# "r" and "g" distinguishable in dialects with uvular "r"?



## berndf

As far as I know some dialects realize /r/ as [ʁ] and not [r] as in standard (Netherlands) Dutch but at the same time pronounce /g/ [ɣ] as in standard Dutch. This creates minimal pairs like _raaf_ [ʁa:f] and _gaaf_ [ɣa:f]. The two sounds [ʁ] and [ɣ] are so darn close; it is difficult for me to imagine that a phonemic distinction is possible between them.

My question now: would speakers who would themselves pronounce _raaf_ [ʁa:f] and _gaaf_ [ɣa:f] be able to distinguish the two words when hearing them pronounced this way?


----------



## jacquesvd

berndf said:


> As far as I know some dialects realize /r/ as [ʁ] and not [r] as in standard (Netherlands) Dutch but at the same time pronounce /g/ [ɣ] as in standard Dutch. This creates minimal pairs like _raaf_ [ʁa:f] and _gaaf_ [ɣa:f]. The two sounds [ʁ] and [ɣ] are so darn close; it is difficult for me to imagine that a phonemic distinction is possible between them.
> 
> My question now: would speakers who would themselves pronounce _raaf_ [ʁa:f] and _gaaf_ [ɣa:f] be able to distinguish the two words when hearing them pronounced this way?


 
I believe I always hear a distinction between the uvular r(not the first standard in Dutch because a majority says the rolling 'r' but nevertheless considered correct) and the 'hard guttural g' because of the ever so small vibration that accompanies the uvular 'r'.
There is also a 'soft g', considered absolutely correct and that is spoken in the whole of Flanders (standard Dutch in television and radio in Flanders), Hollands Limburg (that's the way the Dutch province of the Netherlands is called in Flanders) and parts of the Netherlands below the Moerdijk.


----------



## Grytolle

[R] is always voiced, while g/ch in such a pronounciation is always unvoiced: [χ] (old/Flemish standard is g = [ɣ] en ch = [x]).
The cluster /gr/ can be pronounced [χ:]: grijs = [χ:æis].
 So.. gaaf = [χa(ˑ)f], graaf = [χ:a(ˑ)f].


----------



## berndf

jacquesvd said:


> I believe I always hear a distinction between the uvular r(not the first standard in Dutch because a majority says the rolling 'r' but nevertheless considered correct) and the 'hard guttural g' because of the ever so small vibration that accompanies the uvular 'r'.


Do I understand you correctly that [ʁ] isn't really used anywhere but if pronounced uvular then [R]?


jacquesvd said:


> There is also a 'soft g'


Yes, this is of course something completely different. I can see that there is no risk of confusion between the soft 'g' and 'r'.


----------



## berndf

Grytolle said:


> [R] is always voiced, while g/ch in such a pronounciation is always unvoiced: [χ] (old/Flemish standard is g = [ɣ] en ch = [x]).


I was under the impression the unvoicing of "g" (to [x] or even [χ]) was restricted to the North (Amsterdam and North) while g = [ɣ] was alive and kicking in other parts of the Netherlands except in the South where the soft "g" region starts. Am I wrong?

PS: Or was my example of a minimal pair wrong? I found a note in Wikipedia which states that only intervocalic [ɣ] is preserved. The minimal pair quoted there is _logen_ [loːɣən] and _loochen_ [loːxən] (in a different context though as the article is discussing [ɣ] vs. [x]).


----------



## jacquesvd

berndf said:


> I was under the impression the unvoicing of "g" (to [x] or even [χ]) was restricted to the North (Amsterdam and North) while g = [ɣ] was alive and kicking in other parts of the Netherlands except in the South where the soft "g" region starts. Am I wrong?


 
By and large you are right: the "g" is never unvoiced in the whole of Flanders and the larger parts of the Netherlands below the Moerdijk. I would say that above Rotterdam and the whole of North West Holland including the middle parts and some parts in the East, the 'g' sounds often unvoiced to my ear, but there always remains a difference between e.g. 'lagen' en 'lachen' and also at the end of a word like 'bezig' the degree of unvoicing would not really go so far as 'ch'. At the beginning of a word like 'goed' the sound becomes indistinguishable from 'ch' and 'goed' therefore sounds like 'choed' in the North of the Netherlands.

In Dutch television most speakers' initial 'g' sounds like something between the soft 'g' of Flanders and the South on the one side and the totally unvoiced 'ch' from Amsterdam on the other side.


----------



## Grytolle

berndf said:


> I was under the impression the unvoicing of "g" (to [x] or even [χ]) was restricted to the North (Amsterdam and North) while g = [ɣ] was alive and kicking in other parts of the Netherlands except in the South where the soft "g" region starts. Am I wrong?


[ɣ] is the soft g, [x] is the soft ch; those are always used before velar vowels - there's also the even softer [ʝ] and [ç] that are optionally used before palatal vowels (this might be restricted to Belgium). Then there's the hard ch [χ] which has no voiced version, therefore g too is realized as [χ]



berndf said:


> PS: Or was my example of a minimal pair wrong? I found a note in Wikipedia which states that only intervocalic [ɣ] is preserved. The minimal pair quoted there is _logen_ [loːɣən] and _loochen_ [loːxən] (in a different context though as the article is discussing [ɣ] vs. [x]).


That is probably true for the most of the Netherlands, even speakers without the hard g say "chegeve" (or so). I've even heard someone say that there's no difference between g and ch at all. Be that as it may: g/v/z are way more often devoiced in word-intial position than elsewhere (ignoring auslaut)


----------



## berndf

Thank you very much for your answers.


----------



## Hitchhiker

In most of Belgium I think only the soft G is used. Some of my books state that in the Netherlands it depends on the position in the word (beginning, middle,end) if the G is hard or soft but I've never been in the Netherlands. Also in most of Belgium the H hardly pronounced. I mentioned that some people say the G so softly it sounds almost like H to me. Some Belgians told that there is one region in Belgium where the H is really pronounced and is pronounced so hard that to them it sounds almost like G and those people pronounce the G very softly. I forget if the region was Limburg or the coast. I think they do pronounce the H in Limburg but I think it is the coast where the H and G sounds are nearly reversed. It was a long time ago I was told this so I'm not sure if I remember it correctly.


----------



## jacquesvd

Hitchhiker said:


> In most of Belgium I think only the soft G is used. Some of my books state that in the Netherlands it depends on the position in the word (beginning, middle,end) if the G is hard or soft but I've never been in the Netherlands. Also in most of Belgium the H hardly pronounced. I mentioned that some people say the G so softly it sounds almost like H to me. Some Belgians told that there is one region in Belgium where the H is really pronounced and is pronounced so hard that to them it sounds almost like G and those people pronounce the G very softly. I forget if the region was Limburg or the coast. I think they do pronounce the H in Limburg but I think it is the coast where the H and G sounds are nearly reversed. It was a long time ago I was told this so I'm not sure if I remember it correctly.


 
In the province of West-Flanders and smaller parts of East Flanders (capital cities, Brugge and Ghent) the H at the beginnng of a word is pronounced as if it were a very hard G. The H in reverse is pronounced like the softest of G's.
In Standard Dutch as spoken by the newsreaders of the Flemish 
Television)and as the language is taught at school,you can only hear the soft G and a normal H.In the Province of Antwerp, the H at the beginning of a word is mostly not heard, but that's dialectical.
With regard to an old discussion on the prononciation of R, it is so that whilst in my generation the tongue R was obligatory and the only one taught at school, the uvular R is now tolerated but roughly 70% of speakers stay with the tongue R


----------

