Talk:Dutch phonology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Contents

[edit] Vowels

I've been trying to understand the Vowel section of this article but fail to follow the counting that is presented. It is stated that Dutch has 14 simple vowels, which suggests that the chart of monothongs contain 14 entries. I count no more than 11. What am I missing? Is there perhaps a difference between simple vowels and monophthongs? Similarly, it is stated that there are 4 diphthongs and that 3 more are included in the chart. That suggest that there should be 7 items on the chart of diphthongs. I count only 6. Again, what am I missing? Should the list of vowel example words not contain at least 18(=14+4) or possibly 21(=14+4+3) entries? I only count 16. Again, what am I missing? If I am misunderstanding something, which is likely, am I the only "idiot" out there?

It seems to me this article and International Phonetic Alphabet for Dutch are covering a lot of the same ground and would benefit from being merged. Since articles on phonologies of languages are generally called "XXX phonology" (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Phonetics#Language phonologies), I say this article is the right place to merge to. Thoughts? User:Angr 16:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been some debate about this for other articles, because the IPA articles are often in the business of explaining how the language's orthography translates into IPA, which is really not the same as the language's phonology. So some languages have articles called "X Phonology" and "X Orthography", whereas others have one article called "X Phonology and Orthography".
Honestly, both of these articles are so incomplete and disorganized that it might be better for someone with knowledge of Dutch (...not me, unfortunately) to cannibalize them both to create a new article or articles, depending on what the consensus is on having two articles versus one. --Armchairlinguist 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The Dutch IPA article was really just a brief orthography guide, and I don't see much harm in keeping such information here as long as the focus of the rest of the article remains on phonology/phonetics rather than spelling. I've merged the two for now.
Peter Isotalo 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no colon after the [o] in the example transcriptions of <goal> and <oven>? This seems inconsistent with the rest of the article. Change?Homun 15:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Homun, you are touching upon a more extensive problem. In Dutch people refer to the a in zak /ɑ/ as de korte a (the short a) and the one in zaak /a/ as 'de lange a'. Unfortunately the difference is really more a matter of laxness or openness and not of length. De length hardly matters. If fact the only words where length as such is phonemic is in pairs like dor - door. /dɔr/ - /dɔ:r/ (and yes this Dutch speaker actually uses /r/...rrroling!). I think it would be better to limit the use of the colon to such cases but I don't think that there is agreement upon that point
The vowel sounds before r are rather different and that is not discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.1.193.137 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, the vowel length is still phonemic in that it can act as the decisive factor where vowel quality does not. An example from myself, coming from Eindhoven (east Brabant), is how I would understand [mɑ:n] (long, but lax a) and [man] (short, but tense a). Neither are found in standard Dutch, but they're found in some dialects (notably of Antwerp). Now, I myself would analyse both [mɑ:n] and [ma:n] as 'long a', therefore <maan>, despite the vowel quality being that of the standard 'short a' in the first case. And the same happens to [man] and [mɑn], which I would understand as <man> with short a. So in this case at leat for me personally, the vowel length is more important in the disambiguation than the vowel quality is, and therefore it would be phonemic. CodeCat 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flemish/Southern Dutch

I think the article is still a little too much biased towards ‘standard’ Dutch. The word in itself is not even well-defined, because there is a Flemish standard as well. For example:

  • In the south, there are (almost) no diphthongs: e: really is a long e, same with ø: and o:, ɛi is ɛ:, œy is œ: and ʌu is ʌ:. This should at least be mentioned below the chart, or even better: in a separate chart.
  • The w is pronounced w in some areas.
  • Mention that the ‘standard’ Dutch of the south is that as spoken on Belgian television. I do not think this is existent as a real spoken language anywhere. There is a ‘Standard Flemish’, however, but that would be another article, since its status is disputed.

Then I have some comments which are not specific to the south:

  • I am not sure whether ʃ is not a native sound: it occurs, infrequently in words like sjaal, sjouwen, sjorren... The sound is not necessarily the same as in meisje, huisje.
  • r is sometimes realized as ɹ, the ‘Gooise r’ phenomenon, mostly famous from the music show ‘Kinderen voor Kinderen’.

I made these changes in the Orthography chart before it was merged with this page, but I am not enough of a specialist to describe these phenomena rigourously. Hamaryns 10:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding KvK and the "Gooise r", I found this article from the 15 July 2000 NRC Handelsblad amusing. Unhappily for any effort to create a concise yet accurate description of Dutch phonology is the proposition expressed in the tagline "Het Nederlands heeft twaalf erren, zonder veel samenhang" — "Dutch has 12 R's [i.e. 12 different ways of pronouncing r], without much relation to each other." In the article a professor surmises that Kinderen voor Kinderen sing-along CDs are responsible for spreading Gooise r through emulation and repetition, particularly by pre-teen girls. -- IslandGyrl 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some rewriting needed

The article starts with "Dutch language devoices all consonants at the ends of words (e.g. a final /d/ becomes [t]), which presents a problem for Dutch speakers when learning English". This is true, but hardly a good initial sentence of an article on Dutch phonology. Then it continues with some ortographic facts.

Also, the next paragraph "Because of assimilation, often the initial consonant of the next word is usually also devoiced, e.g. het vee (the cattle) is /(h)ətfe/. This process of devoicing is taken to an extreme in some regions (Amsterdam, Friesland) with almost complete loss of /v/, /z/ and /ɣ/." - devoicing of /z/ and /v/ is indeed very common in certain regions, but has nothing to do with assimilation.

The whole introduction seems like a list of random facts, instead of an introduction to the phonology of Dutch. Could someone rewrite please?


Jalwikip 13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katje

The cart of Dutch consonants fails to mention the voiceless palatal fricative [c], as in katje ['kɑcə]. 81.164.101.57

For one, it's a plosive, not a fricative. And the reason it's not included is that it's a phone, not a phoneme. If we were to include [c], we should also include, say [J] (the palatal nasal) in Jantje ([jAJc@]). As I wrote above, this article needs major clean-up, and a section on non-phonemic sounds and allophones should be included, but the phoneme chart is not the right place for that. Jalwikip 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] /9/

The vowel chart lists /9/ as phoneme (IPA œ), but no examples are given. Being a native Dutch speaker, I cannot think of any word having /9/ as a phoneme. Can anyone enlighten me or remove this as a phoneme (and update 14 to 13 in the 'simple vowel phonemes' above)? Jalwikip 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Checked the Dutch Wikipedia, and it lists only 13 vowels. I think the original writer included œ as it was listed as allophone for ø. The latter I changed to ʏ, in accordance with both my own findings (I'm a native speaker) and the Dutch Wikipedia page. Also, I removed the part of the allophones also occuring before /l/ which isn't true (only before /r/, e.g. <deur> /dør/ [dʏ:r] but <beul> /bøl/ [bøl]. Perhaps there's a slight lowering, but definitly not to the values after /r/. I'll update the image in four days (just made a wikimedia account, they have a four day waiting policy). Jalwikip (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the actual realisation of 'short u' depends on dialect. People from Noord Holland seem to pronounce dun with a sound close to [ʏ]; that is, like the German short ü in dünn (take a listen to this audio sample). However, further south, the pronunciation seems to be closer to [ɵ] or [œ], which is generally more centred and lower, like the German short ö. Compare Dutch kunnen with German können: as a native of Eindhoven, I pronounce the former very close to this pronunciation of können, only without the aspiration. Now, historically, the 'short u' in Dutch is equivalent not to 'long u' but to 'eu', and it is the result of an original short u [u] or short o being umlauted (making it cognate to German ü and ö). And since the diphthong /œy/ has an unmistakably lower starting point than 'short u', perhaps the sound is best denoted with /̞ø/ (lowered /ø/), or alternatively the diphthong could be denoted /ɶy/ since the start point is in fact rather close to /a/ I think. And as for the pronunciation before r: deur to me has the same sound as 'short u' except longer [dœ:ʀ] or perhaps even a diphthongised R a-la German [dœɐʀ]. --CodeCat (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [β]

In the text below the IPA chart of Dutch consonants the author mentions that the /ʋ/ phoneme is sometimes realized as the voiced bilabial fricative [β]. I think the phone is closer to a bilabial approximant. Ivo von Rosenqvist

I'm not sure in which (supposedly Hollandic) dialects the "w" is pronounced bilabially. The labiodental approximant /ʋ/ seems pretty standard and universal to a Hollandic-speaking person like me. Someone using [β] or the bilabial approximant [β̞,] would sound Spanish to me. Afasmit (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "w" a bilabial approximant in the Suriname dialect? −Woodstone (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not sure if that could be called a 'dialect'. It is a 'variant' of Dutch, and for Surinames living in the Netherlands, it's an accent (sometimes on top of a regional accent). Jalwikip (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In Randstad Dutch and Northern Dutch the labiodental approximant is pretty much standard. The bilabial pronounciation is the standard pronunciation in Belgian Dutch. It also occurs in the Southern parts of the Netherlands (Limburg and Brabant). But as I said, I think the phone is closer to a bilabial approximant than to a voiced bilabial fricative. In Suriname "w" is pronounced as a voiced labial-velar approximant (like in English). Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any scientific sources for that? I am pretty sure I pronounce /ʋ/ as a labiodental approximant, and I think that's the normal pronunciation here (I am from Leiden, Zuid-Holland). Ucucha 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry. I made a mistake in my previous post. Instead of voiced bilabial fricative I meant to say labiodental approximant in my first sentence. I corrected it now. So, when living in Leiden, it is normal to pronounce /ʋ/ labiodentally. It is the standard pronunciation in most of the Netherlands. Only Belgium and the South have a bilabial pronunciation.
Listen for instance to the news on Dutch and Belgian television. The Dutch newsreaders will pronounce /ʋ/ more or less like < w > in German Wasser, whereas on Belgian television they will pronounce it more or less like < b > in Spanish trabajar. Whereas in Suriname /ʋ/ will more sound like < w > in English water.
I have studied Dutch at the University of Ghent. I have got this information from an unpublished workbook by the Flemish professor Johan Taeldeman. And I am a Flemish native speaker of the Dutch language myself.Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
According to Verhoven (2005), Standard Dutch has the labial-velar [w], not a bilabial approximant. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
True. But a bilabial pronunciation does exist as well. The Flemish and Surinamese /ʋ/ are clearly bilabial. It is just not the Standard pronunciation.
To put it simple. Standard Dutch uses [ʋ]. Belgian Dutch uses [β]. And Surinamese Dutch uses [w]. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well then why does this source say that standard Belgian Dutch uses [w]? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Verhoeven (1995) probably uses a simplified version of IPA. This is not uncommon. In German phonetics [ʋ] as in Wasser is often simply transcribed as [v] (even though its pronunciation is closer to Standard Dutch water than to Standard Dutch vis).
Anyway, you can ask any Dutch speaker. There is a distinct difference between the Standard Dutch, the Belgian Dutch and the Surinamese Dutch pronunciation of the phoneme /ʋ/. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Verhoven (2005) explicitely says it's labial-velar: "[w] has a labial-velar articulation rather than labiodental in many accents of Netherlandic Dutch." (p245). If you'd like to look it up, it's in Journal of the International Phonetic Association volume 35. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is he perhaps referring to /ʋ/ in final position? The final consonant in words like lauw "between warm and cold" /lɔuʋ/ might indeed be close to /w/ (though I'd say it's rather a bilabial approximant in my pronunciation). In the word klauwier "a bird" it might be even closer to /w/ ([klɔuwir]). Ucucha 10:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I didn't even think of that.
In words like klauwier and lauwe the standard pronunciation is bilabial. In this case there is no difference between Standard Dutch and Belgian Dutch. But I think that /ʋ/ is only pronounced as labial-velar in Surinamese Dutch. I think any native speaker will agree that there is a difference between the Surinamese pronunciation of /ʋ/ and the Standard Dutch pronunciation of /ʋ/ in leeuwen.
In lauw on the other hand, there is no consonant. It is just pronounced as [lɔu].
So, to put it simple:
[ʋ] -- Standard Dutch water (+ German Wasser)
[β] -- Belgian Dutch water -- Standard Dutch and Belgian Dutch lauwe (+ Spanish trabajar)
[w] -- Surinamese Dutch water and lauwe (+ English water)
Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that lauw has no final consonant? I think I can actually hear a difference in pairs like u-uw, jou-jouw and nou-nauw. Ucucha 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that jou and jouw are supposed to be pronounced the same. And I think in un-monotorized speech jou and jouw really do sound the same. It is only when one really wants to emphasize the difference between the two homophones that one pronounces the /ʋ/ in jouw. It's like verrassing and verassing. Normally the two words are pronounced exactly the same. But one can add a glottal stop to verassing to distinguish it from its homophone. These are artificial differences. Similarly, one can also pronounce /ʋ/ in lauw. But it is not a normal way of speaking. In lauwe and klauwier on the other hand it is normal pronounce /ʋ/. It would sound odd not to pronounce /ʋ/ in those words.
But perhaps it is easier to hear with leeuw [leu] versus leeuwen ['le:βə]. The word leeuwen does not even contain a diphthongue [eu] anymore. No one will ever say *['leuʔə]. Or *['le:ʋə] for that matter. And only someone with a Surinamese accent will say ['le:wə]. But on the other hand it is possible to pronounce leeuw as [le:β]. For instance: Je moet beter luisteren. Ik heb leeuw gezegd. Niet leeg! Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Verhoeven wasn't talking about in final position. He transcribes waren as [waːʀə], wie as [wi], kwam as kwɑm] etc. amd makes no reference to a bilabial approximant. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh hey, I forgot I had some other sources on Dutch. Let's see, according to Peters (2006), Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999), and Verhoeven (2007), Hasselt, Maastricht and Hamont (respectively, all in Limburg) it's a bilabial approximant. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better to base this article on more than one source. I think there are still a lot of innaccuracies in the article. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /ɣ, x, χ/

First, I don't think I know anyone that uses a /ɣ/ in Dutch. I know only /x/. Comments?

Second, the article says that "The phoneme /ɡ/ became a voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ [...]" which seems to contradict what is being said in High_German_consonant_shift: "The West Germanic voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ shifted to /g/ in Old High German in all positions. [...] Dutch has retained the original Germanic /ɣ/".

129.27.202.101 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the latter is true, removing the wrong quote. Jalwikip 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference between /x/ and /ɣ/ for <g> is probably dialectal.Cameron Nedland (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, <g> is /x/ for all Northern, Western and Eastern varieties of Dutch, and /ɣ/ for Southern varieties. All varieties have a voiceless fricative for <ch>, although /ç/ can be heard in the Southern varieties instead of /x/. Jalwikip (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Dutch <ch> is pronounced as the voiceless velar fricative [x]. I think however that this pronunciation only occurs in Belgium and the Southern Netherlands (Brabant and Limburg). In Standard Dutch the pronunciation is closer to the voiceless uvular fricative [χ]. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit. I'm kind of confused by /ɣ/. Verhoeven (2005) says it's not present in Netherlandic Dutch but I don't have the first page of Gussenhoven (1992/1999). — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure myself. The Belgian Dutch situation is easy. The phoneme /ɣ/ is pronounced as the voiced velar fricative [ɣ]. The phoneme /x/ is pronounced as the voiceless velar fricative [x], unless the phoneme is preceded by a front vowel and followed by the palatal approximant [j], then the phoneme gets palatalized. The word wieg [βix] becomes wiegje ['βiçjə] in Belgian Dutch. I am less sure about Standard Dutch. The phoneme /x/ is pronounced as the voiceless uvular fricative [χ]. Word initial the phoneme /ɣ/ is nowadays also pronounced as [χ]. Only old newsreaders and actors still make a distinction between gloor and chloor. In the middle of a word (like in wagen) it is still voiced. But I am not entirely sure what sound it is. I think the sound that comes closest is the raised voiced uvular fricative [ʁ̝]. But I don't know any scientific source, that backs up my theory. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's safe to state that <ch> and <g> (as fricative) are always [χ] in western Dutch. −Woodstone (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there must be some voiced variety. How about the <g> in legde? Is it also voiceless? And is there no difference at all between kachel en waggel? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, by assimilation it goes back to voiced in <legde>. I hear and say no difference between the ch/gg in <kachel> and <waggel> in standard Dutch. In the southern parts they are different. −Woodstone (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, let's say that <g> and <ch> have completely merged in the language of younger speakers of Standard Dutch. Nonetheless, I still think that among older generations there are some speakers of Standard Dutch who make a dictinction between <ch> and <g>. When I listen to newsreaders from the fifties and the sixties I clearly hear a difference between the two sounds. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just listen to some videoclips on this website. Perhaps this distinction is artificial, élitist, and only made by language purists, but it does exist. And it is not the same sound as the [ɣ], which is used in Belgium. This apparently obsolete pronunciation of <g> has been the standard pronunciation for a long time. So, I think we should at least mention it. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth: the IPA handbook chapter on Dutch has only [χ] using <gat> as example. It has no mention of [ɣ] or [x]. Of course sometimes <ch> can be [ʃ] and <g> can be [g]. −Woodstone (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for modern Standard Dutch that one sound [χ] is sufficient. But in older Standard Dutch and Belgian Dutch, there are apparently more sounds. And even modern Standard Dutch speakers treat /ɣ/ and /x/ as different phonemes. Else they would say hij legte (by analogy with hij lachte).
You know what. I'll ask one of my professors what he thinks about it. I'll keep you posted. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The special 's' sound in Dutch

I think that specifying /s/ for the Dutch 's' is completely counter-productive as it does not reflect the real sound in any way. Have you guys ever heard a native Dutchman/-woman pronounce the /s/ as in mens? It almost sounds like [ʃ] and also a little bit like the [ɕ] in Polish. But it definitely does NOT 100% sound like /s/ in English 'sea'!! -andy 84.149.64.73 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in some dialects (Amsterdam's comes to mind) the s could be [sʲ] or [ʃ], perhaps by yiddish influences. However, in standard Dutch s is simply [s]. Americans often pronounce Dutch names like Smit, Snel, or Mens with a [ʃ] because they are thinking of the German equivalents Schmid, schnell and Mensch. Afasmit (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, as a native speaker I hear people say /s/ quite regularly, and it is definitly a [s]. Jalwikip (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vowels and diphthongs

I am not familiar with this particular work (I could look it up in my library), but I see that on this Wikipage page < u > in Dutch hut has been transcribed as [ʏ]. This is also a simplification. The sound is much closer to [ø]. The Wikipedia page also fails to mention that [o:] as in Dutch boom is only pronounced as [o:] in Belgian Dutch. In Standard Dutch it is pronounced as the diphthongue [ou].
This is how Taeldeman classifies the Standard Dutch vowels and diphthongues:
Dutch vowels and diphthongues
Symbol Example
IPA IPA Dutch
e bet bit
i 1 bit biet
ø høt hut
y 1 fyt fuut
ɛ bɛt bed
eː 2 beːɾ beer
ə də de
øː 2 døːɾ deur
ɑ bɑt bad
aː zaːt zaad
ɔ bɔt bot
oː 2 boːɾ boor
u 1 ɦut hoed
ɛi ʋɛin wijn
œy œy ui
ɔu zɔut zout
Notes:
1) pronounced longer before the phoneme /ɾ/.
2) diphthonguized when not before the phoneme /ɾ/.

[edit] Belgian diphthongs

You mention in a footnote that Belgians pronounce bout as [bɔut] rather than [bʌut], which is correct as far as I know. Most Belgians I know also mangle (uh, I mean, pronounce differently in a value-neutral descriptive way) other dipthongs. In particular, they pronounce bijt as [bɛːt] rather than [bɛit] and buit as [bœːt] rather than [bœyt]. (I'm not a linguist, so I may be doing the IPA wrong here, but there definitely is some difference in the way that Belgian Dutch speakers pronounce the diphthongs spelled as "ei" and "ui".) These two shifts occur also in the dialect of The Hague, leading to funny shibboleths like "broodje ei met ui".

I modified your IPA so you know how to do the formatting in the future. I have the vowel quadrangles of several Dutch dialects, all from the journal of the IPA, the most notable being Standard Belgian Dutch (which, I think has a place here). For the vowels spelled ij and ui respectively, this source shows almost no difference between the two styles but remember that this is Standard Belgian, which could be quite different from a more common Belgian variety. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mention any differences between Belgian Dutch and Standard Dutch concidering the diphthongues. Those differences are not considered Standard Belgian Dutch. In correct Belgian Dutch (as is spoken on Flemish television) the diphtongues are exactly the same as in the Netherlands (apart from [e:], [o:] and [ø:] of course). Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You're also excluding the subtle rounding difference in ou, right? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I am not entirely sure about this either. Nowadays, many young people in the Dutch Randstad pronounce their diphthongues slightly different. The diphthongues get lowered. These people pronounce the diphthongue ij for instance as [ai]. This phenomenon is called Poldernederlands, but so far it is not recognized as Standard (Dutch) Dutch. I think the suble rounding difference in ou is also a Poldernederlands phenomenon (and therefore not recognized as Standard Dutch). But I am not entirely sure. Where did you get this information? Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Verhoeven (2005) (cited in the article). Remember, though, that the [ɔ] part of [ɔu] is lower than the /ɔ/ monophthong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Then I guess it will be all-right. Ivo von Rosenqvist (talk)

[edit] Southern dialects

As for the /ɣ/ sound: the difference between it and /x/ is made in the south of The Netherlands and in Belgium, and it corresponds more or less to the orthographic distinction g vs. ch. This is a feature that occurs even in parts of the country where the distinction between standard language and dialect is weak, and speakers of more distinctive dialects like Limburgish usually retain it when speaking the standard language. For what it's worth, the parts of The Netherlands where the /ɣ/ form is used coincide roughly with the majority-Catholic parts of the Dutch Republic that were governed as territories ("generaliteitslanden") by the States-General and that resemble Belgium (the old Spanish Netherlands) in culture and religion.

As for the shift of long /i:/ to /ɛi/: this creates many spelling headaches because the shifted words are still spelled with ij while the old words with the same sound are spelled with ei. In some dialects, the distinction is retained, but these are all dialects that are perceived as very distinct from the standard language (Frisian, Lower Saxon, Lower Frankish, etc.), and speakers will use the standard pronunciation when they intend to speak the standard language. One of the more remarkable of the dialects that retain the difference is that of the island Ameland, because unlike the other dialects that retain the difference, it is very close to the standard language.

[edit] Historical sound changes

The sentence: Dutch (with the exception of the Limburg dialects) did not participate in the second Germanic consonant shift is a little bit wrong. Limburgish only participated in a few of those soundshifts, compare:

  • German machen /-x-/ Dutch maken, English make, Limburgish make
  • German Pfanne /p͡f-/, Dutch pan, English pan, Limburgish pan (does mean something different, a good translation should be kille)
  • German zwei /t͡s-/, Dutch twee, English two, Limburgish twee, twie, twieë

Limburgish only has a few examples of the shift: ich (nl: ik, de: ich, en: I) for example. Only Kerkraads has had more shifts. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since German itself has different borders for different types of shifts (see High German consonant shift, the southern Limburg dialects are affected differently than the northern ones. There are also many German dialects that have "ik" for example. Jalwikip (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, mache and pfan and tswai are only found in Kirchroajs, which is a Ripuarian language and not Limburgish. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retroflex approximant

I didn't see anything about the use of the retroflex approximant in many varieties of northern Dutch, particularly at the end of syllables. Anyone knows anything about that? Aviad2001 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what Dutch people call the 'Leidse "r"' (Leiden-style r), it is associated with 'posh' people or with people having an American accent. This kind of 'r' is only heard after a vowel like 'markt'->/mɑɻkt/; 'kakker'->/kɑkɘɻ/.SuperMidget (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It'd be good to add a few words about that in the article. Is it really a Leiden thing? I lived in Flanders and speak Dutch (though not quite fluently), and whenever I go to Holland it seems to be all over the place. Aviad2001 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)