Help talk:IPA/Dutch/Archive 2

Pronunciation of oo
Doesn't 'oo' before 'r' get a different pronunciation from 'oo' before other letters such as 'g' or 't'? Examples are 'oor' (ear) vs. 'oog' (eye) and 'boor' (drill) vs. 'boot' (boat). – Editør (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When it occurs before within the same syllable it may be pronounced either as a long monophthong, or a centering diphthong . This is not reflected in the transcription system used here. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be a problem to change things so we do indicate that? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like there would. I've only seen it reported for Netherlandic Dutch (Gussenhoven (1999), Collins & Mees (2003)), never for Standard Belgian Dutch. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 22:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't only occur within the same syllable. The different pronuncation also occurs with 'or·en' (ears) and 'og·en' (eyes) or 'bo·ren' (drills) and 'bo·ten' (boats). Furthermore, I don't think Belgian Dutch is generally seen as standard for the whole Dutch language community, so I find it strange to see you refer to Standard Belgian Dutch. It would be more logical to choose Netherlandic Dutch over Belgian Dutch if there is room for only one standard pronunciation in this guide. – Editør (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no uniform standard of pronunciation for the whole Dutch language community. See and . See also the discussion above. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there is a uniform standard pronunciation, obviously there are local and regional differences as in any language. Please be more specific about the purpose of these references, you cannot expect me to read the whole lot. – Editør (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to 'I don't think Belgian Dutch is generally seen as standard for the whole Dutch language community'. I never said it was. Standard Belgian Dutch is the standard pronunciation in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Read the first 5-10 pages of Collins & Mees (2003) and Verhoeven (2005) - the latter is very short. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those first pages of Collins & Mees (2003) were not about the pronunciation of oo. On page 134 however, the issue is well explained. In the Standard Netherlandic Dutch (ABN) and Randstad dialects the pronunciation of /oo/ before /r/ is not [oː] but [ʊ:]. So it is obvious that this is not a local exception, but the standard pronunciation. – Editør (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard pronunciation in the Netherlands. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly! A 71.5% majority of the speakers lives in the Netherlands. As long as we do not to differentiate between Standard Netherlandic Dutch and Standard Belgian Dutch, the former is the standard for Standard Dutch based on the numbers of speakers. See the table at the top of this section for reference: Dutch language. – Editør (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Besides, the pre- allophones aren't the only SNL-SBE difference. SBE correspond to SNL, and SBE  correspond to SNL  - all of this is covered in the footnotes. What we have here is a pandialectal, diaphonemic transcription, in which symbols may or may not correspond to the usual "standard" values in Netherlands or Belgium. It's not meant to be taken completely literally, just as  and  in English IPA. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to define the standard that is being used on this page. If a majority of the speakers of Dutch uses a certain pronunciation, you cannot claim it is merely my opinion. – Editør (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's getting ridiculous, but I'll repeat myself: "What we have here is a pandialectal, diaphonemic (click on this link and read the article) transcription, in which symbols may or may not correspond to the usual "standard" values in Netherlands or Belgium." — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand there is a degree of abstraction in the transcription, but, unlike the example /eye/ as [aɪ] on the page Diaphoneme, there are no speakers of Dutch that pronounce the word /voor/ as [voːr] with the same [oː] as in the English word /goat/. I propose the following two things: (1) either add [ʊː] with the example /voor/ and the English word /bore/ to the main table or add a footnote to [oː] that explains the different pronunciation of /oo/ before /r/; (2) articles with names from the Netherlands should be able to use the Standard Netherlandic Dutch (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands) pronunciation in their IPA trabscription, as articles with names from Belgium should be able to use the Standard Belgian Dutch pronunciation. – Editør (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - "there are no speakers of Dutch that pronounce the word /voor/ as [voːr]" - clearly, you are wrong. You claim to have read Collins & Mees 2003, but on the page 134, they write "In (NL) ABN are lowered and centralised before dark . Before, the vowels are raised and have a centring glide (see Fig. 14.5.2)." There's no mention of Standard Belgian Dutch, just as in Verhoeven (2005).
 * - We already have a footnote about the pre- allophones.
 * - "(2) articles with names from the Netherlands should be able to use the Standard Netherlandic Dutch (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands) pronunciation in their IPA trabscription, as articles with names from Belgium should be able to use the Standard Belgian Dutch pronunciation." Can't do without having separate BD and ND columns, which we agreed to merge into one column in December 2014. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back on this. Firstly, you are oversimplifying my point by leaving out the provision "with the same [oː] as in the English word /goat/". Secondly, I'm not sure how I have missed that footnote, thanks for pointing it out to me; I think with Van Oostendorp's guide this can be slightly nuanced. Thirdly, you are missing my point: it is about the IPA transcription in other pages not the generalization on this page. – Editør (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Professor Marc van Oostendorp, a specialist in phonological microvariation at the University of Leiden, has published a pronunciation encyclopedia of the Dutch language. He discusses the [o] (page 51–53) and [ɔ] (page 66–68), which are relevant to this discussion. – Editør (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for making you wait that long. Anyway, let's get back on topic:
 * - I'm not sure what you mean. English vowel is realized as  in a minority of accents (Northern English (some speakers), Scottish, Irish (some speakers), North American (some speakers)). Netherlandic Standard Dutch  is also not, but  (See Collins & Mees (2003) and Gussenhoven (1999)). Standard Belgian speakers use  in all positions (See Collins & Mees (2003) and Verhoeven (2005)).
 * - No problem.
 * - No, I'm not missing any points. Dutch transcriptions linking to this page must strictly adhere to the transcription system that is used here. Otherwise, what would be the point of this guide?
 * - Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the page numbers you provided are not displayed in the version of the encyclopedia you linked to. Fortunately, I can read Dutch just fine.
 * Anyway, Van Oostendoorp doesn't support your claims (at least not completely). Let's quote him: "niemand zegt d'r, je zegt d'r of eventueel dr (the version with is my assumption - I can't see the symbol), maar een tweeklank klinkt daar niet." Let me comment on that:
 * -- He lists the pronunciation with, which is also supported (in case of Belgian Standard Dutch) by Collins & Mees (2003). You claim that it never occurs, which is now contrary to what two (actually three, if we count Verhoeven (2005)) different sources write.
 * -- His claim that before  is not pronounced as a diphthong is at odds with both Collins & Mees (2003) (who list slightly diphthongal  (my narrow transcription based on their vowel chart) as the only allophone of  in Netherlandic Standard Dutch and Randstad Dutch), and Gussenhoven (1999), who lists  as the only possible pronunciation of  before  in Netherlandic Standard Dutch.
 * - Later in the encyclopedia, he writes: "De klinker (...) is de klinker die je (in lange vorm, ) hoort in boor en, bij sommige sprekers, in een woord als bok." This clearly contradicts his statement quoted above. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: the last statement is not really a contradiction. Rather, it's just incomplete (see above). — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Assimilation
Hi, I was just wondering how do we transcribe N before TJ as when I speak n clearly gets assimilated to [ɲ] i.e. I would pronounce /Wijntje/ as. But I have seen articles where they use n instead? Which do we useGati123 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We should probably transcribe it as . — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Differentiate between standard forms
Previously, this help page differentiated between Standard Belgian Dutch (AN) and Standard Netherlandic Dutch (ABN). Based on the difference in the pronunciation of oo, I think we should consider reintroducing this differentiation. – Editør (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a minor allophonic difference. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no official standards for pronunciation. The current standards are only for spelling. So if there is something as Standard Netherlandic Dutch, then what is it and where is it defined and by who? CodeCat (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He's probably using the terminology that Collins & Mees (2003) uses. Also, Verhoeven (2005) called his short dissertation (or whatever you call it) "Belgian Standard Dutch". Neither of them are anything official, so you're probably right. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to cater to all dialects in some way or another? Pick one standard, preferably Netherlandic, and stick with it. Alakzi (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the current system is pandialectal and diaphonemic. There's no need to pick one standard of pronunciation. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's diaphonemic in general, but with some subphonemic (and thus possibly regional) differences added as well. I still object to those. CodeCat (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why, as they've been reported by both Gussenhoven (1999) and Verhoeven (2005). — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why were Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch merged in the first place? They are clearly very different in pronunciation and the IPA transcription system now corresponds with some sort of fantasy pronunciation that is neither used in the Netherlands nor in Belgium. Gati123 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat, what exactly do you mean by "some subphonemic (and thus possibly regional) differences" and why do you oppose them? Gati123 (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's not used in the Netherlands or Belgium? The two varieties were merged because they paint an unrealistic picture of there being only two main varieties of Dutch, whereas the picture is a lot more subtle than that. There are many more dialects of Dutch than just two, some quite distinct. By merging them, we simply followed the example of Help:IPA for English which has done the same: differences among varieties are merged into a common "average".
 * My objection to introducing subphonemic differences is the danger of introducing more dialect-specific aspects. CodeCat (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat The problem with this 'pronunciation' is that the average wikipedia reader doesn't read footnotes. Even though the information they deliver are good, the average wikipedia reader will see the signs direction to the footnotes as if they are the sources not footnotes, explaining dutch pronunciation. They other is the ipa transcription of Belgian and Netherlandic things. While they are pronounced very differently they are transcribed as if there are no pronunciation differences. As for how this is used as accent, im dutch myself, is that this seems like a weird mix of both Belgian and Netherlandic things like preserving the ch-g contrast, not using a uvular R, but using diphthongs for EI/IJ, monophthongs for e, o, eu which are considered a little substandard in the Netherlands etc. (most Belgian speakers don't diphthongize, uvular r is very common in the Netherlands). Even though not all Netherlandic or Belgian people speak the same way there are kind of standard pronunciation (standard pronunciation to me is not being able to tell where someone's from by hearing his/her manner of speech, which is different from dialects.Gati123 (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still oversimplfying things. There is no clear distinction between "Netherlands" and "Belgian" Dutch, nor is there any standard way of pronouncing those.
 * Ch-g contrast is preserved in many varieties in the Netherlands too.
 * Uvular R is not used in the north and east nor by many north Brabantian and Hollandic speakers. On the other hand, it's not uncommon in eastern Flanders.
 * ei is a monophthong also Den Haag and some parts of north Brabant. Plenty of Belgian varieties have a diphthong on the other hand, including the Antwerp dialect.
 * ee/oo/eu are not diphthongised by many speakers in Brabant, Limburg, Gelderland and Overijssel. On the other hand they are diphthongised in several Belgian dialects, including again that of Antwerp.
 * So, as it has been said before many times, the pronunciation standard on this page is a diaphonemic approximation that levels out differences between various dialects. CodeCat (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @CodeCat What I was really trying to say was:
 * For as the g-ch contrast: the taalunie website clearly states: "Daarnaast bestaat er nog een ander verschil in uitspraak, namelijk tussen de 'harde' en de 'zachte' g, dat regionaal bepaald is: de zachte g komt vooral voor in het zuidelijke deel van het Nederlandse taalgebied. In dat deel van het taalgebied waar de g zacht wordt uitgesproken, wordt het onderscheid tussen stemloos en stemhebbend in acht genomen. In het noordelijke deel van het taalgebied wordt de stemhebbende g echter dikwijls verscherpt, waardoor het onderscheid verloren gaat. Er is geen of een nauwelijks waarneembaar verschil in uitspraak van de g tussen chloor en gloren en tussen lachen en vlaggen. Dat dit onderscheid in het verleden wel werd gemaakt, blijkt uit de vervoegde vormen van de laatstgenoemde werkwoorden: lachte respectievelijk vlagde. Hoewel de g in vlaggen op dezelfde wijze, dus stemloos, wordt uitgesproken als in lachen, heeft dit niet geleid tot de vervoeging met -te(n)" -> This source states that only in the south a distinction is made, which means for the southern Netherlands belgian standard dutch could be applicable like how this page used to be the Dutch wikipedia also states: 'Hoewel een zachte g in Nederland nog steeds de gemarkeerde variant is, is het stigma heden ten dage een stuk minder. Desondanks kiezen sommige Nederlanders die van huis uit een zachte g hebben, er nog steeds voor om de ongemarkeerde, harde g aan te leren. Dit geldt nog steeds vrij sterk voor studenten van de Nederlandse toneelscholen en voor presentatoren op radio en televisie.' meaning maintaining the contrast is considered to be the 'marked' form in the Netherlands which means it falls outside of Netherlandic Standard Dutch
 * Uvular R: what I was saying is that a uvular R in the Netherlands is a perfectly acceptable an commonly used alternative to the trilled,according to Genootschap Onze Taalmost speakers use a uvular R and is increasing in use in the Randstad. And even though it is used in Flanders as well and its use is increasing, there seems to be a stigma to it meaning it is the 'marked' variant which again makes it fall outside of Standard Belgian
 * monophthongizing of EI/IJ, even though it is used in Den Haag and northern Brabant, this clearly sounds like some one is from there when ever I hear some one monophthongizing EI/IJ people think this is from the Hague/brabant. Same as Amsterdam monophthongizing of EI/IJ to [a:]. This makes it marked which makes it non Netherlandic Standard Dutch
 * ee/oo/eu diphthongizing: Even though lots of Dutch speakers use monophthongs, they are clearly marked and some speakers from Overijssel for example in formal speak or in stage/television learn to pronounce diphthongs which make them a marked variant, again non-Netherlandic Standard Dutch.
 * What is was trying to say is that even though they are all perfectly acceptable, a lot of named above are clearly 'marked' making them non-Netherlandic Standard Dutch, for example people from Limburg, Brabant etc are often seem as not speaking ABN, but speech influenced by local dialects. ( In speaking Dutch, Brabantians won't pronounce CH/G different from their dialects.)Which makes their speech 'marked'. While with people speaking Netherlandic Standard Dutch it is difficult to say which city/town/province they're from, this makes Netherlandic Standard Dutch a standard/prestige form. Some people from Brabant will speak Netherlandic Standard Dutch, but some one from outside of Brabant won't speak with a Brabantian accent. Which makes Netherlandic Standard Dutch neutral/prestige/standard. Different from dialectal speech Gati123 (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But is this a guide to ABN or is it a guide to Dutch as a whole? Who decides what is "marked"? What is this Netherlandic Standard Dutch? I've never heard of it. You're still trying to claim that there is this one official variety of Dutch and that the rest is not relevant, but that's just language chauvinism that has no place in Wikipedia. The current transcription system is diaphonemic; it accounts for these differences by focusing on the contrasts made by many Dutch speakers even if it's not made by all of them. The idea is that it can represent the majority of Dutch speakers rather than only a subset of them. I really don't see how choosing two particular varieties of Dutch that don't represent many speakers, over a single abstraction covering most speakers, would be considered an improvement. CodeCat (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Is the creation of a pan-dialectal transcription key not WP:OR? Who's put everybody here in charge of drafting a phonology of the "Dutch language"—whatever that might be? Wikipedia foreign-language keys are not phonemic; they're meant to give people an idea of how to actually pronounce the words they transcribe. Alakzi (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaking this page for Dutch phonology. This guide uses the same symbols as Gussenhoven (1992). The only difference is that we differentiate from, while Gussenhoven transcribes both as. The rest is exactly the same. Clearly, it is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH, because Gussenhoven himself acknowledges the - (his own symbols) contrast in the south. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * with netherlandic standard dutch I mean ABN from the Netherlands. I called it Netherlandic Standard Dutch to make clear I don't support also using it for Belgian Dutch. So according to you, it is better to use a pronunciation that no one uses as opposed to two pronunciations people DO use and are clearly used as prestige/standard form? Gati123 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)