Dutch "w" (was: Re: Slavic peoples and places)

From: tgpedersen@...
Message: 7661
Date: 2001-06-16

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:41:57 -0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:
> >Thank you for the detailed exposition of the subject of Dutch "w".
> >Now I know everything about it, except, perhaps, its historical
> >development and whether Surinams pronounciation as "w" reflects an
> >original Dutch pronounciation?
> Unlikely. Dutch <w> is historically of course /w/ as in English,
> non-syllabic /u/, and the proof is that when /u/ went to /y/ (/ΓΌ/,
> you prefer), /w/ went with it (basically still the Flemish
> pronunciation). There are some regional variants where <w> is still
> [w] (Katwijks, for instance, a coastal ("ingvaeonic") Hollands
> dialect), but that would have had a minor effect on the colonization
> of Surinam. Surinamese itself (Sranan tongo) is an English-based
> creole, with a phomeme /w/ and nothing like Dutch /W/.
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

The strange thing is that those who still hold on to the
pronounciation /w/ in Jutland are fishermen (judging from TV
interviwews) as apparently in Dutch too. To a certain extent,
fishermen and sailors form(ed) a separate community in Denmark
(Holland too? Katwijk is a fishing town). They are likely to have
been the contact with the colonial tongue in colonial times. I have a
suspicion that /w/ -> /v/ is due to French influence, and therefore
18th century. So are you 100% Dutch /w/ can't have been the origin of
Surnams Dutch /w/?