dialects are many quite like Icelandic and the
>> Nynorsk was based on those dialects (with written Icelandic as
>> reference)

Well, for some value of Icelandic, I suppose.

>> I belive it would be easiest for Icelanders to learn Norwegian,
>> Swedish only slightly less easy.

Standard Swedish has retained some morphological archaisms that may be
easier to learn for Icelandic speakers than for most other
Scandinavians, but that doesn't mean the language is easier to learn.

> The difference dates back to Old Norse, were West Norse, consisting
> of Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese, was different from East Norse,
> consisting of Swedish and Danish.
> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Östnordiska_språk
> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Västnordiska_språk
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse

I think that's an exaggeration, or an artefact of the sources. In recent
literature I've seen suggested a succession of phases, one of an
east-west divide followed by one of a north-south divide. But that too
is an artefact. There was always a continuum of dialects. At the time of
the first written sources, the main centers of writing were the Danish
political center on the Sound, the Swedish on lake Vättern, the
Norwegian in Trondheim (later Bergen), and Iceland. The two former are
separated from the two latter by most intra-Scandinavian isoglosses, but
some go North-South, others cross East-West at different latitudes.
Later the Norwegian center moved south and east to Oslo and the Swedish
north to Stockholm, making the community between Swedish and Norwegian
more prominent.

>> Having studied Danish in school, an Icelander can easily make
>> himself understood in Norway and Sweden but he usually has a far
>> greater difficulty in Denmark.

I've heard from Danes that Norwegian sounds like Danish spoken by Faroese.

> From Swedish, Icelandic can be understood when explained. For
> example, the name Eyjafjallajökull, is in Swedish ö-fjäll-jökeln,
> Eyja-fjalla-jökull, which quite similar, but hard to guess.

I'd think it would help having been exposed to Western Norwegian, a
non-monophtongized, hv-hardening and three-gender variety of Mainland
Scandinavian. Not that Western Norwegians understand Icelandic just like
that.

--
Trond Engen

[António Marques]

Joe Fineman wrote (06-02-2012 22:19):
> Ruud Harmsen<r...@rudhar.com> writes:
>
>> But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
>> doesn't English have that word? I need it!)
>
> "Aspire to" comes close. But perhaps, in this supercilious context,
> "fancy" would do best. %^)

It's only now I understood Ruud meant ambit(i(on)at)e.

[António Marques]

Because it's no challanege to represent them in dutch.

[pauljk]

"António Marques" <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote in message
news:jgr40j$n7n$2...@dont-email.me...

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by vowels presenting no challenge.
Is that some kind of linguistic property I am not aware of?
pjk

[António Marques]

I think it would be in order for you to read the exchanges from the
beginning (the text quoted here is necessary and sufficient).

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/07 11:45, Trond Engen wrote:
> Hans Aberg:
>
>> On 2012/02/06 19:36, sigvaldi wrote:
>>

...

Are you aware of that most of your comments are on what sigvaldi wrote,
that has an Icelandic email address?

This suggests Norwegian is somewhat closer to Icelandic than Swedish.

Hans

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 7, 1:06 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:2f130d90-ac78-4190...@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 3, 9:13 am, Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

[the label for the 4-chevron author was already deleted]

> >> >> Strange it is however, that I can't remember /
>
> >> Or I was already focusing on this deliberately un-English sentence
> >> structure, that I wanted to try out nevertheless.
>
> > Poetic, rather than un-English.
>
> It is still far from Yoda, who, I guess, would say something like:
> "It however strange, that I can't remember, is"  :-)

I saw that movie only once, when it came out. Did Yoda ever use
complex sentences?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 7, 5:45 am, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:

> Later the Norwegian center moved south and east to Oslo and the Swedish
> north to Stockholm, making the community between Swedish and Norwegian

commonality

> more prominent.

[Paul Madarasz]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:55:51 +0100, Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com>
wrote, perhaps among other things:

But a van Dyke is a beard, as are some lesbians.
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey

[António Marques]

Some dykes say they like dick if it's on another dyke.

[wugi]

Metoo. I'd thought he meant they tried/tended to imitate an idol/carrier,
such as some telefisher star roughening up his zees, vees and gees :-o)
And precisely such a thing I find happening in Holland: many youngsters are
"ambiating" a real rough accent, whereas many of the grown up carry a much
smoother tone. Similarly, women tend to prefer the rougher way of
utterances, men the smoother.

guido google:wugi

[Christian Weisgerber]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:

> >> Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.
>
> This is supposed to be true in some German dialects, too.

Yes. I don't have /z/. It's /s/ all the way and minimal pairs
like Geisel-Geißel are homophones for me.

I'm afraid if I start using /z/, I'll end up like a Swabian professor
I encountered at university, who randomly replaced /s/ with /z/ and
vice versa in a case of hypercorrection.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Hans Aberg]

On 2012/02/07 22:22, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Hans Aberg<haber...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.
>>
>> This is supposed to be true in some German dialects, too.
>
> Yes. I don't have /z/. It's /s/ all the way and minimal pairs
> like Geisel-Geißel are homophones for me.

I can see that it is in the southern varieties, like in Karlsruhe :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_phonology

> I'm afraid if I start using /z/, I'll end up like a Swabian professor
> I encountered at university, who randomly replaced /s/ with /z/ and
> vice versa in a case of hypercorrection.

So then you perhaps do not use it in English. Swedish does neither have
[z], so Swedes usually do not use that.

Hans

[António Marques]

Trond Engen <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> António Marques:

>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote (05-02-2012 10:27):
>>
>>> The Portuguese pronunciations (both that of PT and those of BR)
>>> correspond quite nicely to the spelling. Only you need to know how.
>>
>> I think I once saw someone claim even Danish corresponded to its
>> spelling.
>

> Danish correesponds to _any_ spelling.

Alui, any given Danish word consists of a single vowel, which in turn is
the realisation of any one of the consonants in the language.
--
Sent from one of my newsreaders

[pauljk]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:744824fb-d3bb-422c...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Most of his sentences were simple. However, now and then he used
complex ones as well, but not much more complex than:
"Luke... Luke... do not... do not underestimate the powers of the
Emperor or suffer your father's fate you will."

Rather than what I said earlier ("It however strange, that I can't
remember, is"), I reckon more Yodish style would be to say:
"However strange it is, that remember I can't."


Some "real" Yoda quotes:

"Size matters not, look at me, judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm.
And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is.
Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us.
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force
around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes.
Even between the land and the ship."

"Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years
have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained.
A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind.
This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away...
to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm?
What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh.
A Jedi craves not these things. You are reckless."

"Remember, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware.
Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down
the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Luke... Luke... do not... do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor
or suffer your father's fate you will. Luke, when gone am I... the last of
the Jedi will you be. Luke, the Force runs strong in your family.
Pass on what you have learned, Luke. There is... another... Sky... walker."

pjk

[Trond Engen]

António Marques:

Now, that's unfair. Initial consonants are usually consonantal.

--
Trond Engen

[Ruud Harmsen]

António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> schreef/wrote:

>Joe Fineman wrote (06-02-2012 22:19):
>> Ruud Harmsen<r...@rudhar.com> writes:
>>
>>> But they are a minority (although many of them seem to ambiate (why
>>> doesn't English have that word? I need it!)
>>
>> "Aspire to" comes close. But perhaps, in this supercilious context,
>> "fancy" would do best. %^)
>
>It's only now I understood Ruud meant ambit(i(on)at)e.

Probably. In Dutch we have 'ambitie' (pronounced [Ambitsi]), meaning
'ambition' (the noun) and 'ambiëren', which is a verb. I now see that
'ambition' can also be a verb in English.

>>> a [career] as a youth program telefishion pressenter.
>>

[Ruud Harmsen]

António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> schreef/wrote:

>Alui, any given Danish word consists of a single vowel, which in turn is
>the realisation of any one of the consonants in the language.

And for pt-PT, it's quite the opposite? Any word consists of a single
consonant which is the realisation of any of the vowels.

[wugi]

Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, that's true. Some Dutch people merge /z/ and /s/ into [s] too.
>>
>> This is supposed to be true in some German dialects, too.
>
> Yes. I don't have /z/. It's /s/ all the way and minimal pairs
> like Geisel-Geißel are homophones for me.
>
> I'm afraid if I start using /z/, I'll end up like a Swabian professor
> I encountered at university, who randomly replaced /s/ with /z/ and
> vice versa in a case of hypercorrection.

Hypercorrection is not uncommon with those Dutch that don't voice their
initial v,z,g, but might voice them in the middle of a word. When voiced
initials occur with unvoiced followers, they can be heard producing
hypercorrections like:
de ferzie, for de versie (the version)
het uniferzum, for het universum (the universe)
de fize-president, for de vice-president
de conferzatie, for de conversatie (the conversation);
similarly, where zestig and zeventig (60,70) are correctly pronounced as
sestig and seventig (from earlier t'zestig and t'zeventig, compare tachtig,
80), also here may be heard hypercorrections like
sezenzestig, for zesen[s]estig (66)
sevenenzeventig, for zevenen[s]eventig (77)...

guido google:wugi

[Christian Weisgerber]

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> Probably. In Dutch we have 'ambitie' (pronounced [Ambitsi]), meaning
> 'ambition' (the noun) and 'ambiëren', which is a verb. I now see that
> 'ambition' can also be a verb in English.

There's a Merriam-Webster entry to that effect, but I'm not familiar
with that usage. It's also highly suspicious that the top Google
hits for <"ambitioned"> are dictionary entries and texts written
by Germans.

[Christian Weisgerber]

Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:

> > Yes. I don't have /z/. It's /s/ all the way and minimal pairs
> > like Geisel-Geißel are homophones for me.
>
> I can see that it is in the southern varieties,

Yes, but I'm unclear on the exact area.

Initial medial final <s>
/z/ /z/ /s/ Standard German
/s/ /z/ /s/ regional variant 1
/s/ /s/ /s/ regional variant 2

> like in Karlsruhe :-)

I see you looked up INKA.de, but I'm not actually located in
Karlsruhe. Google's Usenet archives should still hold old postings
of mine with the geographically appropriate Rhein-Neckar.de address,
before the non-profit ISP there went bust.

> > I'm afraid if I start using /z/, I'll end up like a Swabian professor
> > I encountered at university, who randomly replaced /s/ with /z/ and
> > vice versa in a case of hypercorrection.
>
> So then you perhaps do not use it in English. Swedish does neither have
> [z], so Swedes usually do not use that.

That's a very sore point for me. My English teachers were very
insistant about [T], [D], [w], and initial [z], but the issue of
medial and final [z] was neglected. In fact, the whole problem of
German devoicing its voiced obstruents in final position and merging
them with the unvoiced ones unlike English received no attention.
Together with [z] being an allophone for /s/ to me, this has led
to the unfortunate situation that I have acquired much of my English
vocabulary without a /z/:/s/ distinction, and of course /z/ is also
unpredictable from English spelling.

The other half of the problem is that I have an extremely hard time
distinguishing "voiced" and "unvoiced" fricatives in final position
in spoken English (initial and medial are fine). Final /D/ and /v/
are fairly rare, but /z/ is not. While these consonants can be
voiced in carefully articulated speech, it's clear to me that more
commonly they are partially or fully devoiced, and the distinction
between [z<voiceless>] and [s] is killing me. I just don't hear it.

In other words, I'm trying to have proper /z/ in English, but I'm
flailing around.