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

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:01:38 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>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.

Except that what you quote seems to support Piotr's
statement. That Sorbian <w> is [w] in post-vocalic position
is not terribly interesting (same in Ukrainian, Slovenian,
...). The interesting thing about Sorbian is bilabial <w>
in prevocalic position, and Hannusch is clearly implying
that <w> is *not* [w] in that position. Or he wouldn't say
"in _dieser Position_ kommt [u^] artikulatorisch und
akustisch dem Vollvokal [u] _recht_ nahe" [emphasis added --
mcv]).

>> [...]
>>>>> 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.

Since what you said ("the labio-dental approximant [...] is
spread only in some dialects, especially those from the
southern part of the Dutch language area") is the _opposite_
of what's actually true, I thought I should correct it. I
don't care who said or misremembered it, it's just not true.

>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.

It seems you do not understand the background of the /v/ ~
/f/ merger (which is the same as the /z/ ~ /s/ and the /G/ ~
/X/ merger). A native Dutch speaker (from an area where the
merger is general), or, for that matter, a native Spanish
speaker (and I am both), does not natively have the
capability of producing a voiced fricative (I gained that
capability later, but I still sometimes let a
*przysfyczajony slip by). So in the area with the /v/ ~ /f/
merger (which only partially coincides with the labiodental
/V/ area), it is out of the question that <w> would fill the
place of /v/. In fact, there is no reason to think that
there is any relation between the two phenomena. The v/f
merger is part of a local Holland trend towards loss of
voiced fricatives, the labiodentalization of West-Germanic
/w/ is part of a much wider areal phenomenon in Continental
West Germanic.

>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.

They contradict what I know and hear to be true, and which
is indeed confirmed by books and maps.

>>> 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.

Of course I don't agree. I already said that the
Netherlands standard has labiodental <w>, and the Belgian
standard has bilabial <w>.

>>> 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"

"Closer and closer" suggests that there are many
pronunciations, slowly converging on a mythical northern
[v]. In fact, there are only two pronunciations (three if
we count the labio-velar [w] of Katwijk, etc.).

>> 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.

Since the original discussion was about Indo-European
dialects which have retained labio-velar [w], the fact that
Katwijk Dutch is such a dialect does not seem unimportant to
me.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...