Dutch sounds and pronounciation
Guido Toschi
Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
especially about the following spellings:
1) final E (like in DE)
2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
3) V (is it like German V?)
4) Z (like in ZIJ)
5) EI
6) IJ
7) SCH (like in SCHIP, MENSCH)
8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
10) OU (like in OUD)
11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
It's all up to now. I would be much obliged if you could make reference,
in explaining the correct spelling, to German, English or French
equivalents but stressing the differences.
____________________________________________________________________________
_ _ _ _
/ i q u u \
/t s\
/n i\ GUIDO
/A n\
GUIDO * TOSCHI a OLD SPIRIT IN MODERN TIMES
\o e/
\n v/ TOSCHI
\r o/
\ e d o m /
- - - -
____________________________________________________________________________
Harlan Messinger
: Hi everybody,
: Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
: from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
: thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
: of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
: besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
: disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
: especially about the following spellings:
There are lots of Dutch accents, which complicates things. Here are my
impressions as a native US English speaker who lived in Belgium and
listened to Dutch/Flemish for three years.
: 1) final E (like in DE)
Similar to -e in French "le", or -a in the English pronunciation of
"Gouda" or in "sofa" or "pizza".
: 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
I always thought it was like Dutch "ch" (and like German "ch" after "a",
"o" or "u"), but a Dutch person has explained to me that--if I recall
correctly--it's voiced, though I don't seem to hear the voicing.
: 3) V (is it like German V?)
Hard to explain, and I don't remember how the same person as in the
previous item explained it to me. I always heard it as though it started
voiced and ended unvoiced, as though between English [v] and [f]. I think
it's labiodental.
: 4) Z (like in ZIJ)
Like English or French "z".
: 5) EI
: 6) IJ
These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
In the suffix -lijk, "ij" is an unstressed schwa, a little like short "i".
: 7) SCH (like in SCHIP, MENSCH)
An "s" sound followed by a "ch" sound, except at the end of a word, when
it's pronounced just as an "s". (Most words that used to end in "sch" are
now only spelled with the "s". I've never seen "mensch" in Dutch, only
"mens". Similarly, "nederlandsch" is usually spelled "nederlands".)
: 8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
"OE" sounds like Italian "u" and French "ou".
"EU" can be like French "eu" or closer to "UI", below.
"U" is like French "u", German u-umlaut.
: 9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
This is to Dutch "ij" what French "u" is to French "i" and French "eu" is
to French e-grave. The lips are rounded while the "ij" is pronounced.
: 10) OU (like in OUD)
Similar to German "au" in "Haus".
: 11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
(It's "vrouw".) Like "ou" except at the end of a word (or of a root within
a word).
You left out "EEUW" in "leeuw" (which is like long Dutch "ee" gliding into
Dutch "u") and "IEUW" as in "nieuw" (Dutch long "ie" gliding into Dutch
"u").
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<tos...@server3.fisica.unige.it> wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
>from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
>thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
>of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
>besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
>disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
>especially about the following spellings:
>1) final E (like in DE)
Neutral vowel /@/ (schwa), like Eng. <the> or Fr. <le>.
>2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
>3) V (is it like German V?)
>4) Z (like in ZIJ)
Officially, voiced fricative /G/, /v/ and /z/, in practice devoiced
(but lenis) /x/ (like Spanish <j>, ~ German ach-Laut), /f/, /s/.
>5) EI
>6) IJ
Both /Ei/.
>7) SCH (like in SCHIP, MENSCH)
/sxIp/. MENSCH is no longer spelt that way, but MENS, pronounced
/mEns/. The only instance of final -<sch> which has been maintained
in the spelling is -<isch> (= Eng. -ish), pronounced -/is/ [as if
written -<ies>] (and not -Is !).
>8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
/u/, /o"/, /Y/
>9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
The three main Dutch diphtongs are:
front unrounded /Ei/ (written ei, ij)
back rounded /Ou/ (written ou, au)
front rounded /O"y/ (written ui)
>10) OU (like in OUD)
>11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
The -w is purely orthographical: VROUW is /vrOu/ ~ /frOu/, as if
written *VROU.
The Dutch vowels are:
FRONT UNR.
i (ie, i) (short; long before -r [i:r])
I (i) (lax)
e (ee, e) (half-long [e.] or diphth. [ei]; before -r [I:r])
E (e) (lax)
BACK ROUND.
u (oe) (short; long before -r [u:r])
-- (no /U/)
o (oo, o) (half-long [o.] or diphth. [ou]; before -r [U:r])
O (o) (lax)
FRONT ROUND.
y (uu, u) (short; long before -r [y:r])
Y (u) (lax)
o" (eu) (half-long [o".] or diphth. [o"y]; before -r [Y:r])
-- (no /O"/)
CENTRAL
a (aa, a) (half-long [a.]; long before -r [a:r])
A (a) (lax)
@ (e,i, ij) (unstressed)
DIPHTH.
Ei (ei, ij)
Ou (ou, au)
O"y (ui)
DIPTH. 2
iw (ieuw)
ew (eeuw)
yw (uw)
aj (aai)
uj (oei)
oj (ooi)
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Hans Kamp
>
> Hi everybody,
> Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
> from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
> thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
> of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
> besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
> disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
> especially about the following spellings:
In the answer to your question, I will use the Evan Kirshenbaum
notation:
> 1) final E (like in DE /d@/)
/@/, the same sound you find in about /@baut/, the /D@/ (before
consonant), letter /lEt@/. The pronunciation rules of E is complicated.
Possible sounds are /E/, /e:/ or /@/.
> 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT /Qro:t/)
/Q/, the voiced version of /x/ heard in loch /lOx/. At the end
pronounced as /x/. A voiced consonant becomes voiceless if it at the end
of a word, and the consonant is not /j/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /N/, /r/.
> 3) V (is it like German V?)
/v/, as in English very /verI/, void /vOid/, veal /vi:l/. Except in
foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
> 4) Z (like in ZIJ /zEI/)
/z/, as s in English does /dVz/, boys /bOiz/. Also Z is almost never and
the end of a word. If it does, the pronunciation is /s/.
> 5) EI
/Ei/, a combination of /E/ (found in English let /lEt/, get /gEt/) and
/i/, the short variant of ee in meet /mi:t/. It can also be pronounced
as /EI/, a combination of /E/ and /I/ as in bit /bIt/, list /lIst/.
> 6) IJ
Has the same pronunciation as "ei".
> 7) SCH (like in SCHIP /sxIp/, MENSCH /mEns/)
/sx/. It is a combination of /s/ and /x/. In some dialects (and also in
Afrikaans) it is pronounced as /sk/, as sch in English school /sku:l/
and schedule /skEdjul/. "mensch" is obsolete spelling. Because "sch" in
"mensch" is just pronounced as /s/, the combination "sch" is replaced by
"s", so the word is "mens".
> 8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
OE is pronounced as /u/. It is pronounced as /u:/ only when it is
followed by r.
EU is pronounced as /Y:/. If it is followed by an r, it is pronounced as
/I.:/, lengthened rounded /I/.
U is pronounced as /I./, a rounded /I/. If it is in an open syllable,
the pronunciation is /y/, as in German Glueck /glyk/.
> 9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS /hVys/)
Very difficult for foreigners, I suppose! It is a combination of /V/ and
/y/. /V/ is found in English but /bVt/ (stressed), cut /kVt/, dust
/dVst/. /y/ is found in German Glueck and French voiture /vwaty:r/.
> 10) OU (like in OUD)
/Ou/.
> 11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
Also /Ou/. The w in OUW is not pronounced. It just makes the Dutch word
complete. And it is "vrouw" /vrOu/ not "frouw", only in "juffrouw"
/jI.frOu/.
> It's all up to now. I would be much obliged if you could make reference,
> in explaining the correct spelling, to German, English or French
> equivalents but stressing the differences.
Hans Kamp.
Hans Kamp
>
> Guido Toschi <tos...@server3.fisica.unige.it> wrote:
> : Hi everybody,
> : Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
> : from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
> : thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
> : of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
> : besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
> : disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
> : especially about the following spellings:
>
> impressions as a native US English speaker who lived in Belgium and
> listened to Dutch/Flemish for three years.
>
> : 1) final E (like in DE)
>
> Similar to -e in French "le", or -a in the English pronunciation of
> "Gouda" or in "sofa" or "pizza".
>
> : 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
>
> I always thought it was like Dutch "ch" (and like German "ch" after "a",
> "o" or "u"), but a Dutch person has explained to me that--if I recall
> correctly--it's voiced, though I don't seem to hear the voicing.
Because just a few Dutch use /Q/ (voiced ch) for the pronunciation of g.
It is a bit of carelessness.
> : 3) V (is it like German V?)
>
> Hard to explain, and I don't remember how the same person as in the
> previous item explained it to me. I always heard it as though it started
> voiced and ended unvoiced, as though between English [v] and [f]. I think
> it's labiodental.
A careful pronunciation of V in Dutch is the same as v in English or
French. German V (only in some loanwords) is often pronounced as /f/.
> : 4) Z (like in ZIJ)
>
> Like English or French "z".
>
> : 5) EI
> : 6) IJ
>
> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
English get) and i (in English list). But in some Dutch dialects (I
suppose the dialect in Den Haag) I do hear /&i/.
> In the suffix -lijk, "ij" is an unstressed schwa, a little like short "i".
Often as /@/.
> : 7) SCH (like in SCHIP, MENSCH)
>
> An "s" sound followed by a "ch" sound, except at the end of a word, when
> it's pronounced just as an "s". (Most words that used to end in "sch" are
> now only spelled with the "s". I've never seen "mensch" in Dutch, only
> "mens". Similarly, "nederlandsch" is usually spelled "nederlands".)
"mensch" and "Nederlandsch" are obsolete spellings. But "sch" with the
pronunciation of /s/ does occur only in loanwords with the Dutch ending
"-isch" /is/ where you see "-ic(al)" /Ik(@l)/ in English:
Dutch English
logisch /lo:Qis/ logical /lOdZIk@l/
typisch /tipis/ typical /tIpIk@l/
psychologisch /psixo:lo:Qis/ psychological /saik@lOdZIk@l/
> : 8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
>
> "OE" sounds like Italian "u" and French "ou".
>
> "EU" can be like French "eu" or closer to "UI", below.
>
> "U" is like French "u", German u-umlaut.
Only in open syllables. In closed syllables "u" is pronounced as English
"i" but with rounded lips. The sound sounds like "ir" in "bird" /b@:d/,
but there is a slight difference between the positions of the tongue and
the lips.
> : 9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
>
> This is to Dutch "ij" what French "u" is to French "i" and French "eu" is
> to French e-grave. The lips are rounded while the "ij" is pronounced.
>
> : 10) OU (like in OUD)
>
> Similar to German "au" in "Haus".
>
> : 11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
>
> (It's "vrouw".) Like "ou" except at the end of a word (or of a root within
> a word).
>
> You left out "EEUW" in "leeuw" (which is like long Dutch "ee" gliding into
> Dutch "u") and "IEUW" as in "nieuw" (Dutch long "ie" gliding into Dutch
> "u").
I pronounce "eeuw" with "ee" gliding into "oe", and "ieuw" as "ie"
gliding into "oe", so /e:u/ and /iu/.
Hans Kamp.
Hans Kamp
>
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:24:27 +0200, Guido Toschi
> <tos...@server3.fisica.unige.it> wrote:
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
> >from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
> >thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
> >of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
> >besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
> >disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
> >especially about the following spellings:
>
>
> >2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
>
> (but lenis) /x/ (like Spanish <j>, ~ German ach-Laut), /f/, /s/.
>
> >5) EI
> >6) IJ
>
> Both /Ei/.
>
>
> /mEns/. The only instance of final -<sch> which has been maintained
> in the spelling is -<isch> (= Eng. -ish), pronounced -/is/ [as if
> written -<ies>] (and not -Is !).
>
>
>
> >9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
>
>
> front unrounded /Ei/ (written ei, ij)
> back rounded /Ou/ (written ou, au)
> front rounded /O"y/ (written ui)
>
>
Concize and correct!!!
Hans Kamp.
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>> Guido Toschi <tos...@server3.fisica.unige.it> wrote:
>> : Hi everybody,
>> : Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
>> : from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
>> : thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
>> : of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
>> : besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
>> : disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
>> : especially about the following spellings:
>>
>> There are lots of Dutch accents, which complicates things. Here are my
>> impressions as a native US English speaker who lived in Belgium and
>> listened to Dutch/Flemish for three years.
>>
>> : 1) final E (like in DE)
>>
>> Similar to -e in French "le", or -a in the English pronunciation of
>> "Gouda" or in "sofa" or "pizza".
>>
>> : 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
>>
>> I always thought it was like Dutch "ch" (and like German "ch" after "a",
>> "o" or "u"), but a Dutch person has explained to me that--if I recall
>> correctly--it's voiced, though I don't seem to hear the voicing.
>
>Because just a few Dutch use /Q/ (voiced ch) for the pronunciation of g.
>It is a bit of carelessness.
>
>> : 3) V (is it like German V?)
>>
>> Hard to explain, and I don't remember how the same person as in the
>> previous item explained it to me. I always heard it as though it started
>> voiced and ended unvoiced, as though between English [v] and [f]. I think
>> it's labiodental.
>
>A careful pronunciation of V in Dutch is the same as v in English or
>French. German V (only in some loanwords) is often pronounced as /f/.
>
>> : 4) Z (like in ZIJ)
>>
>> Like English or French "z".
>>
>> : 5) EI
>> : 6) IJ
>>
>> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
>> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
>> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
>
>You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
>English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
>English get) and i (in English list).
To me, that describes the sound of "ay" in English "day". I believe
the "ij" sound is more open.
Harlan Messinger
>Guido Toschi wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>> Hoping this is the right place, I would like to have some lights (possibly
>> from a native Dutch) about the correct sound of some letters, or groups
>> thereof, used in writing this language. I consulted several grammars, any
>> of them giving its own rules, different of course from each other;
>> besides, I've sometimes heard some Dutchman speaking and found a great
>> disagreement with the abovesaid grammars, so I am a bit confused,
>> especially about the following spellings:
>
>In the answer to your question, I will use the Evan Kirshenbaum
>notation:
>
>> 1) final E (like in DE /d@/)
>
>/@/, the same sound you find in about /@baut/, the /D@/ (before
>consonant), letter /lEt@/. The pronunciation rules of E is complicated.
>Possible sounds are /E/, /e:/ or /@/.
>
>> 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT /Qro:t/)
>
>/Q/, the voiced version of /x/ heard in loch /lOx/. At the end
>pronounced as /x/. A voiced consonant becomes voiceless if it at the end
>of a word, and the consonant is not /j/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /N/, /r/.
>
>> 3) V (is it like German V?)
>
>/v/, as in English very /verI/, void /vOid/, veal /vi:l/. Except in
>foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
>it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
>
>> 4) Z (like in ZIJ /zEI/)
>
>/z/, as s in English does /dVz/, boys /bOiz/. Also Z is almost never and
>the end of a word. If it does, the pronunciation is /s/.
>
>> 5) EI
>
>/Ei/, a combination of /E/ (found in English let /lEt/, get /gEt/) and
>/i/, the short variant of ee in meet /mi:t/. It can also be pronounced
>as /EI/, a combination of /E/ and /I/ as in bit /bIt/, list /lIst/.
>
>> 6) IJ
>
>Has the same pronunciation as "ei".
>
>> 7) SCH (like in SCHIP /sxIp/, MENSCH /mEns/)
>
>/sx/. It is a combination of /s/ and /x/. In some dialects (and also in
>Afrikaans) it is pronounced as /sk/, as sch in English school /sku:l/
>and schedule /skEdjul/. "mensch" is obsolete spelling. Because "sch" in
>"mensch" is just pronounced as /s/, the combination "sch" is replaced by
>"s", so the word is "mens".
>
>> 8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
>
>OE is pronounced as /u/. It is pronounced as /u:/ only when it is
>followed by r.
>EU is pronounced as /Y:/. If it is followed by an r, it is pronounced as
>/I.:/, lengthened rounded /I/.
>U is pronounced as /I./, a rounded /I/. If it is in an open syllable,
>the pronunciation is /y/, as in German Glueck /glyk/.
>
>> 9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS /hVys/)
>
>Very difficult for foreigners, I suppose! It is a combination of /V/ and
>/y/. /V/ is found in English but /bVt/ (stressed), cut /kVt/, dust
>/dVst/. /y/ is found in German Glueck and French voiture /vwaty:r/.
>
>> 10) OU (like in OUD)
>
>/Ou/.
>
>> 11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
>
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>
>>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>> : 5) EI
>>> : 6) IJ
>>>
>>> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
>>> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
>>> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
>>
>>You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
>>English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
>>English get) and i (in English list).
>
>To me, that describes the sound of "ay" in English "day". I believe
>the "ij" sound is more open.
The problem, I think, is that Dutch /E/ in "bed" (/bEt/) isn't quite
the same as English /E/ (or /e/) in "bet" (/bEt/ or /bet/, depending
on which transcription system you use). Dutch /E/ is more open
(closer to English /&/), while English /E/ is more close (closer to
Dutch <ee> /e/).
Also, I have the impression that in my pronunciation at least,
<ei/ij> /Ei/, <ui> /O"y/ and <au/ou> /Ou/, especially the latter,
start out slightly more open than plain /E/, [/O"/] or /O/, indeed
almost as [&i], [&"y] and [A"u] (or even [au]). Might be a Western
("Hollands") thing.
Harlan Messinger
>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:14:48 GMT, gu...@clark.net (Harlan Messinger)
>wrote:
>
>>Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> : 5) EI
>>>> : 6) IJ
>>>>
>>>> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
>>>> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
>>>> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
>>>
>>>You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
>>>English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
>>>English get) and i (in English list).
>>
>>To me, that describes the sound of "ay" in English "day". I believe
>>the "ij" sound is more open.
>
>The problem, I think, is that Dutch /E/ in "bed" (/bEt/) isn't quite
>the same as English /E/ (or /e/) in "bet" (/bEt/ or /bet/, depending
>on which transcription system you use). Dutch /E/ is more open
>(closer to English /&/), while English /E/ is more close (closer to
>Dutch <ee> /e/).
I see what you mean. I'm thinking the broad Russian /E/ as in 3TO
"this" might be closer to the first part of <ij>'s sound.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
wrote:
>Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>/v/, as in English very /verI/, void /vOid/, veal /vi:l/. Except in
>>foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
>>it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
>
>So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
No. [Northern] Dutch <w> is a labiodental frictionless continuant or
stop (!). Dutch <v> is a lenis fricative, usually devoiced ([v_]),
like English final -v in "love" [lVv_]. Although English initial v-
is also partially devoiced, it's much less fricative than Dutch v-
(and sounds almost like Dutch w-).
If you have trouble producing a devoiced [v_], Dutch <v> (in all
positions) can best be substituted with English <f>, and for a large
number of NW Dutch speakers the phoneme has indeed merged with (or,
historically: has rejoined) /f/.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>> Guido Toschi <tos...@server3.fisica.unige.it> wrote:
>>> : 5) EI
>>> : 6) IJ
>>> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
>>> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
>>> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
>>You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
>>English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
>>English get) and i (in English list).
>To me, that describes the sound of "ay" in English "day". I believe
>the "ij" sound is more open.
Certainly I've always heard it so. But I think that the 'problem' may
actually lie with the diphthong in <day>: its first element seems to
me usually to be a bit higher than [E].
Brian M. Scott
Egbert Lenderink
> >
> >foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
> >it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
>
> So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
>
No.
Generally, one could say that:
<v> is somewhere between English v and f,
<w> is somewhere between English w and v.
In my pronunciation of Dutch (East Netherlands, but the same holds for
West and North NL), <w> is a voiced sound where the lower lip and the
upper teeth touch, but they do so for a much shorter time than when I
pronounce English <v> and they part more suddenly.
The effect of "more sudden parting" can be illustrated by comparing
Icelandic "mурir" (mo'<eth>ir) with English "mother". Here, the "sudden
parting" occurs in the English <th>: it has somewhat more <d> character
"blended in" than the Icelandic eth sound. (You will by now have noticed
that I have no formal training in phonetics whatsoever, but I hope I
have made myself clear.)
Actually, Dutch <w> is almost the same as German <w>. As a speaker of
Dutch, I can clearly hear the difference between German <w> and English
<v>, and I often wondered why English-speakers think that "Vagner" is a
better pronunciation for the composer's name than "Wagner" with a
bilabial W: to my ears, both sound strange!
<v> is also a voiced sound, but the voicing is much less pronounced,
especially at the beginning of a word. I suspect that English-speakers
would hear an <f> where I pronounce <v>, even though there is a
difference between my <v> and <f>. This is different in West-NL: there,
<v> and <f> almost completely merge.
In South-NL and North Belgium, the <v> is more strongly voiced and
sounds much more closely like English <v>. There, the <w> is often
pronounced bilabial, like English <w>.
Egbert.
--
This message reflects my personal opinions only, not necessarily those
of the company I work for.
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>> Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >> 3) V (is it like German V?)
>> >
>> >/v/, as in English very /verI/, void /vOid/, veal /vi:l/. Except in
>> >foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
>> >it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
>>
>> So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
>>
>
>No.
>Generally, one could say that:
><v> is somewhere between English v and f,
><w> is somewhere between English w and v.
>
>In my pronunciation of Dutch (East Netherlands, but the same holds for
>West and North NL), <w> is a voiced sound where the lower lip and the
>upper teeth touch, but they do so for a much shorter time than when I
>pronounce English <v> and they part more suddenly.
>
[Iceland snipped]
>
>Actually, Dutch <w> is almost the same as German <w>. As a speaker of
>Dutch, I can clearly hear the difference between German <w> and English
><v>, and I often wondered why English-speakers think that "Vagner" is a
>better pronunciation for the composer's name than "Wagner" with a
>bilabial W: to my ears, both sound strange!
>
><v> is also a voiced sound, but the voicing is much less pronounced,
>especially at the beginning of a word. I suspect that English-speakers
>would hear an <f> where I pronounce <v>, even though there is a
>difference between my <v> and <f>. This is different in West-NL: there,
><v> and <f> almost completely merge.
>
>In South-NL and North Belgium, the <v> is more strongly voiced and
>sounds much more closely like English <v>. There, the <w> is often
>pronounced bilabial, like English <w>.
I'm trying what you're suggesting, and amazingly it sounds ever so
much more Dutch than I sounded before ;-). Good explanation, thanks.
Harlan Messinger
>On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:16:33 GMT, gu...@clark.net (Harlan Messinger)
>wrote:
>
>>Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>/v/, as in English very /verI/, void /vOid/, veal /vi:l/. Except in
>>>foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
>>>it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
>>
>>So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
>
>No. [Northern] Dutch <w> is a labiodental frictionless continuant or
>stop (!). Dutch <v> is a lenis fricative, usually devoiced ([v_]),
>like English final -v in "love" [lVv_]. Although English initial v-
>is also partially devoiced, it's much less fricative than Dutch v-
>(and sounds almost like Dutch w-).
>
Between your help and Egberts I think I have it now. (I had always
thought Dutch was one of my better accents--obviously not!)
Dick Grune
>Actually, Dutch <w> is almost the same as German <w>. As a speaker of
>Dutch, I can clearly hear the difference between German <w> and English
><v>, and I often wondered why English-speakers think that "Vagner" is a
>better pronunciation for the composer's name than "Wagner" with a
>bilabial W: to my ears, both sound strange!
The Dutch <v> is a labiodental >fricative<, which means that you hear the
friction, the Dutch <w> is a labiodental >approximant<, which means that you
only hear the acoustic influence of the mouth position on the voicing.
Also, the <v> is partially voiced, gliding from unvoiced to voiced,
and the <w> is fully voiced.
Dick Grune | email: di...@cs.vu.nl
Vrije Universiteit | ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/dick
de Boelelaan 1081 | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dick
1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands | tel: +31 20 444 7744
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbarism requires no maintenance, civilization does.
--
Dick Grune | email: di...@cs.vu.nl
Vrije Universiteit | ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/dick
de Boelelaan 1081 | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dick
1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands | tel: +31 20 444 7744
Hans Kamp
> >>
> >> 3) V (is it like German V?)
> >
> >foreign names and loan words the v never is at the end of a word. But if
> >it does happen, v is pronounced as /f/.
>
> So <v> is pronounced like <w>?
If you mean that <w> is a German W, then you are right.
Hans Kamp.
Hans Kamp
> >>
> >> : 5) EI
> >> : 6) IJ
> >>
> >> These are the same. Think in Italian of how "ma" compares with "mai". Then
> >> think of English "a" in "cat", and imagine putting an i-glide after it in
> >> the same way that "mai" is like "ma" with an i-glide after it.
> >
> >You seem to assert that "ei" is pronounced as /&i/ or /&I/, so a (in
> >English cat) + i (in English list). No. It is a combination of e (in
> >English get) and i (in English list).
>
> To me, that describes the sound of "ay" in English "day". I believe
> the "ij" sound is more open.
If I listen to spoken English, "day" is pronounced as /dei/ or /deI/.
But Dutch "dij" is pronounced as /dEi/ or /dEI/. The first sound of "ei"
and "ij" (besides, "ei" and "ij" have the same pronunciation) has the
mouth more open than the first sound of "ay" in the English word "day".
But... Australian English "day" has the same pronunciation as Dutch
"dij", but that is just what I hear.
Hans Kamp.
Harlan Messinger
Yes, pretty close, IMO. Good example.
Wugi
> 1) final E (like in DE)
> 2) G (the most troubling!) (like in GROOT)
> 3) V (is it like German V?)
> 4) Z (like in ZIJ)
> 5) EI
> 6) IJ
> 7) SCH (like in SCHIP, MENSCH)
> 8) OE, EU, U (I'm quite sure about these!)
> 9) UI (this is a real mistery!) (like in HUIS)
> 10) OU (like in OUD)
> 11) OUW (and the other vocal groups with W) (like in FROUW)
> It's all up to now. I would be much obliged if you could make reference,
> in explaining the correct spelling, to German, English or French
> equivalents but stressing the differences.
I'm still missing some obvious references to the languages you quote,
but then, most "Dutch" people are not so familiar with French.
e:
since it covers also the shwa -@- (i.a. in the position you describe),
this is the least predictable sound. But knowing the rules of spelling
open and closed syllables, you may get it mostly right:
bel - bellen (e - @)
beer - beren (é - @)
but:
appel = ąppel (@) OR appčl (e)
bedelen = bédelen (é-@-@) OR bedélen (@-é-@)
negeren = négeren (é-@-@) OR negéren ((@ OR é)-é-@)
g:
In Flanders always softly voiced (except where assimilated to ch =
softly voiceless, such as in end position)
In Holland some mightn't pronounce or get the difference between, e.g.,
goed and groet ("CRRoot"), goot and groot, God and grot:
the notorious throat disease sound.
ij = ei:
compare F. -eil, -eille, like sommeil.
Again, if you listen at the first element in E. there, or their, (say,
č: out of č:@), then you get the Dutch sounds by sliding it to i: č:i.
ui:
compare F. -oeil or -euille, like feuille, oeil.
Again, if you listen at the sound of E. bird, term (say, @: ), then you
get the Dutch sounds by sliding it to (German or French) ü,u (say, Y):
you get @:Y
(This is telling you Guido (Gi:do:) Wuyts (W@:Yts), -uy- being ancient
form)
oe:
short, like E. book, except: long in open syllables and before -r:
boek, broek, koekoek. - - - Compare F. partout, G. zu
toe, boer. - - - Compare F. prouve, G. Mut
eu:
Compare F. un peu, G. schön
u:
the short, shwa-like, form of the previous -eu:
rug, munt
Or half-long ü (and long in open syll. and before -r)
bruut, minuut-minuten. - - - Compare F. minute, G. Tschüss
duur, muur-muren - - - Compare F. mur, G. süss
i:
Short: compare E. ship (the short form of é in F. été)
Half-long ie, i in loan words; long ie in open syll. and before -r:
Kliek, m_i_nister, natie, nat_i_ėn - - - Compare F. chic, G. ich
Dier, economie, economieėn - - - Compare F. dire, G. die
ou = ouw = au = auw:
more rounded than E. -ow
As for the ='s, that is, according to the Dutch, but I distinguish
within phrases like:
Ik kouw in de kou (I chew in the cold), and
Ik hou van jou, vrouw. vs. Ik hou van jouw vrouw.
(I love you, woman. vs. I love your wife!), let alone
Ik houw van jouw vrouw (I chop from your...)
I find a tendency to monophthongise the forms without -w, yielding the
unwritable first element, something between the a: in E. father and the
o: in E. or (In fact it approaches short Dutch -a the long way).
So you didn't ask about our other diphthongs?
They vary also from their usual heteroglottal couterparts:
eeuw:
Compare Sp. or It. Eu-ropa.
ieuw:
Compare E. new, where you would make the first element a long -ee-, and
the last a short -w.
uw:
Long ü + w.
As for the "hidden vowel" in the -w element of all these, there was a
thread about it some time ago.
My view is that in Holland it tends to be an English like -u- , in
Flanders a French like -Y-, or even shwa.
Another funny thing: in a (Holland oriented) "Teach yourself Dutch" book
dating from a number of years ago, it is stated that the sounds tend to
monophthongise when seperated in syllables:
leeuw - leeuwen = almost like lee-wen
kieuw - kieuwen = almost like kie-wen
duw - duwen = almost like du-wen
I notice this is still the case in Flanders, whereas in Holland the
-rather heavy- diphthongs are ever more maintained, like
leeuw-wen, kieuw-wen etc,
making the -w- element sound ever more English.
aai:
like E. like, but with a pure long and open a: sound
ooi:
like E. boy, bot with a pure long and closed o: sound
oei:
like Sp. muy, with -oe short to half-long.
Guido
van...@my-dejanews.com
Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
" Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade in
World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a task
practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
My questions:
How is 888 written in Dutch?
How is it pronounced? Those symbols can do fine... And I speak French so
comparing it to French or Spanish will do ok too.. If it applies :)
--Chris
--
Check out: http://www.the4thcoming.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Egbert Lenderink
>
> Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
>
> On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
>
> " Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
> believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade in
> World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
> simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a task
> practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
>
> My questions:
>
> How is 888 written in Dutch?
Achthonderdachtentachtig.
(Acht-honderd-acht-en-tachtig: Eight-hundred-eight-and-eighty.)
>
> How is it pronounced? Those symbols can do fine... And I speak French so
> comparing it to French or Spanish will do ok too.. If it applies :)
>
[axthOnd@rtaxt@ntaxt@x]
For most foreigners, the pile-up of [x] makes that this is a difficult
word to pronounce. The [x] is, however, very close to the German
"ach-laut" (the sound as in Bach [bax]), so for a German speaker this is
not a real problem. He would have more trouble making the cluster [nd]
the way a Dutchman would.
But... I believe that two stories are being mixed up here. The _French_
have enormous trouble pronouncing all the [x], they turn into [k]
sounds, and when they try hard into an aspirated [k']. I suspect that
the 888-story dates from the Napoleontic wars.
The word that I heard was used to reveal a _German_ spy was Scheveningen
(the name of a Dutch town), pronounced [sxeiv@nIN@n] ([N] here denoting
the sound of English "singing" [sININ]).
The cluster [sx] does not occur in German, and especially before a vowel
like [e] they will pronounce it as [S], and if they try harder as [SX]
with a /sch/ and an "ich-laut", instead of a sharp s and an "ach-laut".
I don't know if the story is true or just an "urban legend". I have
heard Germans pronounce the [sx] cluster perfectly well after some
practice. Nothing is "practically impossible", as we were all born with
the same set of speech organs.
Hans Kamp
>
> Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
>
> On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
>
> " Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
> believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade in
> World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
> simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a task
> practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
>
> My questions:
>
> How is 888 written in Dutch?
Achthonderd achtentachtig
> How is it pronounced?
/Axthond@rt AxtEntAxt@x/
There is even a better (for foreignes a worse) test: Allemachtig
prachtig achtentachtig /Al@mAxt@x prAxt@x AxtEntAxt@x/ (=Incredibly
terrific '88). I hope, your throat will survive it! :-D
Hans Kamp.
van...@my-dejanews.com
Egbert Lenderink <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
> > How is 888 written in Dutch?
>
> Achthonderdachtentachtig.
> (Acht-honderd-acht-en-tachtig: Eight-hundred-eight-and-eighty.)
Hum... That isn't at all hard for me to say.... I wonder what it is in
German... Any clues?
Harlan Messinger
: van...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
:>
:> Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
:>
:> On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
:>
:> " Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
:> believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade in
:> World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
:> simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a task
:> practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
:>
:> My questions:
:> How is 888 written in Dutch?
: Achthonderd achtentachtig
:> How is it pronounced?
: /Axthond@rt AxtEntAxt@x/
: There is even a better (for foreignes a worse) test: Allemachtig
: prachtig achtentachtig /Al@mAxt@x prAxt@x AxtEntAxt@x/ (=Incredibly
: terrific '88). I hope, your throat will survive it! :-D
Amsterdam heeft achtentachtig prachtige graachten. (Amsterdam has 88 great
canals.) To be superlative about it in regards to other cities, I suppose
one could say, falsely, that 's Gravenhage en Scheveningen hebben
achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige graachten. (The Hague and
Scheveningen have 88 truly great, excellent canals.)
How about: Zesenzestig zwanen en zevenenzeventig gansen in 's Gravenhage
en Scheveningen zwemmen in achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige
graachten. (66 swans and 77 geese in The Hague and Scheveningen swim in 88
truly great, excellent canals.)
(Not sure whether I'm using "echt" appropriately here, but one can always
substitute "erg".)
Hans Kamp
>
> Hans Kamp <hans...@introweb.nl> wrote:
> : van...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> :>
> :> Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
> :>
> :> On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
> :>
> :> " Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
> :> believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade in
> :> World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
> :> simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a task
> :> practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
> :>
> :> My questions:
> :>
> :> How is 888 written in Dutch?
>
> : Achthonderd achtentachtig
>
> :> How is it pronounced?
>
> : /Axthond@rt AxtEntAxt@x/
>
> : There is even a better (for foreignes a worse) test: Allemachtig
> : prachtig achtentachtig /Al@mAxt@x prAxt@x AxtEntAxt@x/ (=Incredibly
> : terrific '88). I hope, your throat will survive it! :-D
Let's give the pronunciations about the following tongue exercices:
> Amsterdam heeft achtentachtig prachtige graachten. (Amsterdam has 88 great
> canals.)
/Amst@rdAm he:ft AxtEntAxt@x prAxt@Q@ QrAxt@n/ (/Q/ is voiced /x/.)
> To be superlative about it in regards to other cities, I suppose
> one could say, falsely, that 's Gravenhage en Scheveningen hebben
> achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige graachten. (The Hague and
> Scheveningen have 88 truly great, excellent canals.)
/sxra:v@nha:Q@ En sxe:v@nIN@n hEb@n AxtEntAxt@x Ext prAxt@Q@ Q@wEld@Q@
QrAxt@n/
> How about: Zesenzestig zwanen en zevenenzeventig gansen in 's Gravenhage
> en Scheveningen zwemmen in achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige
> graachten. (66 swans and 77 geese in The Hague and Scheveningen swim in 88
> truly great, excellent canals.)
/zEsEnsEst@x zwa:n@n En ze:v@nEnse:v@nt@x QAns@n In s xra:v@nha:Q@ En
sxe:v@nIN@n zwEm@n In AxtEntAxt@x Ext prAxt@Q@ Q@wEld@Q@ QrAxt@n/
> (Not sure whether I'm using "echt" appropriately here, but one can always
> substitute "erg" /Erx/.)
But note the following. The z is pronounced as /z/ in normal
circumstanses. But in "zestig" en "zeventig" the z is pronounced as /s/,
because of historical reasons. The earlier spelling might be "tzestig",
"tzeventig", "tachtig", "tnegentig". The t is dropped (except in
"tachtig") but it has assimiliated the pronunciation of z in "zestig"
and "zeventig" from /z/ into /s/.
Numeral Spelling Pronunciation
6 zes zEs
60 zestig sEst@x
66 zesenzestig zEsEnsEst@x
7 zeven ze:v@n
70 zeventig se:v@nt@x
77 zevenenzeventig ze:v@nEnse:v@nt@x
The Dutch language is a very fluently spoken language. There is a lot of
assimilation in the pronunciation of consonants between syllables within
a word, and even between different words. This seems not to happen in
German.
Hans Kamp.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
>van...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> My questions:
>>
>> How is 888 written in Dutch?
>
>Achthonderdachtentachtig.
>(Acht-honderd-acht-en-tachtig: Eight-hundred-eight-and-eighty.)
>
>>
>> How is it pronounced? Those symbols can do fine... And I speak French so
>> comparing it to French or Spanish will do ok too.. If it applies :)
>
>[axthOnd@rtaxt@ntaxt@x]
>
>For most foreigners, the pile-up of [x] makes that this is a difficult
>word to pronounce. The [x] is, however, very close to the German
>"ach-laut" (the sound as in Bach [bax]), so for a German speaker this is
>not a real problem. He would have more trouble making the cluster [nd]
>the way a Dutchman would.
The problem for a German might be the t- in <tachtig> "80", which is
absent from German <achtzig> and is completely counter-intuitive
(given that "8" is <acht> in both German and Dutch).
The t- is historically derived from *hund- (cf. OE hund-eahtatig, OS
ant-ahtoda), here "decade" not "hundred", which was prefixed to the
numbers 70, 80 and 90, in Dutch *t-seventig > /sev@nt@x/ (still
pronounced with s-, despite the spelling <zeventig>), t-achtig,
*t-negentig (<theghentich> in Middle Dutch, now <negentig>). By
analogy, the t-prefix was alse extended to "60", Dutch <zestig>, but
pronounced as if <sestig> /sEst@x/ < *t-sestig.
Hans Kamp
>
> In article <36139A...@natlab.research.philips.com>,
> Egbert Lenderink <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Achthonderdachtentachtig.
> > (Acht-honderd-acht-en-tachtig: Eight-hundred-eight-and-eighty.)
>
> German... Any clues?
I think: achthundertachtundachtzig /axthund@taxtuntaxtsiX/ or
/axthund@taxtuntaxtsik/ (/X/ is voiceless /j/).
Hans Kamp.
Joerka Deen
>
>Hiya, I"m entering the thread here with some questions...
>
>On page 89 of Charles Berlitz's "Around the World with 80 Words" it says:
>
>" Since the Dutch vocabulary is also very close to German, strategists
>believed that Germans could infiltrate Holland before they began to invade
in
>World War II. But many infiltrators were captured because they failed a
>simple language test: pronouncing the Dutch words for the number 888, a
task
>practically impossible for people not born in Holland."
>
>My questions:
>
achthonderdachtentachtig
>How is it pronounced? Those symbols can do fine... And I speak French so
>comparing it to French or Spanish will do ok too.. If it applies :)
i am not a linguist.
i don't know your secret language to explain pronounciation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joerka Deen, Pattern Architect in Interaction Design
athome: Arienswei 34, 5912 JA Venlo, The Netherlands
speakandfaxto: +31-77-354-1709
mailto: joe...@knoware.nl, j...@oce.nl
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Egbert Lenderink <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
>But... I believe that two stories are being mixed up here. The _French_
>have enormous trouble pronouncing all the [x], they turn into [k]
>sounds, and when they try hard into an aspirated [k']. I suspect that
>the 888-story dates from the Napoleontic wars.
What is [k']? What the French do nowadays is turn [x] into its
voiced analogue, which coincides with the velar /r/ the way most
French people pronounce it.
Coby
Erik Vos
wrote:
>Amsterdam heeft achtentachtig prachtige graachten. (Amsterdam has 88 great
>one could say, falsely, that 's Gravenhage en Scheveningen hebben
>achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige graachten. (The Hague and
>Scheveningen have 88 truly great, excellent canals.)
>
>en Scheveningen zwemmen in achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige
>graachten. (66 swans and 77 geese in The Hague and Scheveningen swim in 88
>truly great, excellent canals.)
It's actually "ganzen" and "grachten" (sorry for the nitpicking).
Also interesting is the Dutch surname "Gigengack" [xix@nxAk] - or
perhaps I should use the voiced [Q] in stead of [x].
It is a rare last name (natural selection must work against it ;-)),
but I know someone with that name.
That name reminds me of the sound of the colony of some 25 ganzen that
swim in the grachten in front of and nearby my house. If you want to
see some really dirty sidewalks.... (I live not far from Amsterdam).
Erik Vos
Harlan Messinger
: On 1 Oct 1998 18:26:19 GMT, Harlan Messinger <gu...@shell.clark.net>
: wrote:
:>Amsterdam heeft achtentachtig prachtige graachten. (Amsterdam has 88 great
:>canals.) To be superlative about it in regards to other cities, I suppose
:>one could say, falsely, that 's Gravenhage en Scheveningen hebben
:>achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige graachten. (The Hague and
:>Scheveningen have 88 truly great, excellent canals.)
:>
:>How about: Zesenzestig zwanen en zevenenzeventig gansen in 's Gravenhage
:>en Scheveningen zwemmen in achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige
:>graachten. (66 swans and 77 geese in The Hague and Scheveningen swim in 88
:>truly great, excellent canals.)
: It's actually "ganzen" and "grachten" (sorry for the nitpicking).
: Also interesting is the Dutch surname "Gigengack" [xix@nxAk] - or
: perhaps I should use the voiced [Q] in stead of [x].
: It is a rare last name (natural selection must work against it ;-)),
: but I know someone with that name.
I'm also thinking about that sandwich one of the Dutch guys used to bring
to school, filled with butter and chocolate sprinkles (really
nourishing!). What was it called, "hagelslag"?
Then there's the term for sexual intercourse, "geslachtsgemeenschap".
Seemed like a good form of birth control--if you couldn't ask for it by
name, you weren't going to get any.
Wugi
>
> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 15:04:42 GMT, Egbert Lenderink
> <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
>
> >van...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> How is 888 written in Dutch?
> >
> >(Acht-honderd-acht-en-tachtig: Eight-hundred-eight-and-eighty.)
> >
> >>
> >> How is it pronounced? Those symbols can do fine... And I speak French so
> The problem for a German might be the t- in <tachtig> "80", which is
> absent from German <achtzig> and is completely counter-intuitive
> (given that "8" is <acht> in both German and Dutch).
>
> The t- is historically derived from *hund- (cf. OE hund-eahtatig, OS
> ant-ahtoda), here "decade" not "hundred", which was prefixed to the
> numbers 70, 80 and 90, in Dutch *t-seventig > /sev@nt@x/ (still
> pronounced with s-, despite the spelling <zeventig>), t-achtig,
> *t-negentig (<theghentich> in Middle Dutch, now <negentig>). By
> analogy, the t-prefix was alse extended to "60", Dutch <zestig>, but
> pronounced as if <sestig> /sEst@x/ < *t-sestig.
We around here pronounce also veertig and vijftig as feertig and
fijftig. Same origin or same analogy?
(But, come to think of it, drieënveertig and zesenvijftig with -v-,
whereas tweeënzestig and vijfenzeventig with -s- ...)
Guido
Hans Kamp
>
> Erik Vos <erik...@see.replyto> wrote:
> : On 1 Oct 1998 18:26:19 GMT, Harlan Messinger <gu...@shell.clark.net>
> : wrote:
> :>Amsterdam heeft achtentachtig prachtige graachten. (Amsterdam has 88 great
> :>canals.) To be superlative about it in regards to other cities, I suppose
> :>one could say, falsely, that 's Gravenhage en Scheveningen hebben
> :>achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige graachten. (The Hague and
> :>Scheveningen have 88 truly great, excellent canals.)
> :>
> :>How about: Zesenzestig zwanen en zevenenzeventig gansen in 's Gravenhage
> :>en Scheveningen zwemmen in achtentachtig echt prachtige, geweldige
> :>graachten. (66 swans and 77 geese in The Hague and Scheveningen swim in 88
> :>truly great, excellent canals.)
>
> : It's actually "ganzen" and "grachten" (sorry for the nitpicking).
>
> : Also interesting is the Dutch surname "Gigengack" [xix@nxAk] - or
> : perhaps I should use the voiced [Q] in stead of [x].
> : It is a rare last name (natural selection must work against it ;-)),
> : but I know someone with that name.
>
> I'm also thinking about that sandwich one of the Dutch guys used to bring
> to school, filled with butter and chocolate sprinkles (really
> nourishing!). What was it called, "hagelslag"?
/'ha:Q@lslAx/
> Then there's the term for sexual intercourse, "geslachtsgemeenschap".
/Q@'slAxtsx@me:nsxAp/
> Seemed like a good form of birth control--if you couldn't ask for it by
> name, you weren't going to get any.
Hans Kamp.
Hans Kamp
That would be possible.
> (But, come to think of it, drieënveertig and zesenvijftig with -v-,
> whereas tweeënzestig and vijfenzeventig with -s- ...)
Then you might be wrong about "veertig" and "vijftig". The Koenen
Woordenboek (one of the most important Dutch dictionaries) might give a
solution to this problem.
Hans Kamp.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>We around here pronounce also veertig and vijftig as feertig and
>fijftig. Same origin or same analogy?
Looks like same analogy. Unless you also pronounce <vier> as [fi:r]
(unlikely, I guess, for .be).
Christian Weisgerber
Egbert Lenderink <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
> The word that I heard was used to reveal a _German_ spy was Scheveningen
> (the name of a Dutch town), pronounced [sxeiv@nIN@n]
> The cluster [sx] does not occur in German,
True...
> and especially before a vowel like [e] they will pronounce it as [S],
> and if they try harder as [SX] with a /sch/ and an "ich-laut", instead
(you mean [SC])
> of a sharp s and an "ach-laut".
"sch" is indeed pronounced [S] in German. However, it is ridiculous to
postulate that somebody who knows enough Dutch to attempt to pose as a
Dutch wouldn't know how "sch" is pronounced in that language. As for a
German's ability to pronounce [sx], well, I have no problem with that at
all. [SC] would be more of a challenge.
> I don't know if the story is true or just an "urban legend".
Urban legends are supposed to be plausible. This whole subthread is
extremely silly.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.rhein-neckar.de
See another pointless homepage at <URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/>.
Colin Fine
<na...@mips.rhein-neckar.de> writes
>> I don't know if the story is true or just an "urban legend".
>
>Urban legends are supposed to be plausible. This whole subthread is
>extremely silly.
>
Yes. About as silly as Judges XII 5-6.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK |
| Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| "Don't just do something! Stand there!" |
| - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Christof Vanden Eynde
>We around here pronounce also veertig and vijftig as feertig and
>fijftig. Same origin or same analogy?
>(But, come to think of it, drieënveertig and zesenvijftig with -v-,
>whereas tweeënzestig and vijfenzeventig with -s- ...)
>Guido
My East-Flemish dialect has 'tfeertig' and 'tfijftig', for forty and
fifty, but not 'eenentfeertig', 'drieëntfijftig' etc.Same goes for
'tnegentig': you get 'vijfennegentig', not 'vijfentnegentig'.
In the cases of 'tsestig', 'tseventig' and 'tachtig' however, the 't'
is retained throughout the paradigm:
'vierentsestig', 'drieëntseventig' etc.
This accounts for the differences in pronunciation noted by Wugi.
Note also that for my dialect at least, I can be sure that no 't'
occurs in 'dertig'. Unlike in Standard Dutch, the assimilation in my
dialect would be progressive in this case. Thus: hypothetical
'tdertig' > 'tertig'. However, the form is clearly 'dertig', so we can
be sue that the 't' has not spread any further than 'tfeertig'
Christof Vanden Eynde
(reverse Christof and VandenEynde in my reply adress!!!)
Éamonn McManus
> In article <36139A...@natlab.research.philips.com>,
> Egbert Lenderink <lend...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
> >have enormous trouble pronouncing all the [x], they turn into [k]
> >sounds, and when they try hard into an aspirated [k']. I suspect that
> >the 888-story dates from the Napoleontic wars.
> What is [k']? What the French do nowadays is turn [x] into its
> voiced analogue, which coincides with the velar /r/ the way most
> French people pronounce it.
Agreed that the usual French approximation to [x] is [R] (IPA small
capital R, possibly inverted), so that the Spanish name José is pronounced
like the French word Rosé, making Spaniards sound pinker than they
typically are. But I would not say that this is the voiced analogue.
French <r> is uvular, not velar; the voiced analogue of [x] is [Q]
(lower-case gamma in IPA).
,
Eamonn http://www.gr.opengroup.org/~emcmanus
"My mother, who by an eerie circumstance was even older than I..." - Mimi Kahn
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
McManus) wrote:
>But I would not say that this is the voiced analogue.
>French <r> is uvular, not velar; the voiced analogue of [x] is [Q]
>(lower-case gamma in IPA).
I'd say French <r> is usually pharyngeal (the voiced analogue of
Arabic [H]).
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 1998 14:09:45 GMT, emcm...@gr.opengroup.org (Éamonn
>McManus) wrote:
>
>>But I would not say that this is the voiced analogue.
>>French <r> is uvular, not velar; the voiced analogue of [x] is [Q]
>>(lower-case gamma in IPA).
>
>I'd say French <r> is usually pharyngeal (the voiced analogue of
>Arabic [H]).
Not having an anatomical chart of the human throat handy, I won't
join this aspect of this argument. Granted that the French version
of <r> is different from the North German one (which, as
far as I can tell, is simply the voiced analogue of the Ach-Laut,
except when it's weakened), the difference is rather slight, and
the sounds feel to me to be coming from the same place.
The unvoiced analogue of [Q] (if by that Eamonn means the Spanish
fricative <g>, when not weakened [as intervocalically]) is the
Mexican or Argentine version of /x/.
Coby
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 7 Oct 1998 14:09:45 GMT, emcm...@gr.opengroup.org (Éamonn
> McManus) wrote:
>
> >But I would not say that this is the voiced analogue.
> >French <r> is uvular, not velar; the voiced analogue of [x] is [Q]
> >(lower-case gamma in IPA).
>
> I'd say French <r> is usually pharyngeal (the voiced analogue of
> Arabic [H]).
You just said that French <r> is `ayin -- which I find rather hard to
believe, since French grammars of Arabic ridicule the Arabic sound just
as much as English and German ones do.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> I'd say French <r> is usually pharyngeal (the voiced analogue of
>> Arabic [H]).
>
>You just said that French <r> is `ayin -- which I find rather hard to
>believe, since French grammars of Arabic ridicule the Arabic sound just
>as much as English and German ones do.
That is possible. French isn't supposed to have an `ayn, but it
does, sort of. The French sound is a pharyngeal frictionless
continuant, not a fricative.