# Assimilation in Dutch



## optimistique

*This thread is split of from this discussion.
Frank (Moderator DF)
*


Lopes said:


> Like Joannes said, where I come from this certainly isn't the case.



Out of curiosity,
Do you pronounce the /d/ from "dit" as a /t/, then?
So you'd get, "ik lees [t]it boek" rather than "dit boek"? 

I know this is starting to get a little bit of topic, but floridasnowbird, I have learnt that in Dutch fricatives have progressive assimilation (like in "_lee[z] dit_"), and plosives have regressive assimilation (/he[p] [t]at/, for "heb dat"). Probably, you knew that already, but for me that is indeed true, in any case, if that's what you wanted to know.


----------



## floridasnowbird

optimistique said:


> I know this is starting to get a little bit of topic, but floridasnowbird, I have learnt that in Dutch fricatives have progressive assimilation (like in "_lee[z] dit_"), and plosives have regressive assimilation (/he[p] [t]at/, for "heb dat"). Probably, you knew that already, but for me that is indeed true, in any case, if that's what you wanted to know.


 
In my opinion, "_lee[z] dit" _is *regressive *assimilation, as the "d" causes (*back*wards) the "s" to be pronounced as a "z".


----------



## optimistique

floridasnowbird said:


> In my opinion, "_lee[z] dit" _is *regressive *assimilation, as the "d" causes (*back*wards) the "s" to be pronounced as a "z".



Yes, you are totally right! I was thinking the wrong way. In fact, what I said wasn't right at all, because Dutch primarily has regressive assimilation, but progressive when there's a fricative after an obstruent, because the fricative cannot cause the regressive assimilation.


----------



## Lopes

optimistique said:


> Out of curiosity,
> Do you pronounce the /d/ from "dit" as a /t/, then?
> So you'd get, "ik lees [t]it boek" rather than "dit boek"?



Well, it's not exactly a /t/, I'd call it somewhere in between /t/ and /d/


----------



## Joannes

Lopes said:


> optimistique said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity,
> Do you pronounce the /d/ from "dit" as a /t/, then?
> So you'd get, "ik lees [t]it boek" rather than "dit boek"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not exactly a /t/, I'd call it somewhere in between /t/ and /d/
Click to expand...

 
It’s probably close to a [t], but assimilation doesn’t play its part here. The problem is that this example concerns assimilation across word boundaries, where other processes play. As you know, final obstruents are always devoiced in Dutch. But in Netherlandic Dutch (overgeneralizing again), initial obstruents are devoiced too. People don’t say *vier*, they say *fier*; they say *ses* instead of *zes*; *tertig* instead of *dertig*; etc. (Dit kan opnieuw erg onbewust zijn dus excuses als ik tegen iemands taalgevoel stoot. )

So you get: *ik lees tit poek* but just as well *sij hebbe fijf honde*. No assimilation; _anlautverhärtung_.

In some varieties, speakers don’t seem to distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants _at all_. Netherlandic Dutch <g> / <ch> is one guttural _pot nat_; Lopes acknowledges /z/ having coincided with /s/ in Amsterdam; and I’m pretty sure all /v/s are [f]s too. I’m not too sure about the plosives so I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt there. 

Anyway, in most varieties, you should still have at least word-internal assimilation (certainly when plosives are involved). This indeed happens like optimistique (#3 ) described, although I should add that progressive assimilation also occurs when two fricatives are involved. E.g.:
*basisvorming* pronounced as *basisforming*
*afgaan* pronounced as *afchaan*

Other examples:
*zakdoek* pronounced *zaGdoek* (G representing the final sound in Eng. *leg* -- not a phoneme in Dutch, by the way)
*afdanken* pronounced as *avdanken*
*grootvader* pronounced as *grootfader*

In Belgian Dutch (and probably some northern varieties as well), assimilation across word boundaries (“external sandhi”, als je eens een chique term wil bovenhalen op café ) still occurs in the given example.
*ik lees dit boek* pronounced as *ik leez did boek*

A peculiar phenomenon of external sandhi is to be found in Brabantic where the final /t/ in words like *dat* ‘that, which’; *met* ‘with’; *niet* ‘not’; *goed* ‘good’ is practically (actually?) never pronounced. Still, following fricatives (and /d/ -- I’m not sure about /b/, maybe someone else is) are devoiced. Assimilation? Maybe, but you’d have to assume some kind of ‘floating consonant’. Examples:
*dat gaat niet goed* pronounced as *da cha nie choe*
*wat doet ze nu* pronounced as *wa toe se nu*


----------



## Lopes

Joannes said:


> It’s probably close to a [t], but assimilation doesn’t play its part here. The problem is that this example concerns assimilation across word boundaries, where other processes play. As you know, final obstruents are always devoiced in Dutch. But in Netherlandic Dutch (overgeneralizing again), initial obstruents are devoiced too. People don’t say *vier*, they say *fier*; they say *ses* instead of *zes*; *tertig* instead of *dertig*; etc. (Dit kan opnieuw erg onbewust zijn dus excuses als ik tegen iemands taalgevoel stoot. )




Is Netherlandic Dutch the Dutch spoken in all of the Netherlands? Because then what you're saying is not true I think (even when you're overgeneralizing).



Joannes said:


> Netherlandic Dutch <g> / <ch> is one guttural _pot nat_;




Could you explain to me the difference between <g> and <ch>? Is <ch> the so-called 'zachte g'?




Joannes said:


> Lopes acknowledges /z/ having coincided with /s/ in Amsterdam; and I’m pretty sure all /v/s are [f]s too.




That's right


----------



## floridasnowbird

Joannes said:


> Anyway, in most varieties, you should still have at least word-internal assimilation (certainly when plosives are involved). This indeed happens like optimistique (#3 ) described, although I should add that progressive assimilation also occurs when two fricatives are involved. E.g.:
> *basisvorming* pronounced as *basisforming (progr. ass.)*
> *afgaan* pronounced as *afchaan                      (progr. ass.)*
> 
> Other examples:
> *zakdoek* pronounced *zaGdoek* (G representing the final sound in Eng. *leg* -- not a phoneme in Dutch, by the way)  *(regr. ass.)*
> *afdanken* pronounced as *avdanken         (regr. ass.)*
> *grootvader* pronounced as *grootfader    (progr. ass.)*


 
Actually the rules are quite simple: *b* and *d *never change their sounds 
( = *b*lijven *d*ezelfde).

When *b* and *d *are involved, it's always *regressive assimilation*.

The other consonants existing in '*t k*o*fs*/*ch*i*p *(het kofschip = special kind of ship) can change their sounds:

*t* can change to [*d*]
*k   --->*[*g* (leg in English)]
*f    --->               *[*w*]
*s   --->               *[*z*]
*ch --->*            [*g *("guttural")]
*p    --->              *[*b*]

A *b* or* d *at the beginnig of the next syllable would cause the above mentioned consonats (at the end of the previous syllable) to change their sounds.

One of the above mentioned consonants (in 't kofschip) at the end of a syllable causes the following consonant (at the beginning of the next syllable) to change as follows:

*v   --->   *[*f*]
*z   --->*   [*s*]
*g *("guttural")*   --->    *[*ch*]

This is called *progressive assimilation*.

Because of "Auslautverhärtung", the *g* at the end of a syllable is pronounced as a [*ch*] and also causes *v,z,g* to change as shown above.

It's a lot more complicated to explain than I thougt it would be, especially in English.


----------



## Lopes

floridasnowbird said:


> *f    --->               *[*w*]
> *ch --->*            [*g *("guttural")]



Could you give some examples of this?


----------



## floridasnowbird

Lopes said:


> Could you give some examples of this?


 
a) afdrukken, afdeling, afblazen

b) wegdoen, wegdek, lachbui


----------



## Lopes

So you're saying 'afdrukken' is pronounced as awdrukken?
I still don't know the difference between /g/ and /ch/, I only know 2 forms of the 'g' in Dutch, 'harde' and 'zachte' g, and their use depends on region..


----------



## floridasnowbird

Lopes said:


> So you're saying 'afdrukken' is pronounced as awdrukken?
> I still don't know the difference between /g/ and /ch/, I only know 2 forms of the 'g' in Dutch, 'harde' and 'zachte' g, and their use depends on region..


 
a) Yes, that's what I am saying, "afdrukken" is pronounced as "awdrukken" or "avdrukken", if you like that better; the sound is a little bit between v and w in my humble opinion.

b) That has nothing to do with the "zachte g" in Belgium and the southern Netherlands. It's hard to explain (especially for me as a non-native Dutch speaker to a native one ), it's like the difference in the sound of *sj*ouwen and *j*ournal, but the "g" is a guttural sound, of course.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



floridasnowbird said:


> Actually the rules are quite simple: *b* and *d *never change their sounds ( = *b*lijven *d*ezelfde).
> When *b* and *d *are involved, it's always *regressive assimilation*.


'Zakdoek' is a clear case of regressive assimilation, but what about 'hoofddoek'?
What I (_think to_) hear is /ho.ftuk/ rather than /ho.fduk/ (or /ho.vduk/).

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## floridasnowbird

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 'Zakdoek' is a clear case of regressive assimilation, but what about 'hoofddoek'?
> What I (_think to_) hear is /ho.ftuk/ rather than /ho.fduk/ (or /ho.vduk/).
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 
It's pronounced as "*hoovdoek*" (at least in the area of Rotterdam), which is another example for regressive ass., even in a double way. Because of assimilation again, one "d" is phonetically omitted and the remaining "d" causes the "f" to be pronounced as a "v".


----------



## Lopes

floridasnowbird said:


> a) Yes, that's what I am saying, "afdrukken" is pronounced as "awdrukken" or "avdrukken", if you like that better; the sound is a little bit between v and w in my humble opinion.
> 
> b) That has nothing to do with the "zachte g" in Belgium and the southern Netherlands. It's hard to explain (especially for me as a non-native Dutch speaker to a native one ), it's like the difference in the sound of *sj*ouwen and *j*ournal, but the "g" is a guttural sound, of course.



I'm afraid I have to disagree again I'm afraid. All I can think of is that all that is being said here counts for a different regio than mine, because I honestly don't regocnize most of the things mentioned here.


----------



## optimistique

Joannes said:


> It’s probably close to a [t], but assimilation doesn’t play its part here. The problem is that this example concerns assimilation across word boundaries, where other processes play. As you know, final obstruents are always devoiced in Dutch. But in Netherlandic Dutch (overgeneralizing again), initial obstruents are devoiced too. People don’t say *vier*, they say *fier*; they say *ses* instead of *zes*; *tertig* instead of *dertig*; etc. (Dit kan opnieuw erg onbewust zijn dus excuses als ik tegen iemands taalgevoel stoot. )
> 
> So you get: *ik lees tit poek* but just as well *sij hebbe fijf honde*. No assimilation; _anlautverhärtung_.
> 
> In Belgian Dutch (and probably some northern varieties as well), assimilation across word boundaries (“external sandhi”, als je eens een chique term wil bovenhalen op café ) still occurs in the given example.
> *ik lees dit boek* pronounced as *ik leez did boek*



In my Dutch assimilation across word boundaries certainly occurs, but I think in Western Dutch it certainly does too. The examples you gave of "ik lees tit poek" etc I think only are true for very dialectic (or: plat) 'Hollands', or aren't they?  Many Dutch speakers do have trouble with the distinction between voiced and unvoiced fricatives (*v* vs *f*, *z* vs *s*), that's true. 

In this line, Lopes, there actually are three types of 'g' used in Dutch. There's the 'harde g' that you have. In southern areas people use the 'zachte g'. The 'zachte g' comes with a voiced 'g' and an unvoiced variant 'ch'. The difference is in "vla*g*gen" vs "la*ch*en". In "vlaggen" you can feel the "stembanden trillen", just like you can in a word as "zee", when pronounced with a /z/. In "lachen" you cannot. Because there's a distinction between voiced/unvoiced, the sound 'g' can be influenced by the assimilation processes. 

It's interesting to see how in almost every region assimilation seems to work just a tiny bit different. It also makes it confusing to say something about it.


----------



## Joannes

Lopes said:


> Is Netherlandic Dutch the Dutch spoken in all of the Netherlands?


Yes, especially Hollandic (proper ). But I think it's spreading. Disregarding real dialects, I'd say: yes, throughout the whole of the Netherlands.



floridasnowbird said:


> a) Yes, that's what I am saying, "afdrukken" is pronounced as "awdrukken" or "avdrukken", if you like that better; the sound is a little bit between v and w in my humble opinion.


 
Be careful here. You’re right that northern Dutch /w/ is labiodental, but it’s still an approximant and (unlike in German?) there is still a clear contrast between the phonemes /w/ and /v/. (This contrast is strenghtened by the evolution I described above: /v/ merging with /f/ in some varieties.)



Lopes said:


> Could you explain to me the difference between <g> and <ch>? Is <ch> the so-called 'zachte g'?


<g> and <ch> are two phonemes in Dutch (well, we could even argue about that): when no other processes play, the former is supposed to be voiced, the latter voiceless. The difference ‘harde g’ - ‘zachte g’ concerns the different place of articulation. In the North, people pronounce these sounds more at the back, while in the South both are pronounced more to the front. But that has little to do with what I’m saying here. I’m claiming that in some northern varieties (yours for example), speakers don’t really distinguish between voiceless (IPA [χ]) and voiced (IPA [R turned upside down]) anymore (all being pronounced as the former), while in Belgium we do (IPA [γ] and [x]). Except for the vowel, do you pronounce *leggen* and *lachen* differently?

(The fact that you’re asking if *<*ch*>* is the ‘zachte g’ makes me think I’m right; <ch> is supposed to be the fortis consonant here.)



Frank06 said:


> What I (_think to_) hear is /ho.ftuk/ rather than /ho.fduk/ (or /ho.vduk/).


 
Yes, me too. Maybe because of the sequence of two identical consonants. 




floridasnowbird said:


> It's p





floridasnowbird said:


> ronounced as "*hoovdoek*" (at least in the area of Rotterdam)


 
I’m not saying it’s not but I have some doubts.



Lopes said:


> floridasnowbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> a) Yes, that's what I am saying, "afdrukken" is pronounced as "awdrukken" or "avdrukken", if you like that better; the sound is a little bit between v and w in my humble opinion.
> 
> b) That has nothing to do with the "zachte g" in Belgium and the southern Netherlands. It's hard to explain (especially for me as a non-native Dutch speaker to a native one ), it's like the difference in the sound of *sj*ouwen and *j*ournal, but the "g" is a guttural sound, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I have to disagree again I'm afraid. All I can think of is that all that is being said here counts for a different regio than mine, because I honestly don't regocnize most of the things mentioned here.
Click to expand...

 
That’s because you don’t distinguish between voiced and voiceless fricatives. 



floridasnowbird said:


> Actually the rules are quite simple: *b* and *d *never change their sounds
> ( = *b*lijven *d*ezelfde).
> 
> When *b* and *d *are involved, it's always *regressive assimilation*.
> 
> The other consonants existing in '*t k*o*fs*/*ch*i*p *(het kofschip = special kind of ship) can change their sounds:
> 
> *t* can change to [*d*]
> *k --->*[*g* (leg in English)]
> *f ---> *[*w*]
> *s ---> *[*z*]
> *ch --->* [*g *("guttural")]
> *p ---> *[*b*]
> 
> A *b* or* d *at the beginnig of the next syllable would cause the above mentioned consonats (at the end of the previous syllable) to change their sounds.
> 
> One of the above mentioned consonants (in 't kofschip) at the end of a syllable causes the following consonant (at the beginning of the next syllable) to change as follows:
> 
> *v ---> *[*f*]
> *z --->* [*s*]
> *g *("guttural")* ---> *[*ch*]
> 
> This is called *progressive assimilation*.
> 
> Because of "Auslautverhärtung", the *g* at the end of a syllable is pronounced as a [*ch*] and also causes *v,z,g* to change as shown above.
> 
> It's a lot more complicated to explain than I thougt it would be, especially in English.


You’re overcomplicating and stating things that are not true. Phonemes /b/ and /d/ do change sounds. Consider:
*bloedkoraal* [tk]
*huidplooi* [tp]
*slobkous* [pk]
*Noordzee* [ts]
(which I found here, where you can find some more examples and proof for what I’m about to state)

Stick to these assimilation rules (mentioned by optimistique (#3)) and you get there - although Frank showed things could become more problematic when consonant clusters with identical consonants are involved:
- a plosive following an obstruent causes regressive assimilation
- a fricative following an obstruent is submitted to progressive assimilation


----------



## floridasnowbird

Joannes said:


> Be careful here. You’re right that northern Dutch /w/ is labiodental, but it’s still an approximant and (unlike in German?) there is still a clear contrast between the phonemes /w/ and /v/. (This contrast is strenghtened by the evolution I described above: /v/ merging with /f/ in some varieties.)
> *(A)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re overcomplicating and stating things that are not true. Phonemes /b/ and /d/ do change sounds. Consider:
> *bloedkoraal* [tk]
> *huidplooi* [tp]
> *slobkous* [pk]
> *Noordzee* [ts]
> 
> *(B)*


 

Ad A) You are right, in Bavarian dialect for instance there is difference between /v/ and /w/. It is *not* the case in the "Deutsche Hochsprache".

Ad B) Okay, I should have mentioned that at the end of a syllable (due to "Auslautverhärtung") a "d" sounds as a /t/ and a "b" as a /p/. But this is a general basic rule, that affects the assimilation rules only partially (at least in my opionion). I am not quite sure that just for that reason I am "stating things that are not true".


----------



## Lopes

Joannes said:


> Except for the vowel, do you pronounce *leggen* and *lachen* differently?


Nope, I don't. 



Joannes said:


> That’s because you don’t distinguish between voiced and voiceless fricatives.



Okay, I'll just leave it at that then and go watch some tv


----------



## Joannes

floridasnowbird said:


> Ad B) Okay, I should have mentioned that at the end of a syllable (due to "Auslautverhärtung") a "d" sounds as a /t/ and a "b" as a /p/. But this is a general basic rule, that affects the assimilation rules only partially (at least in my opionion). I am not quite sure that just for that reason I am "stating things that are not true".


As you probably know, obstruent clusters within one syllable are rare in Dutch. _Auslautverhärtung_ affects assimilation as much as it possibly could, i.e. every time when an originally voiced obstruent precedes a voiced fricative, resulting in clusters of which neither sound is pronounced in its 'unmarked' / 'underlying' way. *Noordzee* was an example, these are some others:
*hebzucht* [ps]
*huisvrouw* [sf]
*schrijfgerei* [fx]

Could happen to anyone to be "stating things that aren't true" from time to time. It's not like you were lying -- and even then.


----------



## floridasnowbird

Joannes said:


> As you probably know, obstruent clusters within one syllable are rare in Dutch. _Auslautverhärtung_ affects assimilation as much as it possibly could, i.e. every time when an originally voiced obstruent precedes a voiced fricative, resulting in clusters of which neither sound is pronounced in its 'unmarked' / 'underlying' way. *Noordzee* was an example, these are some others:
> *hebzucht* [ps]
> *huisvrouw* [sf]
> *schrijfgerei* [fx]


 
Hi Joannes,

I do not want to argue with you about things that are clear to you as they are clear to me.

Your examples *huisvrouw *and *schrijfgerei* have been explained in my statement about progressive assimilation. If you kindly remember, you'll find 't kofschip and *v*, *z*, *g* changing phonetically to /f/, /s/, /g/ in those cases. Indeed, I did not mention *b* and *d*. I certainly should have done so (mea culpa!). But "maxima culpa"? I don't know, as anybody learning Dutch, starting from the first lesson, knows that *ik heb *has to be pronounced as /hep/. Ditto for *d* ---> /t/. Since there is no *b *or *d* sound at the end of any syllable (as far as I know) in the Dutch language, these *b* and *d* sounds must be handled like *p* and *t *in 't kofschip. The fact, however, that *b* or *d* does not exist at the end of a syllable, has nothing to do with regr. or progr. assimilation in my opinion, even though, of course, "it affects ass. as much as it possibly could". Concerning the latter, I couldn't agree more, but the fact for itself (he[p], ha[t] for heb and had) is a general pronunciation issue, not a matter of ass.

But still, I should have mentioned that, even though I don't think my "overcomplicated" statement would have been less complicated by adding it.

floridasnowbird


----------



## Lopes

floridasnowbird said:


> Hi Joannes,
> 
> Since there is no *b *or *d* sound at the end of any syllable (as far as I know) in the Dutch language,



I'm thinking of words like "bedden" or "gabber", but I guess they don't count..


----------



## Lugubert

[off-topic introduction]I learned Dutch by immersion (1.5 months, and I was not too far from fluent!). Several years later, I took 1st and 2nd semester at the local Uni. Didn't get too far formally, because I hate reading prescribed literature. I read any amount of fiction that I choose myself, but even those books I don't like to dissect the way Academy demands.[/OT intro]


optimistique said:


> Out of curiosity,
> Do you pronounce the /d/ from "dit" as a /t/, then?
> So you'd get, "ik lees [t]it boek" rather than "dit boek"?


In 1967, you'd hear "A whiter shade of pale" everywhere. I'd need several shades of voiced/devoiced/unvoiced and/or fortis/lenis to describe my intuitive impression of [iglee{s/z}di{´/b}bu:k].

At the Uni, I had interesting discussions with my teacher on f/v/w and how to interpet them IPA-wise. I really would have loved to pursue that aspect (and/or the quoted example) to a doctoral thesis, using modern technology to interpret recordings from native speakers. Now, though, that I finally have the means (aka drive, time and money), I seem to be concentrating on South and East Asian languages and cultures. But, flexible  indecisive, volatile etc.) that I am, there's still that gnawing feeling that I/somebody should have a closer look at these phenomena.


----------



## Joannes

floridasnowbird said:


> Hi Joannes,
> 
> I do not want to argue with you about things that are clear to you as they are clear to me.
> 
> Your examples *huisvrouw *and *schrijfgerei* have been explained in my statement about progressive assimilation. If you kindly remember, you'll find 't kofschip and *v*, *z*, *g* changing phonetically to /f/, /s/, /g/ in those cases. Indeed, I did not mention *b* and *d*. I certainly should have done so (mea culpa!). But "maxima culpa"? I don't know, as anybody learning Dutch, starting from the first lesson, knows that *ik heb *has to be pronounced as /hep/. Ditto for *d* ---> /t/. Since there is no *b *or *d* sound at the end of any syllable (as far as I know) in the Dutch language, these *b* and *d* sounds must be handled like *p* and *t *in 't kofschip. The fact, however, that *b* or *d* does not exist at the end of a syllable, has nothing to do with regr. or progr. assimilation in my opinion, even though, of course, "it affects ass. as much as it possibly could". Concerning the latter, I couldn't agree more, but the fact for itself (he[p], ha[t] for heb and had) is a general pronunciation issue, not a matter of ass.


 
To me it was unclear you were considering /d/, /b/, /z/ <s>, /v/ <f>, /γ/ at the ends of syllables simply as their unvoiced counterparts. That’s the only misunderstanding here. You’re right; in general, we agree on what’s actually going on.

(And culpa shwulpa nada -- I wasn’t asking for apologies and I don’t think there’s any need to at all. I’m sorry if I made it seem I did -- I will try to formulate my remarks more carefully in the future.)



floridasnowbird said:


> But still, I should have mentioned that, even though I don't think my "overcomplicated" statement would have been less complicated by adding it.


 
Touché.



Lopes said:


> I'm thinking of words like "bedden" or "gabber", but I guess they don't count..


 
Nope, that's spelling.


----------



## floridasnowbird

Joannes said:


> in general, we agree on what’s actually going on.


 
I'm very glad that the whole discussion has come to a happy end!


----------

