Re: [tied] Other IE language with /w/

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:08:10 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
>> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:00:59 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
>>> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>>>

>>>> The Upper Sorbian <w> is also [w], at least in some positions, not
>>>> [v] like Wikipedia says, cf. "w und l sind wie englisches w zu
>>>> sprechen, also wie u in sauer" from the Upper Sorbian online course
>>>> (in German): http://sibz.whyi.org/~edi/wucbnica/1.lekcija.html.
>>>
>>>
>>> But cf. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7636
>>
>> "Sorbian [w] (which has resulted from the merger of *v [w] and
>> "dark", i.e. non-palatalised *l) is a bilabial approximant without a
>> conspicuous velar component"

>> Erwin Hannusch, the author of the book on which I have based myself, use
>> the
>> symbol [u] with the inverted arch at the bottom for <w> (except some
>> position when it is mute or it is pronounced as a weak aspiration). He
>> states on Lower Sorbian syllable-final <w>:

>> "In der Position nach Vokalen in geschlossener Silbe verbindet sich der
>> Laut
>> [u^] (in dieser Position kommt [u^] artikulatorisch und akustisch dem
>> Vollvokal [u] recht nahe) mit dem vorausgehenden Vokal zu einem unfesten,
>> fallenden Diphthong".

>> So, we agree that Sorbian <w> is bilabial, and that it is an
>> approximant -
>> and the same about the English [w] and the PIE *w. Which is more, the
>> velar
>> component seems to be conspicuous at least after a vowel in a close
>> syllable
>> where it comes close to the full vowel [u] articulatorily and
>> acustically.


> So, as Piotr says, it's not [w], which by definition is a
> labiovelar approximant.

But I have shown that IT IS NOT TRUE - see the last my sentence? Piotr is
simply wrong (more precisely: his view is not in concordance with Hannusch
who is a far more reliable source), and I just quote him, nothing more.
Can't you see quotation marks? Please do not snip my posts if you have
troubles with understanding them.

> [...]
>>>> You are fully right, and that is why I wrote "I mean the standard
>>>> version". I was also interested in this problem, and just asked
>>>> some native Dutch speakers what they think. Basing on what they
>>>> said I can present the thing this way now: the pronunciation of
>>>> (initial) <w> as the labio-dental approximant is recommended by
>>>> some courses and dictionaries (including these I have) but is
>>>> spread only in some dialects, especially those from the southern
>>>> part of the Dutch language area.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> There is nothing to negate, indeed, unless you want to shake the
>> opinion of the native speakers. Of course, their knowledge may be
>> limited.
>
> There is everything to negate.

Dear Miguel, we will never understand each other if you try to prove I do
not know what I write. And if you want to find a person only to prove he is
stupid, search for him somewhere else.

Of course there is nothing to negate because I have quoted what my
informators said - and you have no base to think that they did not say it.
Too
complicated?

And if you try to negate their opinions, it does not mean "everything".
Please continue your polemy with them, not me. I have cited them, and I have
marked it, and it is so because this is all I can do.

The fact is that some Dutchmen identify their [f] with [v] and pronounce [f]
for both. If yes, the place of the labiodental voiced fricative would be
empty and it may be filled with <w> easily. I do not state that any Dutchmen
pronounce [v] for <w> because I have never been to the Netherlands and I
have never heard it. I can only cite what some Dutchmen say. And I emphasize
that I do not know whether it is true or not.

And you state you know that nobody speak [v] for <w> and that my informators
cannot distinguish a spirant from an approximant. Perhaps they can't but I
do not know it for sure and nobody know it unless he examined the
pronunciation of each Dutchman. My congratulation for your self-confidence.

Really, it would be enough if you stated that my data are not reliable
because they contradict what people write in books and draw in maps. And
perhaps it is so - but it is also true that some information taken from maps
of Polish dialectal features are wrong. Perhaps Dutch maps are infallible.
But even if yes, it is not a reason to say that _everything_ is to negate.
It lacks logics. Because this is not a list on logic, I do not intend to
continue with this.

>> So, we agree in the main points - <w> is a labiodental approximant
>> in the standard pronunciation,

Don't you agree? Evidently yes, but you negate everything what I write.

>> and its pronunciation varies from the
>> south to the north, becoming closer and closer to [v].
>
> No. It's just as non-[v] in Rotterdam as it is in Groningen.

You would not agree with me even if things were absolutely obvious. "Closer
and closer" does not mean "the same as" so your negation is taken out of the
context even if we assumed that my respondents were wrong and you examined
everyone from the nation of several millions of people. Has it been so hard
to understand that <w> is less similar to [v] in the south and more similar
in the north? If you do not agree with a part of my statement, you should
say "not exactly", or similarly. Your hard and rather rude "no" means that
you negate my statement as a whole and you believe instead that the
pronunciation of <w> varies from _the north to the south_, becoming closer
and closer to [v]. My congratulations, really. Logics once again.

> No. In the standard languages, <w> is a labiodental
> approximant in the north, a bilabial approximant (not
> labiovelar) in the south.

> The dialect maps show a similar distribution, except that
> the bilabial pronunciation, which is absolutely general in
> Dutch-speaking Belgium, also predominates in the southern
> parts of the Netherlands (the whole of Zeeland and Limburg,
>parts of Noord Brabant, Gelderland and Utrecht).

> The labiodental pronunciation predominates in Holland,
> stretching into the urban areas of Utrecht and
> Noord-Brabant, and in the whole Saxon area (Groningen,
> Drente, Overijssel). Also the Frisian area.

I have written "its pronunciation varies from the south to the north,
becoming closer and closer to [v]". And you have written "no" to this. So, I
am very sorry that you do not know the geography of the Netherlands. Then I
inform you with pleasure that the Frisian area and Groningen are in the
_northern_ part of the land, so I am true, the basic tendency is to change
pronunciation from bilabial into labiodental (not necessarily into a
labiodental spirant) when going north, and you try just to incite quarrels
without being right in addition.

> There are a number of pockets on the Holland coast (Katwijk,
> Noordwijk, Egmond-aan-Zee, Zandvoort), where the
> pronunciation is labiovelar [w].

It is really appreciated that you want to share your knowledge but the
competence in detaching important things from exceptions is essential in
science. I was being taught it in the elementary school, and I am sure that
you know it as well. I have shown what the tendency is, and I have been
right, even if the existence of <w> as a spirant is disputable.

And because the question was neither about where Groningen is nor about what
is the logic value of "no", I feel that it is EOT.

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com