# Deletion in phonology - data



## RedNitz

Hallo. During writing my BA thesis I encountered a serious problem: I don't have enough data. The problem is that I don't know Dutch well and I know no Dutch phonology apart from what I've read in Booij (1995). Would you be so kind as to provide me with some examples of Dutch words that can be affected by the following processes:
1. Aphearesis (dropping of the unstressed initial segment as in _'bout_ [= about])
2. Syncope (dropping of a vowel between consonants). This process occurs in two environments: a) in initial unfooted syllabe as in _p'tato_ [potato]; b) between a stressed and unstressed syllabe in which the targeted sound is followed by a sonorant (eg. r, m) as in _op'ra_ [opera], _cam'ra_ [camera].
I'm particularly interested with dropping of the schwa sound, but I would be grateful for any help.


----------



## Tweet81

Are you referring to dialects or "standard" Dutch?

Because I can't think of any examples for 1 or 2 and have never seen words written like op'ra or cam'ra in Dutch, even relating to spoken language.

From wikipedia (Dutch)

Generally accepted:
First how the word is used now, in parenthesis how it was

leer (leder), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als lederwaren en vaak in het bijvoeglijk naamwoord (lederen bank)
neer (neder), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als Nederland
mee (mede), maar wel in samenstellingen als mededeling
weer (weder), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als wederkomst
veer (veder), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als vederlicht
kleren (klederen), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als klederdracht
broer (broeder), maar nog wel in samenstellingen als broederschap
legen (ledigen)
la, formeel: lade
tree (formeel: trede), altijd (ook in informele context) bij het meervoud (treden)
zus (zuster)

Speech
first how the word can be used, than how it should be used
lijen (lijden), voornamelijk in scheldwoorden als teringlijer
vreeslijk (vreselijk)
tuurlijk (natuurlijk)

But none of these are the dropping of vowels, these are all dropped consonants.

I think you may need help from someone who studies Dutch. 

Only tuurlijk (natuurlijk) may be an example of Aphearesis, dropping the na-.


----------



## RedNitz

Hallo. 


> Are you referring to dialects or "standard" Dutch?


To be honest, anything will do, but I would appreciate it if you mark which is which.


> Because I can't think of any examples for 1 or 2 and have never seen words written like op'ra or cam'ra in Dutch, even relating to spoken language.


I don't know Dutch so I used English words to illustrate the process. So as to anyone could understand what I mean (not everyone is a phonologist). I used the ' sign to mark empty nuclei resulting from the process of deletion, because I don't know how to use IPA here. I wanted to mark pronunciation, not spelling. It's my fault that I did't make it clear. Sorry for that.



> First how the word is used now, in parenthesis how it was


Was? Are those some kind of archaisms? 
Some of them have separate entries in mijnwoordenboek.nl dictionary and I'm not sure what to think... They should be one and the same word, but pronounced differently... 
I think that broer evolved from Middle Dutch broeder to mean brother and narrowing the usage of broeder to monks/priests. Am I right?



> But none of these are the dropping of vowels, these are all dropped consonants.


I'm confused. Kuijpers claims that there is schwa deletion in Dutch... He provides some examples, like _kinderen_ being pronounced _kindren_, but I need some more... (I don't mark the empty nucleus here not to baffle anyone)


----------



## Tweet81

RedNitz said:


> Hallo.
> 
> To be honest, anything will do, but I would appreciate it if you mark which is which.
> 
> I don't know Dutch so I used English words to illustrate the process. So as to anyone could understand what I mean (not everyone is a phonologist). I used the ' sign to mark empty nuclei resulting from the process of deletion, because I don't know how to use IPA here. I wanted to mark pronunciation, not spelling. It's my fault that I did't make it clear. Sorry for that.
> 
> 
> Was? Are those some kind of archaisms?


Yes they are (mostly) archaic





> Some of them have separate entries in mijnwoordenboek.nl dictionary and I'm not sure what to think... They should be one and the same word, but pronounced differently...
> I think that broer evolved from Middle Dutch broeder to mean brother and narrowing the usage of broeder to monks/priests. Am I right?


correct





> I'm confused. Kuijpers claims that there is schwa deletion in Dutch... He provides some examples, like _kinderen_ being pronounced _kindren_, but I need some more... (I don't mark the empty nucleus here not to baffle anyone)


OK, now it makes more sense to me.
I suppose there are people who would pronounce the word kinderen as kindren. Although personally I never would. 
Other examples of this are: (maybe someone can confirm them, just to be sure):
batterij
ronselen
boerenvla
spelletje
Schilderij
The last 2 I am certain are good examples of what you're looking for. The others, mostly sure.

Examples where the n disappears in pronunciation are much easier, but you are not looking for those right?
kattenvoer
hondenvoer
muizenval
hondenmand
keukenla
keukenblok
messenblok
jodenkoek


----------



## RedNitz

> Examples where the n disappears in pronunciation are much easier, but you are not looking for those right?


Right. I'm particularly concerned with the deletion of the schwa sound. But those might be helpful as well.



> I suppose there are people who would pronounce the word kinderen as kindren. Although personally I never would.
> Other examples of this are: (maybe someone can confirm them, just to be sure):
> batterij
> ronselen
> boerenvla
> spelletje
> Schilderij
> The last 2 I am certain are good examples of what you're looking for. The others, mostly sure.


Thank you, thank you, thank you! You helped me a lot.


----------



## Tweet81

You're very welcome.

Come to think of it; I said:
I suppose there are people who would pronounce the word kinderen as kindren. Although personally I never would.

The reason I would never say kindren is because I would drop the -n rather than the 1st e, so then I would say either kinderen or kindere. And that's not related to dialect or regional accent, considering I don't really have one, as a result of my parents moving around. It's more about speaker faster.


----------



## jacquesvd

Tweet81 said:


> Yes they are (mostly) archaiccorrectOK, now it makes more sense to me.
> I suppose there are people who would pronounce the word kinderen as kindren. Although personally I never would.
> Other examples of this are: (maybe someone can confirm them, just to be sure):
> batterij
> ronselen
> boerenvla
> spelletje
> Schilderij
> The last 2 I am certain are good examples of what you're looking for. The others, mostly sure.
> 
> Examples where the n disappears in pronunciation are much easier, but you are not looking for those right?
> kattenvoer
> hondenvoer
> muizenval
> hondenmand
> keukenla
> keukenblok
> messenblok
> jodenkoek


 

Before"-lijk" the schwa is often hardly prononunced or even dropped by some speakers.

klaarblijk(e)lijk, beschouw(e)lijk, ongelofelijk (also spelled ongelooflijk), duid(e)lijk, onherroep(e)lijk, hart(e)lijk, etc.

Mind you: in careful prononciation the schwa should always be heard


----------



## RedNitz

Tweet81 said:


> Come to think of it; I said:
> I suppose there are people who would pronounce the word kinderen as kindren. Although personally I never would.
> 
> The reason I would never say kindren is because I would drop the -n rather than the 1st e, so then I would say either kinderen or kindere. And that's not related to dialect or regional accent, considering I don't really have one, as a result of my parents moving around. It's more about speaker faster.



Thank you, I'll take it into consideration while writing my BA thesis.



> Before"-lijk" the schwa is often hardly prononunced or even dropped by some speakers.
> 
> klaarblijk(e)lijk, beschouw(e)lijk, ongelofelijk (also spelled ongelooflijk), duid(e)lijk, onherroep(e)lijk, hart(e)lijk, etc.
> 
> Mind you: in careful prononciation the schwa should always be heard


I appreciate your help, Jacquesvd. That's very kind of you.


----------



## Grytolle

The -e- in -elijk is historically inserted (which is the reason why it's an s and an f instead of a v and a z in ongeloof(e)lijk and vrees(e)lijk), so I would heistate taking that as an example

In Belgium this is very common: ge- loses its ə before a vowel (and sometimes before other sonorants): g'informeerd,  g'raken


These essays might interest you know some Dutch:
http://www.clips.ua.ac.be/~gillis/pdf/20030903.8063.VocredNT.pdf
http://books.google.be/books?id=0rP...esnum=7&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.cnts.ua.ac.be/papers/2007/vocred-CGN12.pdf
http://www.cnts.ua.ac.be/papers/2006/bimor-Lundef.pdf

I read them some month ago, so I don't remember all details about it, but they deal with the weakening unemphasized vowels: shortening, schwaification or complete deletion, but mostly the former two


----------



## RedNitz

Thank you very much!


----------

