89.79.88.109
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A few remarks bewerken
Thank you for your help in our Dutch IPA section! I'm not sure whether you can speak Dutch, considering your edit summaries are in English, but I did some corrections on the Flemish and Limburgish IPA's. Take a look at loopvogel for example:
- In Flemish "-l" is usually not pronounced different in initial and last position.
- In Flemish and Limburgish "a(a)", "e(e)", "eu", "o(o)", "u(u)" are always pronounced long, so /aː/, /eː/, /øː/ etc. This should be indicated in IPA, as a lot of speakers actually pronounce the short variants as /a/, /e/, /o/, /y/ instead of /ɑ/, /ɛ/, /ɔ/, /ʏ/.
- And last, in Limburgish, it is relatively uncommon (though not unusual) to devoice /z/, /ʒ/, /v/, /ɣ/ in initial position. Instead, it's more common to change a voiceless end consonant into a voiced one, so "op de grond": /ˌɔb.də.ˈɣrɔnd/ in Limburgish vs. /ˌɔp.tə.ˈχrɔnt/ in Northern Dutch. That's also why it should be /ˈkɛrgœːl/ :)
I hope you can do something with these tips! :) --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 1 sep 2012 10:35 (CEST)
Well, I'm more used to Limburgish people butchering Dutch and German than the other way round, but right :P
- /e/ for /ɛ/ is very common Limburgish Dutch, though most would use /æ/, and /o/ is standard before nasals and several sounds (like liquids). /y/ for /ʏ/ is indeed less common and /œ/ would be more typical indeed.
- I've also read that WikiWoordenboek does not use length mark anywhere for simplicity. It's probably on one of the IPA pages. That would not make any sense. Especially because Dutch has "hoer" vs. "hoed" (/hu:r/ vs. /hut/~/hud/). Also, especially in the south, it is very common to have unstressed "long" vowels being short. Compare: "teelt" (/te:lt/) and "telefoon" (/tele'fo:n/~/telə'fo:n/).
- About the //-s. Indeed, that's why we do not use f.e. /ʁoʊ̯stəj/ for /ro:stər/ ("rooster" being typically pronounced "ghowstej" by Northern Dutchies). But, we would like to have a dictionary which is detailed enough to show the most important differences between the local forms. The vowel contrast between long and short in Northern Dutch is primarily the vowel quality. In Southern Dutch, the actual length is way more important. Therefore, /:/ may be ommitted for Northern Dutch, but not for Southern Dutch :) --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 2 sep 2012 16:17 (CEST)
Yes, you are right. You cite a page which was created before we added Southern Dutch pronunciations. I'll clarify it so other people won't run into the same problems :) --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 2 sep 2012 18:21 (CEST)
In the beginning, there were only Northern Dutch IPAs in the entrees. Only fairly recently, we started adding Limburgish and Flemish. Yeah, the guide was never finished. It's still on my very long to-do list :P Surely everybody may edit it; I saw your edits and as they are perfectly in line with reality, there is no reason to remove them. The reason most of our IPA is unsourced is simply the fact that there is no overview of modern day Dutch pronunciation. We only have either older literature (which is hopelessly outdated) and more recent literature which uses symbols from the older literature (such as softer g /ɣ/ instead of present day /χ/ and /e/ instead of /eɪ̯/). --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 2 sep 2012 19:28 (CEST)
It might be a bit clearer to use points now :P
- I can give you a very short answer: there is no such dictionary. Most cited reasons are the same as in English: /ɹ/ or /ɻ/ does not help legibility, so /r/ is used instead - or /æ/ vs. /æ:/ (bat vs. bad) is not necessary because you should already know these pronunciation rules while learning the language (which is of course *** and which results in Dutchies pronouncing bat and bad with identical vowel length...).
- Well, Dutch only has a written standard and not really a spoken standard. Nobody - except for some so-called "purists" - really cares whether you say /ʁɔjə/, /rɔ:jə/ or /ɾo:jə/ for "rooien". The " artifical pronunciation model" is mainly created for reasons of ease: you only need one transcription which includes nearly all varieties of Dutch. Of course, this model is highly inaccurate if taken "litteraly" and if you are trying to learn the language's pronunciation, you will end up with a flawed pronunciation.
- We are still waiting for a new generation phoneticians :P
- Except for "ieuw" and "eeuw", I'm very sure. Flemish "aai" etc. correspond to Limburgish, Brabantian "aai" etc. correspond to Northern Dutch. --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 2 sep 2012 21:47 (CEST)
Interesting bewerken
How interesting and telling that an Anglophone and a Limburgophone -is there such a thing?- presume to come an tell us 'Northern Dutchies' how we (should?) speak our language.... Jcwf (overleg) 3 sep 2012 18:51 (CEST)
- Jcwf, ik woon inmiddels al ruim twee jaar in het Noorden, dus ik zit dagelijks met de Noordelijken opgezadeld :) --Ooswesthoesbes (overleg) 4 sep 2012 20:11 (CEST)
What a rubbish. I merely pointed out how the way Dutch is transcribed is flawed. I don't care how you speak the language as long as the symbols used to transcribe it are accurate - mostly they're not. 89.79.133.41 1 jul 2013 15:04 (CEST)