This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The section on Polder Dutch seems to be worded in a somewhat unbalanced way, with a very, well, pro-Polder bias, suggesting that this pronunciation of the diphthongs is objectively easier, hence progressive and destined to become established ("standard") in all of the Netherlands. The prediction about the triumph of Polder diphthongs in future Dutch is, obviously, just an unsubstantiated guess, unless it is demonstrated that it is, indeed, spreading quickly all over the country in younger generations. As for the assessment of ease and naturalness, it is even more subjective and dubious, since the pronunciation of diphthongs with less differentiated components is favoured by the natural tendency towards assimilation, often ending in complete monophthongisation. This is seen in the development of the original Germanic diphthongs in Icelandic - and, as far as /ai/ is concerned, also in Yiddish - which has had the exact opposite direction compared to the German and English sound change that Stroop apparently views as a universal and timeless standard.-- 77.85.55.14 ( talk) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly cites Collins and Mees's book. The reader is pointed to a PDF of this that was very conveniently available in late 2016 on the website of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University (Ukraine), deleted (or moved) since, but nevertheless even now very conveniently available thanks to Wayback. Offhand I know nothing about the coauthors, but the URL doesn't suggest that one of them was then teaching at the university. Shouldn't the link be removed as a inviting the reader to a likely copyright violation? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The Dutch short O is described as being open: ɔ This seems so wrong! The sound, in fact, is very closed, just listen to "jongens", for instance. The sound is not really very different from the open u sound in the German equivalent "Jungen". Perhaps, it depends on the individual speaker, but virtually every time I hear speakers who pronounce a very closed short "o" sound.
Or listen to "vol" (= "full"), for instance, at forvo.com: Examples "vol zijn van", "vol vuur", and even more noticeable: "vol in beeld" (really sounds like engl. "full"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.206.90 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: I understand we're only citing Collins & Mees (2003:132), but I don't quite comprehend what an "open-mid back rounded [ɔ] ... with pharyngealization" is supposed to be. Cardinal back vowels are defined as becoming fricative sounds if the tongue is retracted any further. So do Collins & Mees assert that the usual realisation of Standard Dutch /ɔ/ has audible friction and is a phonological vowel but not a vocoid? (I speak decent Dutch but I don't recall having heard a fricative /ɔ/ that is similar to [ʁ] or [ʕ] with lip rounding. That's only me, though.) Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I am the anon who added the section "short /ɔ/" above, but not the one that added this section. If you scroll up and read my section, then this user really says exactly the same thing that I said back then. So this confirms that the Dutch /ɔ/ tends to be much closer than the German /ɔ/. The question is only whether the Dutch is [ɔ] and the German is [ɒ], or whether the Dutch is [o] and the German is [ɔ]. 78.55.36.66 ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Listen to wikt:stok and wikt:Stock for example. It's clearly a different vowel. And see that it has nothing to do with an underlying dialectal distinction of a-umlaut. It's simply a different realisation of the standard phoneme. -- Here also the unsymmetric nature of the Dutch vowel system must be borne in mind. In the unrounded row there is [i], [ɪ], [ɛ], while the rounded vowels lack on of these steps. Hence also theoretically it makes sense that the more open rounded vowels should move to a middle position, namely [o] and [ø]. That's exactly what I, and apparently other Germans, hear. 78.55.36.66 ( talk) 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions "north" and "south" many times, but it is not explained what this means. I don't know. Is Amsterdam already the northern Netherlands? Or is it only Groningen and Friesland that is north? --K. 20:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel that intercalated schwa's, so typical of the Dutch language, have something to do with this. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6C58:E74F:F368:C5D9 ( talk) 11:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Nardog Thanks for the feedback on my last edit!
I'm by no means an expert in phonetics, so take this with a grain of salt, but: Even in a broad phonetic transcription, aren't you supposed to avoid allophones (since that's strictly a phonemic concern)? E.g., even though /r/ can be realized as anything from [r] to [ʀ], would you still be able to write [blɛːr] in a broad phonetic transcription if a narrower transcription would actually be [blɛːʀ]? I guess I'd imagined that, in phonetic transcriptions, the broad/narrow distinction would be about secondary features (like length or phonation) rather than the actual phones themselves (if that makes sense).
Either way, this gives me a good opportunity to actually sit down and read the Handbook of the IPA, so I thank you for that :-) BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
would you still be able to write [blɛːr] in a broad phonetic transcription if a narrower transcription would actually be [blɛːʀ]?Unequivocally yes. See Handbook, pp. 28–30. Nardog ( talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These last two transcriptions look superficially very like a phonemic transcription, but they are in principle different because information has been included (albeit sparingly) which is not required for the unambiguous representation of the words.
a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes(which means that number can be zero; also a phonemic transcription usually includes at least some symbols that would match the realizations). This is one of the strengths of the IPA: if we want to focus on the realization of e.g. the vowel in blèr but not on the rhotic, we can be agnostic about the latter by representing it with the phonemic symbol, ⟨r⟩. Nardog ( talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There was one [ɹ] missing. Added it! Not sure whether a secondary stress should be indicated here though.
Wathiik ( talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The use of /ʃ ʒ/ vs. /ɕ ʑ/ is inconsistent in the article. They refer to the same phoneme. Gussenhoven (1999) and Verhoeven (2005) use /ʃ ʒ/. Exarchus ( talk) 11:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The article mentions:
"in Antwerp /ɪ/ is closer, more like [i]" and "In Antwerp, /ʏ/ may be as high as /y/ and the two vowels may differ in nothing but length."
According to my understanding, this is not specific to the city of Antwerp, also not to the province of Antwerp (which I assume Verhoeven (2005) means with 'Antwerp area'), but to the whole of the Brabantian region.
Roughly speaking, the Brabantian pronunciation (of 'polished' Dutch, that is) is like this: /ɪ/ = [i], /i/ = [iː], /ʏ/ = [y], /y/ = [yː], /ɛ/ = [ɛ], /eː/ = [eː], /øː/ = [øː], /ɑ/ = [a], /aː/ = [aː], /ɔ/ = [ɔ], /oː/ = [oː] and /u/ = either [u] or [u:] (two different phonemes, an understudied phenomenon).
All of this with the caveat that I'm writing this from a Belgian point of view and can't confirm (or deny) this for North Brabant. Exarchus ( talk) 17:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The current article text contains:
”* The native tense vowels /eː, øː, oː, aː/ are long [eː, øː, oː, aː] in stressed syllables and short [e, ø, o, a] elsewhere. The non-native oral vowels appear only in stressed syllables and thus are always long. [1]”
With respect to the claim about the pronunciation of the occurrences in non-native words, I cannot hear any long versions in e.g.:
The current article text also contains:
”* The non-native /iː, yː, uː, ɛː, œː, ɔː/ occur only in stressed syllables. In unstressed syllables, they are replaced by the closest native vowel. For instance, verbs corresponding to the nouns analyse ('analysis'), centrifuge ('spinner'), and zone ('zone') are analyseren ('to analyze'), centrifugeren ('to spin-dry'), and zoneren /zoːˈneːrən/ ('to divide into zones'). [2]”
I do not hear long versions of:
any more than I hear long versions of:
[A case could be made for long /aː/ in the second syllable in the non-standard verb analiseren /anaːliˈzeːrən/ ('to analise'), from the adjective anaal /aˈnaːl/ ('anal').]
Moreover, I cannot see any backing for the claim that /o/ in zoneren and either /a/ in analyseren are pronounced as long vowels. Redav ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Redav ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The section on Polder Dutch seems to be worded in a somewhat unbalanced way, with a very, well, pro-Polder bias, suggesting that this pronunciation of the diphthongs is objectively easier, hence progressive and destined to become established ("standard") in all of the Netherlands. The prediction about the triumph of Polder diphthongs in future Dutch is, obviously, just an unsubstantiated guess, unless it is demonstrated that it is, indeed, spreading quickly all over the country in younger generations. As for the assessment of ease and naturalness, it is even more subjective and dubious, since the pronunciation of diphthongs with less differentiated components is favoured by the natural tendency towards assimilation, often ending in complete monophthongisation. This is seen in the development of the original Germanic diphthongs in Icelandic - and, as far as /ai/ is concerned, also in Yiddish - which has had the exact opposite direction compared to the German and English sound change that Stroop apparently views as a universal and timeless standard.-- 77.85.55.14 ( talk) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly cites Collins and Mees's book. The reader is pointed to a PDF of this that was very conveniently available in late 2016 on the website of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University (Ukraine), deleted (or moved) since, but nevertheless even now very conveniently available thanks to Wayback. Offhand I know nothing about the coauthors, but the URL doesn't suggest that one of them was then teaching at the university. Shouldn't the link be removed as a inviting the reader to a likely copyright violation? -- Hoary ( talk) 22:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The Dutch short O is described as being open: ɔ This seems so wrong! The sound, in fact, is very closed, just listen to "jongens", for instance. The sound is not really very different from the open u sound in the German equivalent "Jungen". Perhaps, it depends on the individual speaker, but virtually every time I hear speakers who pronounce a very closed short "o" sound.
Or listen to "vol" (= "full"), for instance, at forvo.com: Examples "vol zijn van", "vol vuur", and even more noticeable: "vol in beeld" (really sounds like engl. "full"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.206.90 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Austronesier: I understand we're only citing Collins & Mees (2003:132), but I don't quite comprehend what an "open-mid back rounded [ɔ] ... with pharyngealization" is supposed to be. Cardinal back vowels are defined as becoming fricative sounds if the tongue is retracted any further. So do Collins & Mees assert that the usual realisation of Standard Dutch /ɔ/ has audible friction and is a phonological vowel but not a vocoid? (I speak decent Dutch but I don't recall having heard a fricative /ɔ/ that is similar to [ʁ] or [ʕ] with lip rounding. That's only me, though.) Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I am the anon who added the section "short /ɔ/" above, but not the one that added this section. If you scroll up and read my section, then this user really says exactly the same thing that I said back then. So this confirms that the Dutch /ɔ/ tends to be much closer than the German /ɔ/. The question is only whether the Dutch is [ɔ] and the German is [ɒ], or whether the Dutch is [o] and the German is [ɔ]. 78.55.36.66 ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Listen to wikt:stok and wikt:Stock for example. It's clearly a different vowel. And see that it has nothing to do with an underlying dialectal distinction of a-umlaut. It's simply a different realisation of the standard phoneme. -- Here also the unsymmetric nature of the Dutch vowel system must be borne in mind. In the unrounded row there is [i], [ɪ], [ɛ], while the rounded vowels lack on of these steps. Hence also theoretically it makes sense that the more open rounded vowels should move to a middle position, namely [o] and [ø]. That's exactly what I, and apparently other Germans, hear. 78.55.36.66 ( talk) 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions "north" and "south" many times, but it is not explained what this means. I don't know. Is Amsterdam already the northern Netherlands? Or is it only Groningen and Friesland that is north? --K. 20:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel that intercalated schwa's, so typical of the Dutch language, have something to do with this. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6C58:E74F:F368:C5D9 ( talk) 11:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Nardog Thanks for the feedback on my last edit!
I'm by no means an expert in phonetics, so take this with a grain of salt, but: Even in a broad phonetic transcription, aren't you supposed to avoid allophones (since that's strictly a phonemic concern)? E.g., even though /r/ can be realized as anything from [r] to [ʀ], would you still be able to write [blɛːr] in a broad phonetic transcription if a narrower transcription would actually be [blɛːʀ]? I guess I'd imagined that, in phonetic transcriptions, the broad/narrow distinction would be about secondary features (like length or phonation) rather than the actual phones themselves (if that makes sense).
Either way, this gives me a good opportunity to actually sit down and read the Handbook of the IPA, so I thank you for that :-) BalinKingOfMoria ( talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
would you still be able to write [blɛːr] in a broad phonetic transcription if a narrower transcription would actually be [blɛːʀ]?Unequivocally yes. See Handbook, pp. 28–30. Nardog ( talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These last two transcriptions look superficially very like a phonemic transcription, but they are in principle different because information has been included (albeit sparingly) which is not required for the unambiguous representation of the words.
a transcription can be devised which includes any number of additional symbols to indicate the phonetic realizations of the phonemes(which means that number can be zero; also a phonemic transcription usually includes at least some symbols that would match the realizations). This is one of the strengths of the IPA: if we want to focus on the realization of e.g. the vowel in blèr but not on the rhotic, we can be agnostic about the latter by representing it with the phonemic symbol, ⟨r⟩. Nardog ( talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
There was one [ɹ] missing. Added it! Not sure whether a secondary stress should be indicated here though.
Wathiik ( talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The use of /ʃ ʒ/ vs. /ɕ ʑ/ is inconsistent in the article. They refer to the same phoneme. Gussenhoven (1999) and Verhoeven (2005) use /ʃ ʒ/. Exarchus ( talk) 11:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The article mentions:
"in Antwerp /ɪ/ is closer, more like [i]" and "In Antwerp, /ʏ/ may be as high as /y/ and the two vowels may differ in nothing but length."
According to my understanding, this is not specific to the city of Antwerp, also not to the province of Antwerp (which I assume Verhoeven (2005) means with 'Antwerp area'), but to the whole of the Brabantian region.
Roughly speaking, the Brabantian pronunciation (of 'polished' Dutch, that is) is like this: /ɪ/ = [i], /i/ = [iː], /ʏ/ = [y], /y/ = [yː], /ɛ/ = [ɛ], /eː/ = [eː], /øː/ = [øː], /ɑ/ = [a], /aː/ = [aː], /ɔ/ = [ɔ], /oː/ = [oː] and /u/ = either [u] or [u:] (two different phonemes, an understudied phenomenon).
All of this with the caveat that I'm writing this from a Belgian point of view and can't confirm (or deny) this for North Brabant. Exarchus ( talk) 17:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The current article text contains:
”* The native tense vowels /eː, øː, oː, aː/ are long [eː, øː, oː, aː] in stressed syllables and short [e, ø, o, a] elsewhere. The non-native oral vowels appear only in stressed syllables and thus are always long. [1]”
With respect to the claim about the pronunciation of the occurrences in non-native words, I cannot hear any long versions in e.g.:
The current article text also contains:
”* The non-native /iː, yː, uː, ɛː, œː, ɔː/ occur only in stressed syllables. In unstressed syllables, they are replaced by the closest native vowel. For instance, verbs corresponding to the nouns analyse ('analysis'), centrifuge ('spinner'), and zone ('zone') are analyseren ('to analyze'), centrifugeren ('to spin-dry'), and zoneren /zoːˈneːrən/ ('to divide into zones'). [2]”
I do not hear long versions of:
any more than I hear long versions of:
[A case could be made for long /aː/ in the second syllable in the non-standard verb analiseren /anaːliˈzeːrən/ ('to analise'), from the adjective anaal /aˈnaːl/ ('anal').]
Moreover, I cannot see any backing for the claim that /o/ in zoneren and either /a/ in analyseren are pronounced as long vowels. Redav ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Redav ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)