Re: [tied] Re: Slavic peoples and places

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 7629
Date: 2001-06-14

However, one has to be careful with anecdotal reports of [w]/[v] confusion of switch (as in Dickens' Victorian Cokney), since what is actually used may be a bilabial fricative [B]. I believe (Dutch-speakers, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the normative Netherlands Dutch pronunciation of <w> is [B], while Flemish has a more vocalic [w]-like sound.
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen@...
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavic peoples and places

--- In cybalist@......, tgpedersen@...... wrote:
> > Interestingly, English seems to be the sole IE language to have
> preserved the "original" PIE pronunciation of *w in prevocalic
> positions.
> >
> > Piotr
> Jutland Danish ("jysk") south of the Limfjord has v before front
> vowels, w before back vowels. North of the Limfjord it's w-
> everywhere.
And (I've mentioned it on some other occasion) I heard at some time
in Holland a rap record on the radio by some Surinams person. He
pronounced "verwacht" (expected) with a w- as in English as opposed
to the standard ABN Dutch pronounciation of (written) w as v-. A
Dutch person explained to me that that was a Surinams accent. So I
wondered if Dutch in colonial times had a system f (unvoiced)/ v
(voiced)/ w (as in English) which would seem much less "cramped" that
the present system where w is pronounced v-
As a bonus, if we assume voicing of initial fricatives in
Dutch/German, we would get s-/f-/T- -> z-/v-/D- with further D -> d,
explaining thus the different treatment of initial thorn in Dutch and
German (T -> (D ->) d) versus Friesian and the Scandinavian languages
(T -> t).