Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.lang > #306259 > unrolled thread

Re: Somewheres

Back to article view | Back to sci.lang

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Somewheres Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2024-09-02 23:29 +1000
    Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-02 17:29 +0200
      Re: Somewheres Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2024-09-02 16:34 +0100
        Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-02 18:55 +0200
          Re: Somewheres Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2024-09-03 09:30 +0100
            Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-03 18:19 +0200
    Re: Somewheres Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2024-09-02 16:31 +0100
      Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-02 19:01 +0200
        Re: Somewheres Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2024-09-03 09:33 +0100
    Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-02 19:26 +0000
      Re: Somewheres jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2024-09-02 20:12 +0000
        Re: Somewheres jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2024-09-02 20:25 +0000
          Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-04 18:17 +0000
            Re: Somewheres Sergio Gatti <sergiogatti@meine-wahrheit-deine-wahrheit.de> - 2024-09-04 21:51 +0200
              Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-05 20:42 +0000
                Re: Somewheres Sergio Gatti <sergiogatti@meine-wahrheit-deine-wahrheit.de> - 2024-09-06 08:17 +0200
                  Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-14 15:57 +0000
                    Re: Somewheres Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> - 2024-09-22 15:37 +0200
                      Re: Somewheres Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2024-09-23 09:48 +1000
                        Re: Somewheres Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> - 2024-09-24 08:11 +0200
            Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-05 08:04 +0200
              Re: Somewheres Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2024-09-05 07:41 +0100
              Re: Somewheres Helmut Richter <hr.usenet@email.de> - 2024-09-05 11:06 +0200
                Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-05 12:20 +0200
                  Re: Somewheres Helmut Richter <hr.usenet@email.de> - 2024-09-05 12:28 +0200
        Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-04 17:54 +0000
          Re: Somewheres jerry.friedman99@gmail.com (jerryfriedman) - 2024-09-05 14:28 +0000
            Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-14 13:59 +0000
    Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-02 19:48 +0000
      Re: Somewheres Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> - 2024-09-03 08:59 +0200
      Re: Somewheres Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> - 2024-09-04 18:36 +0000
        Re: Somewheres Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2024-09-04 19:06 -0700
    Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-03 09:17 +0200
      Re: Somewheres Helmut Richter <hr.usenet@email.de> - 2024-09-03 10:51 +0200
        Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-03 18:25 +0200
          Re: Somewheres nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-09-03 21:48 +0200
            Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-04 10:29 +0200
              Re: Somewheres Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2024-09-05 12:00 +0100
                Re: Somewheres Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2024-09-05 15:12 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#306323

Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
> persisting elsewhere.  Since the reduction of vowels in final
> syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
> been a general change affecting endings in German, I think.  However,
> people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
> aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
> dem Kind(e)".

I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later
reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306324

 Ar an cúigiú lá de mí Méan Fómhair, scríobh Bertel Lund Hansen: 

 > Christian Weisgerber wrote:
 > 
 > > Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
 > > persisting elsewhere.  Since the reduction of vowels in final
 > > syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
 > > been a general change affecting endings in German, I think.  However,
 > > people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
 > > aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
 > > dem Kind(e)".
 > 
 > I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later
 > reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
 > I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

Mark Twain comments on it so it may be that explicit mention of it is more
familiar to native English speakers. I was aware of it, but I did study German
fairly intensely as an adult.

-- 
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306327

On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> 
> > Also, endings can be lost in specific grammatical contexts while
> > persisting elsewhere.  Since the reduction of vowels in final
> > syllables to [ə] between Old and Middle High German, there hasn't
> > been a general change affecting endings in German, I think.  However,
> > people who studied German as a foreign language are probably very
> > aware of the masculine/neuter singular strong dative -e, e.g. "mit
> > dem Kind(e)".
> 

> I don't know if I *studied* German when learning it in school and later
> reading in d.e.s.d, but until now I didn't know about that dative form.
> I don't think that I have met it in songs either.

I cite from my summary of German declension: https://hhr-m.de/de-decl/
(not a scientific work, only a summary of Usenet discussions about German):

  The usage of the optional -e ending for mn-D case and of the -es instead of
  the -s ending for mn-G case normally occurs only with words of German
  origin ending with a stressed root syllable. It is not possible with words
  with a schwa ending, with a diminutive ending -chen or -lein, with an
  unstressed foreign ending or with a full vowel other than a diphthong at
  the word end. In the remaining cases (foreign words, other words with
  unstressed last syllable, words ending with stressed diphthong at the word
  end), it is very uncommon but occurs here and there.

  When a final [s] sound in the uninflected noun would render the genitive -s
  inaudible, that is, with words ending with -s, -ss, -ß, -z, -tz, -x, German
  words and foreign words stressed on the last syllable mandatorily get an
  -es ending (des Gases, des Rosses, des Kreuzes, des Schatzes, des
  Hindernisses, des Kolosses, des Kompromisses) whereas words with unstressed
  foreign ending get no genitive ending at all (des Status, des Mythos, des
  Index) with exceptions only when the word is no longer perceived as foreign
  (des Busses, des Atlasses, des Zirkusses or des Zirkus). For other words as
  well, facilitation of pronunciation is an incentive of using the longer
  form with -es; in particular with lax plosives after long vowel at the word
  end (des Siebes, des Rades, des Tages). and with word-final consonant
  clusters ending with -sch, -t, or -d (des Barsches, des Mastes, des
  Hemdes). It is, however, neither mandatory for these words nor unusual for
  other words (des Tals or des Tales, des Kinns or des Kinnes).

  Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
  slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
  however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
  e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
  (basically), zu Tage treten (outcrop), im rechtlichen Sinne (in the legal
  sense), in diesem Sinne (in this spirit).

--
Helmut Richter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306328

Helmut Richter wrote:

>   Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
>   slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
>   however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
>   e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
>   (basically),

Ah, "In einem kühlen Grunde" - ich habe es gesehen, ... eh, I have seen
it, but I didn't think too much about it.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306329

On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Helmut Richter wrote:
> 
> >   Where there is free choice between -s and -es genitive, usage of -es has a
> >   slight poetic or archaic touch. The always optional -e dative ending,
> >   however, is pronouncedly archaic; many speakers use it only in idioms,
> >   e.g. bei Lichte besehen ([seen] in the cold light of day), im Grunde
> >   (basically),
> 
> Ah, "In einem kühlen Grunde" - ich habe es gesehen, ... eh, I have seen
> it, but I didn't think too much about it.

In einem kühlen Grunde,
da steht ein Mühlenrad.
Wie groß ist wohl der Umfang,
wenn man den Radius hat?
 
-- 
Helmut Richter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306310

On 2024-09-02, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> More recently, lots of final /r/s have been lost in some dialects
> of English, except before a vowel in the next word--

That is a more general change.  I took Peter's question to be about
word-final consonants.  Also, it's not a straight loss.  Take
"weird".  That is [wɪəd] in conservative Received Pronunciation.
The r isn't lost, it is vocalized.  There is a secondary change
where the resulting diphthong is smoothed, giving [wɪːd], which,
if isn't considered RP yet, will be soon.  Equivalent changes are
documented for [ɛə] > [ɛː] and [ɔə] > [ɔː], which raises the question
whether this didn't happen for all vowels, e.g. "hard" [hɑrd] >
?[hɑəd] > [hɑːd].  Compare r vocalization in German and Danish.

> a similar pattern to what happened in French,

To me it doesn't look at all similar to the historic partial loss
of French final r, e.g. in the -er infinitives, nor the sometime
deletion of final [r] and [l] after obstruents, e.g. chambre >
chamb', table > tab'.

>> Strikingly, Middle English lost final -e and, inconsistenly, -en,
>> which is intimately tied to the collapse of the declension system.
>
> And lots of the conjugation system?

Yes, I guess I meant to write "inflection" there.  I don't think
the conjugation system shows any additional losses, though.  If you
strike -e and -en from Middle English conjugation, you end up with
the system familiar from the King James Version: 2. singular -st,
3. singular present -th, nothing else.  The 2SG ending was lost
along with its pronoun.  The 3SG change -th > -s is poorly understood,
but didn't add or remove any ending.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306333

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:54:04 +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> On 2024-09-02, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> More recently, lots of final /r/s have been lost in some dialects
>> of English, except before a vowel in the next word--
>
> That is a more general change.  I took Peter's question to be about
> word-final consonants.  Also, it's not a straight loss.  Take
> "weird".  That is [wɪəd] in conservative Received Pronunciation.
> The r isn't lost, it is vocalized.  There is a secondary change
> where the resulting diphthong is smoothed, giving [wɪːd], which,
> if isn't considered RP yet, will be soon.  Equivalent changes are
> documented for [ɛə] > [ɛː] and [ɔə] > [ɔː], which raises the question
> whether this didn't happen for all vowels, e.g. "hard" [hɑrd] >
> ?[hɑəd] > [hɑːd].  Compare r vocalization in German and Danish.
>
>> a similar pattern to what happened in French,
>
> To me it doesn't look at all similar to the historic partial loss
> of French final r, e.g. in the -er infinitives, nor the sometime
> deletion of final [r] and [l] after obstruents, e.g. chambre >
> chamb', table > tab'.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I meant what happened to other
letters in French, notably <s>, <t>, and <z>.  In fact, what
happened to French <s> has a lot of parallels to what's
happening to English <r> in non-rhotic dialects.  The [r] is
lost, leaving a long vowel as you say, and then <r> is used to
write that vowel (still mostly non-standard, but there are
examples like "Burma" and "argo").  In the same way the
French [s] was lost, leaving long vowels, and then used
to write those vowels as in "resve". (Then it was removed
again and length was indicated by an accent mark.)

Of course there's a big difference, namely that lots of non-
rhotic speakers put an [r] in after those long vowels and
schwas even where there was originally no [r], and I don't
know of anything like that in French.

>>> Strikingly, Middle English lost final -e and, inconsistenly, -en,
>>> which is intimately tied to the collapse of the declension system.
>>
>> And lots of the conjugation system?
>
> Yes, I guess I meant to write "inflection" there.  I don't think
> the conjugation system shows any additional losses, though.  If you
> strike -e and -en from Middle English conjugation, you end up with
> the system familiar from the King James Version: 2. singular -st,
> 3. singular present -th, nothing else.  The 2SG ending was lost
> along with its pronoun.  The 3SG change -th > -s is poorly understood,
> but didn't add or remove any ending.

Thanks.  I guess "lots" was an exaggeration.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306397

On 2024-09-05, jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> happened to French <s> has a lot of parallels to what's
> happening to English <r> in non-rhotic dialects.  The [r] is
> lost, leaving a long vowel as you say, and then <r> is used to
> write that vowel (still mostly non-standard, but there are
> examples like "Burma" and "argo").  In the same way the
> French [s] was lost, leaving long vowels, and then used
> to write those vowels as in "resve".

That was a rather specific change of [s] between a vowel and another
consonant.  Yes, it resulted in compensatory lengthening and a new
set of long vowel phonemes.

Closer to home, there's the loss in Middle English of [x]~[ç] after
vowels. (Consistent after front vowels, sometimes shifted to [f]
instead after back vowels.)  That also included compensatory
lengthening of short vowels, e.g. <right> [rɪçt] > [riːt] > [raɪt].

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306275

On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:

> Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
> this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
> the language.

Okay, this opportunity is as good as any to mention something I've
been burning to post ever since I re-read it in Akire/Rosen:

Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
instead of *parlàno?  And where is that -o from anyway?  Spanish
doesn't have it and if you look at Latin (-ant), there's no source
for it.

Oh, you haven't wondered? ;-)

Apparently Old Italian had the expected ending -an, so what happened?
The blame goes to the 'to be' word.  The Latin first singular "sum"
and third plural "sunt" both ended up regularly as "son" in Old
Italian.  But that was the only first person form that didn't have
-o, so eventually it picked one up, producing "sono".  Now, since
the first singular and third plural had already merged, "sono" also
became the third pural.  And from there the -o spread to the third
plural of all other verbs, but as a latecomer it didn't move the
stress.

It's an intriguing explanation, especially since it includes two
developments that ran in opposite directions: First the addition
of -o from many forms to one, then the spread of -o from one form
to many.  I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open
syllables in Italian had something to do with it.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306278

Christian Weisgerber hat am 02.09.2024 um 21:48 geschrieben:
> On 2024-09-02, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
> 
>> Some southern Italian dialects have dropped a few final vowels, but
>> this does not extend to northern dialects or the mainstream version of
>> the language.
> 
> Okay, this opportunity is as good as any to mention something I've
> been burning to post ever since I re-read it in Akire/Rosen:
> 
> Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
> forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
> instead of *parlàno?  And where is that -o from anyway?  Spanish
> doesn't have it and if you look at Latin (-ant), there's no source
> for it.
> 
> Oh, you haven't wondered? ;-)
> 
> Apparently Old Italian had the expected ending -an, so what happened?
> The blame goes to the 'to be' word.  The Latin first singular "sum"
> and third plural "sunt" both ended up regularly as "son" in Old
> Italian.  But that was the only first person form that didn't have
> -o, so eventually it picked one up, producing "sono".  Now, since
> the first singular and third plural had already merged, "sono" also
> became the third pural.  And from there the -o spread to the third
> plural of all other verbs, but as a latecomer it didn't move the
> stress.

Please note, however, that the first singular and third plural present
forms merged only in "sono".


> It's an intriguing explanation, especially since it includes two
> developments that ran in opposite directions: First the addition
> of -o from many forms to one, then the spread of -o from one form
> to many.  I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open
> syllables in Italian had something to do with it.

I would guess the strong overall tendency toward open syllables in
Italian was the main reason for this development.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306313

On 2024-09-02, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:

> Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
> forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
> instead of *parlàno?  And where is that -o from anyway?

So that was an example where something was added at the end of
words.  I don't intend this as an invalidation of the general
observation that there is a longtime trend of phonetic erosion, but
I want to show that actual language history is complex and circuitous.

Here's another one.  From the King James Version, you may be familiar
with the second person singular indicative ending -(e)st (-t in
some verbs), "thou thinkest" etc.  German also has -st across the
second person singular.  Clearly, -st is an old 2SG marker...

... Except, Slavic has -š there.  Latin, not a language to drop final
-t, has -s.  Even Gothic has -s, and if you look at the variants
in early Old English and Old High German, the original 2SG ending
is also -s.

Where did the -t come from?  There are two hypotheses.  One, dismissed
by Ringe (and I'm skeptical as well), is from missegmentation when
the subject pronoun (tu ~ þu) followed the verb.  The other involves
the appearance of -s-t due to sound changes in some preterite-present
verbs, reanalysis as -st, and spread to other verbs.  Remarkably,
this appears to have happened independently in both English and
German.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306320

Christian Weisgerber suggested that ...
> On 2024-09-02, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever wondered why the third person plural present tense
>> forms of Italian verbs are so strangely stressed, e.g., pàrlano
>> instead of *parlàno?  And where is that -o from anyway?
>
> So that was an example where something was added at the end of
> words.  I don't intend this as an invalidation of the general
> observation that there is a longtime trend of phonetic erosion, but
> I want to show that actual language history is complex and circuitous.
>
> Here's another one.  From the King James Version, you may be familiar
> with the second person singular indicative ending -(e)st (-t in
> some verbs), "thou thinkest" etc.  German also has -st across the
> second person singular.  Clearly, -st is an old 2SG marker...
>
> ... Except, Slavic has -š there.  Latin, not a language to drop final
> -t, has -s.  Even Gothic has -s, and if you look at the variants
> in early Old English and Old High German, the original 2SG ending
> is also -s.
>
> Where did the -t come from?  There are two hypotheses.  One, dismissed
> by Ringe (and I'm skeptical as well), is from missegmentation when
> the subject pronoun (tu ~ þu) followed the verb.  The other involves
> the appearance of -s-t due to sound changes in some preterite-present
> verbs, reanalysis as -st, and spread to other verbs.  Remarkably,
> this appears to have happened independently in both English and
> German.

I relate all this discussion to what Charlton Laird (sr, IIRC) 
considered two fundamental principles of language change:

1)  People are lazy, leading to simplification.
2)  People are inventive, leading to new words and new constructions.


/dps

-- 
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
 In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306279

Peter Moylan wrote:

> Those are all examples in Romance languages. I can't think of any
> examples in Germanic languages, and I don't know enough about other
> language families.

I don't remember all the examples, but when the people in
de.etc.sprache.deutsch write spoken German, they write "ham" statt
"haben" - eh, in stead of, that is. They sometimes write something that
I can't understand at all, but that usually will be a dialect.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306283

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> I don't remember all the examples, but when the people in
> de.etc.sprache.deutsch write spoken German, they write "ham" statt
> "haben" - eh, in stead of, that is.

This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany, 
both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.

Step 1: replace -en by syllabic -n (still same number of syllables):

  haben → habn, leben → lebn, kommen → kommn, schaffen → schaffn,
  reden → redn, sagen → sagn, packen → packn, hängen → hängn [hɛŋn]

Step 2: assimilate this -n to become homorganic with the preceding sound:

  habn → habm, lebn → lebm, kommn → kommm [kɔmː], schaffn → schaffm,
  redn = redn, sagn → sagŋ, packn → packŋ, [hɛŋn] → [hɛŋː]

  The long nasals allow to distinguish standard "kommen/hängen" from
  standard "komm!/häng!".

Step 3: merge the two final consonants if the first one is a lax plosive:

  habm → ham, lebm → leːm, redn → reːn, sagn → saːŋ

This explains "haben/leben" becoming "ham/leːm" which appear in
colloquial speech nearly all over Germany.

Especially Bavarian has another interesting feature: where step 3
makes no difference, the final nasal is often changed to [a], in
particular, long nasals must be removed.

Step 4 (Bavarian):

   kommm [kɔmː] → kemma (mand.), packŋ → packa (opt.), [hɛŋː] → henga (mand.)

Of course, the extent to which these steps apply is very different across
Germany. If step 1 is omitted, the language sounds overly distinct, and step
2 as well sounds natural in colloquial speech. I would not hesitate to teach
foreigners to apply these two steps as normal pronunciation.

--
Helmut Richter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306289

Helmut Richter wrote:

> This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany, 
> both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.

Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard
pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
lips.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306291

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Helmut Richter wrote:
> 
> > This is a very natural process which took place in many areas in Germany,
> > both in the S and in the E; I am not sure whether in the SW as well.
> 
> Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
> words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard
> pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
> lips.

Isn't all of Danish?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306307

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
>> words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard
>> pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
>> lips.
> 
> Isn't all of Danish?

You may enjoy:

  	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306330

On 2024-09-04, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>>> Your description could be about Danish, except of course for the German
>>> words. We pronounce "gennem" as "ge?m", and that applies to the standard
>>> pronunciation (rigsdansk). The m is actually just a grunt with closed
>>> lips.
>> 
>> Isn't all of Danish?
>
> You may enjoy:
>
>   	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g

You'll all have to switch to English to prevent the collapse of
society!


-- 
so ladies, fish, and gentlemen,
here's my angled dream

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306331

Adam Funk wrote:

>> You may enjoy:
>>
>>   	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykj3Kpm3O0g
> 
> You'll all have to switch to English to prevent the collapse of
> society!

We're a long way already.

-- 
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.lang

csiph-web