# s/z in Dutch



## avok

Hello all,

I watched an online TV in Dutch and I, surprisingly, noticed that the Dutch reporters pronounce "s" almost like "sh", thus "Amsterdam" becomes "Amshterdam"  a bit like some Irish accents or the Castillian Spanish, the s is so palatalised (I don't know if this is the word, though). They also pronounce "z" like "zh" or "j" ("j" like in French/Portuguese) so "zal" sounds a bit like "jal" . Overall, this kind of Pronunciation reminds me of Portuguese pronunciation.
 Is it just me?


----------



## Lopes

Ehm, yes, I think it is just you... I wouldn't know where they would speak like this. Any idea what kind of program it was?


----------



## avok

Lopes said:


> Ehm, yes, I think it is just you... I wouldn't know where they would speak like this. Any idea what kind of program it was?


 
Hi,
Thanks for the answer,
but I think, native speakers may not be aware of that since they speak it automatically, but it is a sound "between" s and sh, not exactly "sh", just like in English, when we say "street", it kind of sounds like "shtreet", the Dutch use this sh in shtreet very much when they speak Dutch. 

Oh the programme, it is an online channel called AT5.

So, apart from "sj" there is no "sh" sound in Dutch like German "sch" ? 
( for instance, German "sch" is totally different than its "z" or "...s" so, I can hear that Germans make a distinction between "sh" and "s" ).

I need a non native speaker to agree with me!!


----------



## Outsider

Read S and sh. Dutch "sh" is arguably a loan sound, so that "s" probably "steals" some phonetic room from it, and becomes kind of "intermediate".


----------



## avok

Outsider said:


> Read S and sh. Dutch "sh" is arguably a loan sound, so that "s" probably "steals" some phonetic room from it, and becomes kind of "intermediate".


 
Thank you very much, Outsider, everything I have suspected is in this article. But now I am really surprised that Dutch does not have a distinct "sh" sound , I have also made some googling and found two very interesting articles on this. 

I quote from the first one:

" This type of variation, at the end of words, where the final -_s _is followed by an interval, has not yet received enough attention and is not described in the handbooks.

With many native speakers of Dutch we can observe (if we are speakers of a language in which /s/ and /š/ are distinct phonemes), that they pronounce [s] like /sh/, withoutbeing influenced by any phonetic context whatsoever. E.g. _bos _[-S#] ‘wood’, _huis _[-S#]‘house’, _vos _[-S#] ‘fox’, _tas _[-S#] ‘bag’ etc. ​ 
Our experimental investigations in a laterstage must prove whether the phonetic context, i.e. if before the final -_s _a consonantor a vowel is placed, can influence assimilation."​ 

I quote from the second one :​ 
"Dutch has no dental fricatives and the voicing contrast is often lost. ​ 
Dutch speakers of English have a tendency to replace /D/ by its stop counterpart. 
In the last confusion cluster, the voiced alveolar fricative /z/ is confused with the palatal fricatives /Z/ and /S/. 
It has been observed before that the Dutch alveolar fricatives lack the characteristic high-frequency noise components of English /s/ and /z/"​
I hope they shall be of use for those who want to learn Dutch.


----------



## Lopes

Okay, AT5 is the local channel of Amsterdam, and some people with a grave Amsterdam accent pronounce s and z like 'sj', (with a slight accent, both s and z are pronounced as a s) but I think that's only before a vocal. with words like Amsterdam and straat I honestly don't think it's pronounced even the slightest bit like "Amsjterdam" or "sjtraat". Same for "huis" or "vos"..


----------



## floridasnowbird

Lopes said:


> Okay, AT5 is the local channel of Amsterdam, and some people with a grave Amsterdam accent pronounce s and z like 'sj', (with a slight accent, both s and z are pronounced as a s) but I think that's only before a vocal. with words like Amsterdam and straat I honestly don't think it's pronounced even the slightest bit like "Amsjterdam" or "sjtraat". Same for "huis" or "vos"..


 
But it's a fact that the pronunciation of the Dutch "s" is different from the English and German way to pronounce it. "Huis" and "vos" are good examples for the sound of the Dutch "s" which is not being pronounced so close to the speaker's front teeth as the German "s" is. And for that reason it does very *slightly* sound like sh (in Engl.) or sch (in German). As I said, very slightly.


----------



## Lopes

I'm afraid I still have to disagree. Maybe another Dutch native could give his/her opinion?


----------



## Suehil

I'm not a native, but I've lived in the Netherlands for thirty years. I agree with Lopes, the Amsterdam way of pronouncing the 's' and 'z', without actually being 'sh' and 'zh', certainly comes close. 
In general, the Dutch 's' is very sharp - sometimes even sharper than the English sound.
One more thing - very often, in diminutives like 'huisje', 'beestje', enz. the 'sh' is definitely there.


----------



## floridasnowbird

Suehil said:


> I'm not a native, but I've lived in the Netherlands for thirty years. I agree with Lopes, the Amsterdam way of pronouncing the 's' and 'z', without actually being 'sh' and 'zh', certainly comes close.
> In general, the Dutch 's' is very sharp - sometimes even sharper than the English sound.
> One more thing - very often, in diminutives like 'huisje', 'beestje', enz. the 'sh' is definitely there.


 
I was not talking about "huisje", "beestje", "als je ...", "hij kust je" (en dergelijke) and that kind of things. I was not talking about "assimilation", either. "Ik lees (pronounced as an "s") het boek", maar "ik lees (pronounced as a "z") *d*it boek". I only said that the pronunciation of a Dutch "s" *in general* sounds very slightly like "sch" in German, *very* slightly.


----------



## Joannes

I think this is an excellent observation by avok.

(From a Belgian's point of view so undoubtedly overgeneralizing; it may very well be a more regionally restricted thing: ) The Dutch tend to pronounce their /s/s (and /z/s if they still distinguish them at all) slightly more to the back. I think you couldn't have picked a better word than "palatalised", avok. And I can't tell about Irish but your comparison with Castilian /s/ would be exactly the same I would make. Because it certainly isn't a true /š/ sound!

I once mentioned this difference in pronunciation - as a 'by the way' - in the forums here. It's funny to notice that it also concerned the pronunciation of *Amsterdam*, which was also avok's example. I had no idea whether this pronunciation was bound to specific phonetic contexts, and - despite avok's links - I still can't tell.

As you _can_ tell from some reactions, speakers are not quite aware of this difference in pronunciation.  (The only reason I hear the difference, is probably because we don't pronounce it (as much) like that in Belgium.) You could connect this to the fact that /š/ is not a true Dutch phoneme, as Outsider mentioned.

It could very well be the case that Dutch /s/ (the Belgian one too) is slightly more palatalised than German /s/ (although I have my doubts with the comparison to English), which could again be connected to the idea that German has to keep a clear contrast between /s/ and /š/, while Dutch doesn't really need to.



floridasnowbird said:


> "ik lees (pronounced as a "z") *d*it boek"


This assimilation wouldn't work for most northern varieties.


----------



## Outsider

Not to criticize anyone here, but the word "palatalized" is often misapplied. The Castilian "s" is more properly an apical consonant, as opposed to say the Italian or the English "s", which are laminal. This is a minor difference of which native speakers are often not aware, of course, though it stands out to outsiders, who find that the apical "s" sounds close to a "sh".


----------



## optimistique

avok said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I watched an online TV in Dutch and I, surprisingly, noticed that the Dutch reporters pronounce "s" almost like "sh", thus "Amsterdam" becomes "Amshterdam"  a bit like some Irish accents or the Castillian Spanish, the s is so palatalised (I don't know if this is the word, though). They also pronounce "z" like "zh" or "j" ("j" like in French/Portuguese) so "zal" sounds a bit like "jal" . Overall, this kind of Pronunciation reminds me of Portuguese pronunciation.
> Is it just me?



I also can confirm it's true! I am Dutch but from the southern province of Limburg and the way I pronounce my /s/ is certainly different from a /s/ from Amsterdam. The phenomenon you noticed is typical for people from the west of the country (Holland), I have noticed myself too! They indeed make their /s/ very dark, very back in their mouth. I think most Dutch don't use that /s/, but an /s/ that is a bit further back than a German or French one, but not that far that it starts to sound a bit like a 'sh'. Most people who appear on television however come from the region of Amsterdam, and generally their /s/ is even further back than most Dutch people's /s/, although apparently, they don't seem to be aware of this.


----------



## Lopes

floridasnowbird said:


> "Ik lees (pronounced as an "s") het boek", maar "ik lees (pronounced as a "z") *d*it boek"



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



optimistique said:


> Most people who appear on television however come from the region of Amsterdam, and generally their /s/ is even further back than most Dutch people's /s/, although apparently, they don't seem to be aware of this.



Apparently not.. 
I guess not, but does anyone maybe have a specific example of this for me to hear? When I say Amsterdam or straat to myself, I don't hear anything close to a "sh".. 
Guess I'll just have to believe you (or call this a conspiracy! )


----------



## floridasnowbird

Lopes said:


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


 
In my opinion, this is a* typical* example of "regressive assimilation" in the Dutch language. Could you give me an idea when and in what cases you *do* use the rules of "regressive / progressive" assimilation?

What about: _Ik heb _[p] _gezegd_ vs _ik heb_ * dat gehoord ? Ik heb  bij jou gestaan.*


----------



## Lopes

floridasnowbird said:


> In my opinion, this is a* typical* example of "regressive assimilation" in the Dutch language. Could you give me an idea when and in what cases you *do* use the rules of "regressive / progressive" assimilation?
> 
> What about: _Ik heb _[p] _gezegd_ vs _ik heb_ * dat gehoord ?*


*

In Amsterdam we allmost allways pronounce the "z" as an "s", so it was an unlucky example. The last one we do use.
(Let me say I hardly know linguistics, so terms like regressive assimilation don't mean a lot to me)*


----------



## floridasnowbird

Thank you for the explanation, Lopes !


----------



## Lopes

You're welcome


----------



## Frank06

*Hi everybody
The last thing we have to worry about is whether or not the WR web server can handle the amount of threads. We have good news: It can . 
So please, create a new thread for each topic. 
Otherwise said: One thread, one topic.

I moved the posts about assimilation in Dutch to this new thread. A discussion about this incredibly interesting topic shouldn't be hidden in a thread about s/z in (Amsterdam?) Dutch.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator DF
*


----------



## avok

floridasnowbird said:


> I was not talking about "huisje", "beestje", "als je ...", "hij kust je" (en dergelijke) and that kind of things. I was not talking about "assimilation", either. "Ik lees (pronounced as an "s") het boek", maar "ik lees (pronounced as a "z") *d*it boek". I only said that the pronunciation of a Dutch "s" *in general* sounds very slightly like "sch" in German, *very* slightly.


 
Hi Floridasnowbirdje,  Thanks for your answer, that's exactly what I was trying to say. 



Joannes said:


> I think this is an excellent observation by avok.
> 
> (From a Belgian's point of view so undoubtedly overgeneralizing; it may very well be a more regionally restricted thing: ) The Dutch tend to pronounce their /s/s (and /z/s if they still distinguish them at all) slightly more to the back........I once mentioned this difference in pronunciation - as a 'by the way' - in the forums here. It's funny to notice that it also concerned the pronunciation of *Amsterdam*, which was also avok's example. I had no idea whether this pronunciation was bound to specific phonetic contexts, and - despite avok's links - I still can't tell.


 
Hi Joannes, thanks for your excellent answer and compliments  I read your "by the way" remark too. It is good to know . 





Outsider said:


> Not to criticize anyone here, but the word "palatalized" is often misapplied. The Castilian "s" is more properly an apical consonant, as opposed to say the Italian or the English "s", which are laminal. This is a minor difference of which native speakers are often not aware, of course, though it stands out to outsiders, who find that the apical "s" sounds close to a "sh".


 
Thanks, Outsider, I am thinking of starting a thread about the Castillian s too, but I do not know how to describe it : ) 



optimistique said:


> I also can confirm it's true! I am Dutch but from the southern province of Limburg and the way I pronounce my /s/ is certainly different from a /s/ from Amsterdam. The phenomenon you noticed is typical for people from the west of the country (Holland), I have noticed myself too! ....Most people who appear on television however come from the region of Amsterdam, and generally their /s/ is even further back than most Dutch people's /s/, although apparently, they don't seem to be aware of this.


 
Thanks optimistique, yes, they don't seem to be aware, now I wonder if they use the same kind of "s" when they speak English ?


----------



## Joannes

Outsider said:


> Not to criticize anyone here, but the word "palatalized" is often misapplied. The Castilian "s" is more properly an apical consonant, as opposed to say the Italian or the English "s", which are laminal. This is a minor difference of which native speakers are often not aware, of course, though it stands out to outsiders, who find that the apical "s" sounds close to a "sh".


Well, I had never heard about these words and I had to look up their meanings  (although I figured *apical* would have something to do with the apex ), but I will certainly be using them from now on, because I think this might well be the difference we're looking at!

(So actually you _could_ have picked a better word than "palatalised", avok, sorry. )


----------



## avok

Lopes said:


> I guess not, but does anyone maybe have a specific example of this for me to hear? When I say Amsterdam or straat to myself, I don't hear anything close to a "sh"..
> Guess I'll just have to believe you (or call this a conspiracy! )


 
Hi Lopes, I found an example for you to listen about this "s" in Dutch ! Just click here and listen to "*Boet*". He says something like "standard" ( the very first word) and it sounds like "shtandard"


----------



## Lopes

Thanks avok. 

I think I understand now what you mean, but I'd say it sounds only very very very (repeat very for another 7 times) slightly like "shtandard"..


----------



## avok

Lopes said:


> Thanks avok.
> 
> I think I understand now what you mean, but I'd say it sounds only very very very (repeat very for another 7 times) slightly like "shtandard"..


 
Hi Lopes,

Then, we must have different sound profiles in our heads for "s" and "sh"  But thanks for listening, though


----------



## Lopes

Probably so, yes. And you're welcome


----------



## Jeedade

Isn’t the problem here just the audio quality of the examples?
Avok in his first post talks about online video (i.e. digitally compressed audio), the same goes for the ”Boet” example (it is also the very beginning of the sound sample, it sounds cut off, later on he says “meest” which sounds normal to my ears).
In my experience, with digitally compressed audio the first thing that suffers are the “s”, “z”, “f”, “v” type sounds. The compression algorithms just don’t cope well with these.


----------



## Joannes

Boet's pronunciations of *standaard*, *meest* and *beste* are peculiar to my ears, in the sense described above. (But note it's a /st/ cluster every time - might have something to do with it.)


----------



## optimistique

Jeedade said:


> Isn’t the problem here just the audio quality of the examples?



No definitely not! This sound file was quite representative for Dutch you can hear on commercials on radio and television. I understand that it may not seem convincing evidence for the 's' in standard could be deformed since the sound file has been cut right before the sound, but it has not. This is definitely the /s/ concerned in this thread.


----------



## avok

Jeedade said:


> Isn’t the problem here just the audio quality of the examples?
> Avok in his first post talks about online video (i.e. digitally compressed audio), the same goes for the ”Boet” example (it is also the very beginning of the sound sample, it sounds cut off, later on he says “meest” which sounds normal to my ears).


 
Hi Jeedade I don't think so...If it were the case, then all the "s"s would be like "sh" on online videos but it is not so.



Joannes said:


> Boet's pronunciations of *standaard*, *meest* and *beste* are peculiar to my ears, in the sense described above. (But note it's a /st/ cluster every time - might have something to do with it.)


 
Joannes I think, it is just a coincidence. Yesterday I watched a commercial in Dutch on TV, and the speaker pronounced "special" like "shpeshial" 



optimistique said:


> No definitely not! This sound file was quite representative for Dutch you can hear on commercials on radio and television. I understand that it may not seem convincing evidence for the 's' in standard could be deformed since the sound file has been cut right before the sound, but it has not. This is definitely the /s/ concerned in this thread.


 
I agree, optimistique.

Hey, if you are still interested, you can go the same link, this time listen to "*Mick*". His "s" not like "sh". Now I am sure, he is not from Amsterdam and yes, he pronounces "Amsterdam" with a clear "s".

Then, listen to *Zeno* and his "s"s mean that he must be from Amsterdam !! And yes, as optimistique said, this is the Dutch used in commercials on TV etc..


----------



## HKK

avok said:


> Hey, if you are still interested, you can go the same link, this time listen to "*Mick*". His "s"  not like "sh". Now I am sure, he is not from Amsterdam and yes, he pronounces "Amsterdam" with a clear "s".



I think the other Flemish boarders will agree that our S is even clearer than Mick's


----------



## Forero

I have noticed the Castilian _s_ and the Dutch _s_ too, but I am still wondering if they are the same sound.  If they are the same, is it a coincidence?


----------



## avok

Forero said:


> I have noticed the Castilian _s_ and the Dutch _s_ too, but I am still wondering if they are the same sound. If they are the same, is it a coincidence?


 
They are alike but different indeed, Dutch s/z travels around "sh/j" Castillian s is rather closer to the standard s sound in English.


----------



## Forero

Forero said:


> I have noticed the Castilian _s_ and the Dutch _s_ too, but I am still wondering if they are the same sound.  If they are the same, is it a coincidence?



Just to be clear about the sound I mean, although I don't know exactly what it is phonetically, I am referring to the distinctive _s_ sound used in Castille that contrasts with the _s_ (and _x_) sounds of neighboring languages.  It is not used in most of the rest of the Castillian-speaking world today, but is more likely in places where Spanish _z_ is pronounced interdentally.  I have read that at one time it was voiced in _casa_ but not in _pasa_ back when _c_/_z_ was pronounced _(t)s_/_(d)z_.

Is the Dutch _s_ sound (again, not the sound in _huisje_ but the sound in huis) the same sound?  If so, did one of these languages "borrow" the sound from the other, or is it just a coincidence?


----------



## Joannes

Forero said:


> If so, did one of these languages "borrow" the sound from the other, or is it just a coincidence?


Leaving alone whether it is really the same pronunciation, I think it is very unlikely that the languages influenced each other. We wouldn't be able to verify it anyway; I don't know about Castilian /s/, but (the evolution of) the pronunciation of (Northern) Dutch /s/ is not well described. And seen the minor difference from 'regular' /s/ (so minor that you wouldn't need another grapheme - which is obviously important in diachronic phonetics research if you don't have audio materials, but also so minor that people _now_ barely notice the difference), that's not really a curious thing.


----------



## Outsider

Forero said:


> Just to be clear about the sound I mean, although I don't know exactly what it is phonetically, I am referring to the distinctive _s_ sound used in Castille that contrasts with the _s_ (and _x_) sounds of neighboring languages.  It is not used in most of the rest of the Castillian-speaking world today, but is more likely in places where Spanish _z_ is pronounced interdentally.


Yes, that's the apico-alveolar "s". I don't know about the Dutch one.



Forero said:


> I have read that at one time it was voiced in _casa_ but not in _pasa_ back when _c_/_z_ was pronounced _(t)s_/_(d)z_.


Correct.


----------



## Forero

Joannes said:


> Leaving alone whether it is really the same pronunciation, I think it is very unlikely that the languages influenced each other. We wouldn't be able to verify it anyway; I don't know about Castilian /s/, but (the evolution of) the pronunciation of (Northern) Dutch /s/ is not well described. And seen the minor difference from 'regular' /s/ (so minor that you wouldn't need another grapheme - which is obviously important in diachronic phonetics research if you don't have audio materials, but also so minor that people _now_ barely notice the difference), that's not really a curious thing.



Native speakers of Dutch are used to equating the two _s_ sounds, but it confuses foreigners like us English speakers to whom the usual Dutch _s_ sounds more like _sh_ than like _s_.  If Dutch _s_ were more similar to English _s_, we could more easily discern the difference between it and Dutch _sj_.

In actual fact it is not an _sh_ sound in manner of articulation, but is so clearly not our _s_ sound that we "hear" it as _sh_.  It is also a problem for Dutch speakers communicating in English and being misunderstood when they say what "sounds like" "shit" for "sit" or "show" for "sew", etc.


----------



## avok

Forero said:


> Native speakers of Dutch are used to equating the two _s_ sounds, but it confuses foreigners like us English speakers to whom the usual Dutch _s_ sounds more like _sh_ than like _s_. If Dutch _s_ were more similar to English _s_, we could more easily discern the difference between it and Dutch _sj_.
> 
> Hi Forero, but the Dutch and the speakers of some other languages don't need to make a distinction between /s/ and /sh/, in any case they will understand you. Even if you say "hui*sh*" instead of "hui*s*", they will understand that you mean "huis" because they don't have two different words as "huis" and "huish".
> 
> In actual fact it is not an _sh_ sound in manner of articulation, but is so clearly not our _s_ sound that we "hear" it as _sh_.
> 
> Yes but the Dutch are not fully aware of that
> 
> It is also a problem for Dutch speakers communicating in English and being misunderstood when they say what "sounds like" "shit" for "sit" or "show" for "sew", etc.
> 
> Yes, as there "is" a difference that should be kept between "s" and "sh"in English, if a non-native speaker pronounces "sit" (or any other word that has "s" in it) with a "sh" that would cause problems
> 
> I guess, the only time when the merger of "s" and "sh" in Dutch would cause a real problem is that if a borrowed word that has "sj" sound is involved.


 


Forero said:


> ........Is the Dutch _s_ sound (again, not the sound in _huisje_ but the sound in huis) the same sound? If so, did one of these languages "borrow" the sound from the other, or is it just a coincidence?
> 
> We can say that, in the languages which have no distinction between "s" and "sh" ( or which have only one sound "s" or "sh" ?) like Dutch and Castillian Spanish, the "s"s sound like "sh" (or between "s" and "sh" )  to the native speakers of a language which has a clear distinction between "s" and "sh" (where the merger of "s" and "sh" would cause problems)
> 
> Both Castillian Spanish and Dutch have no "sh/sj", so "sometimes" their "s"s  sound like "sh" or between "s" and "sh" to "us".  So for this very reason, I don't think one of these languages borrowed this "s" sound from the other.


----------



## Forero

Outsider said:


> Yes, that's the apico-alveolar "s". I don't know about the Dutch one.
> 
> Correct.



Spanish speakers from Madrid have the same issue in AE as Dutch speakers from Amsterdam:  they don't distinguish the apico-alveolar "s" from our "s", but when they use it in our words, we think we hear "sh".

Do you know if Spaniards that use the apico-alveolar "s" have the same issue when they learn the neighboring languages that have "sh" ("x" in Basque, Portuguese, Gallego, Catalán)?

I am afraid I don't know much European history, but wasn't there some kind of common government that brought Spanish and Dutch into close contact at one time?  I am curious when the Dutch "s" became distinct from the French, English, and German "s", while remaining always distinct from French "ch", English "sh", and German "sch".

It's another topic, but Dutch and Castillian Spanish both have a curious way to pronounce "ge" that sounds the same to me and is not like any of their neighbors' "ge" sounds.


----------



## Talib

Outsider said:


> Not to criticize anyone here, but the word "palatalized" is often misapplied. The Castilian "s" is more properly an apical consonant, as opposed to say the Italian or the English "s", which are laminal. This is a minor difference of which native speakers are often not aware, of course, though it stands out to outsiders, who find that the apical "s" sounds close to a "sh".


English /s/ (and /z/ I'm assuming too) are laminal? Are you sure? I thought they were definitely apical.


----------



## Forero

Talib said:


> English /s/ (and /z/ I'm assuming too) are laminal? Are you sure? I thought they were definitely apical.


They are not laminal like the Basque laminal sibilant, but - what would you call the Castillian or Dutch "s" that distinguishes it from both English "s" and English "sh"?  Is either the Castillian or the Dutch "s" sound retroflex?


----------



## Talib

Forero said:


> They are not laminal like the Basque laminal sibilant, but - what would you call the Castillian or Dutch "s" that distinguishes it from both English "s" and English "sh"?  Is either the Castillian or the Dutch "s" sound retroflex?


Retroflex? Not in the proper sense of the term. You mean like [ʂ], as in Slavic languages? It doesn't sound anything like that to me.

I'm not sure what differentiates Castillian and Dutch /s/ from that of English; in fact, I must admit I've never noticed a difference at all. But I have also not heard much of either language.

Regardless, I'm positive the English /s/ and /z/ are apical. From Wikipedia: 



> Comparing languages, however, such as French and English, we find that French coronals are laminal (often mistakenly called "dental") while English coronals are apical.


The difference between French and English coronals is well-known.


----------



## Forero

I am sure the Castillian and Dutch "s" sound(s) are something other than laminal and that they are different from English "s" and "sh".  I believe they are not even between English "s" and "sh" but different in some other dimension.  I have heard them both referred to as "whistling" sounds, "retroflex", and now "apico-alveolar".

I think the two (distinctive Castillian and distinctive Dutch "s" sounds) may be the same sound, but I still don't really know.

I have heard that a similar sound exists in Gallego and I have heard a similar sound from some speakers of modern Greek, but I am curious how a Castillian/Greek/Gallego sound could have gotten into Dutch.


----------



## Talib

Forero said:


> I am sure the Castillian and Dutch "s" sound(s) are something other than laminal and that they are different from English "s" and "sh".  I believe they are not even between English "s" and "sh" but different in some other dimension.  I have heard them both referred to as "whistling" sounds, "retroflex", and now "apico-alveolar".
> 
> I think the two (distinctive Castillian and distinctive Dutch "s" sounds) may be the same sound, but I still don't really know.
> 
> I have heard that a similar sound exists in Gallego and I have heard a similar sound from some speakers of modern Greek, but I am curious how a Castillian/Greek/Gallego sound could have gotten into Dutch.


I believe that you are talking about the apico-alveolar fricative, then. These are apical, like in English, but made with the very tip (apex) of the tongue. That's whence they derive their whistling quality.



> The voiceless apicoalveolar fricative,[s̺], is a fricative which is articulated with the tip of the tongue (apex) against the alveolar ridge. It is the sibilant found in dialects of central and northern Portuguese, Galician, several dialects of European Spanish, Antioqueño Spanish, Catalan, Gascon, Languedocien Occitan, Modern Greek, and Basque. Often to speakers of languages or dialects which do not have an apico-alveolar fricative, they are said to have a "whistling" quality.


Mystery solved, if you ask me.

As to how Dutch has an /s/ of this particular quality, I would tentatively postulate it's a development common to Indo-European languages. Or maybe it's an areal feature - you'll notice most of the languages that have this type of /s/ tend to be in the general area of the Iberian peninsula.


----------



## Outsider

Talib said:


> English /s/ (and /z/ I'm assuming too) are laminal? Are you sure? I thought they were definitely apical.


Well, to be honest what Portuguese and Spanish linguists contrast is the apicoalveolar "s" of northern Iberia with a "*predorsodental*" "s" of southern Iberia, but this doesn't seem to be a standard term in IPA. I thought it meant the same as laminal, but perhaps I'm mistaken...



Forero said:


> I am afraid I don't know much European history, but wasn't there some kind of common government that brought Spanish and Dutch into close contact at one time?


Under Charles V, yes. But I would be skeptical of such neat correspondence between political events and linguistic developments. It seems much more likely to me that the existence of an apicoalveolar "s" in Dutch is explained simply by the fact that this languages has historically lacked a "sh" phoneme. This must have given the tongue more space to move around in the mouth, allowing it to assume an "intermediate" position between the back of the teeth (as in the predorsodental "s" of English, French, etc.) and the palate (as in "sh"). This would be my explanation for the Greek apicoalveolar "s", too.
As for the presence of the apicoalveolar "s" in northern Iberia, it could be due to a pre-Roman substratum, since this feature is also present in Basque, and, as noted, medieval Iberian Romance, and Basque, _do_ have a "sh" phoneme as well.


----------



## Forero

Outsider said:


> Well, to be honest what Portuguese and Spanish linguists contrast is the apicoalveolar "s" of northern Iberia with a "*predorsodental*" "s" of southern Iberia, but this doesn't seem to be a standard term in IPA. I thought it meant the same as laminal, but perhaps I'm mistaken...
> 
> To me, predorsodental refers to the northern Castillian "z" sound (similar to Greek theta, English th, but a little different).  This sound does not exist in Basque or Dutch.
> 
> Under Charles V, yes. But I would be skeptical of such neat correspondence between political events and linguistic developments. It seems much more likely to me that the existence of an apicoalveolar "s" in Dutch is explained simply by the fact that this languages has historically lacked a "sh" phoneme. This must have given the tongue more space to move around in the mouth, allowing it to assume an "intermediate" position between the back of the teeth (as in the predorsodental "s" of English, French, etc.) and the palate (as in "sh"). This would be my explanation for the Greek apicoalveolar "s", too.
> As for the presence of the apicoalveolar "s" in northern Iberia, it could be due to a pre-Roman substratum, since this feature is also present in Basque, and, as noted, medieval Iberian Romance, and Basque, _do_ have a "sh" phoneme as well.


If Basque really does have the same "whistling s", that would explain why it is not on the continuum between English "s" and "sh".


----------



## Forero

Talib said:


> I believe that you are talking about the apico-alveolar fricative, then. These are apical, like in English, but made with the very tip (apex) of the tongue. That's whence they derive their whistling quality.
> 
> 
> 
> The voiceless apicoalveolar fricative,[s̺], is a fricative which is articulated with the tip of the tongue (apex) against the alveolar ridge. It is the sibilant found in dialects of central and northern Portuguese, Galician, several dialects of European Spanish, Antioqueño Spanish, Catalan, Gascon, Languedocien Occitan, Modern Greek, and Basque. Often to speakers of languages or dialects which do not have an apico-alveolar fricative, they are said to have a "whistling" quality.
> 
> 
> 
> Mystery solved, if you ask me.
> 
> I would expect to see (Amsterdam) Dutch in this list, if the Dutch "s" we're talking about really is the same sound.
> 
> I have heard what I think is the non-English-like Dutch "s" sound very strongly in the English and Afrikaans of (some) South Africans.
> 
> As to how Dutch has an /s/ of this particular quality, I would tentatively postulate it's a development common to Indo-European languages. Or maybe it's an areal feature - you'll notice most of the languages that have this type of /s/ tend to be in the general area of the Iberian peninsula.
Click to expand...


I have read somewhere that the Castillian "s", whatever the correct phonetics term is, came from Latin and PIE.


----------



## Outsider

Forero said:


> To me, predorsodental refers to the northern Castillian "z" sound (similar to Greek theta, English th, but a little different). This sound does not exist in Basque or Dutch.


In Wikipedia it's classified simply as "dental"...



Forero said:


> I have read somewhere that the Castillian "s", whatever the correct phonetics term is, came from Latin and PIE.


I've heard that, too, but it always seemed a bit dubious to me, considering that the majority of the Romance languages do _not_ have this sound.


----------



## Talib

So far I lean towards the idea that this /s/ phoneme (voiceless apico-alveolar fricative) is an areal feature; i.e. it originated in a certain part of Europe and spread, like the uvular R which spread from French to German, Danish, etc.


----------



## Joannes

Talib said:


> So far I lean towards the idea that this /s/ phoneme (voiceless apico-alveolar fricative) is an areal feature; i.e. it originated in a certain part of Europe and spread, like the uvular R which spread from French to German, Danish, etc.


Seen its diffusion (if it is in fact the same sound, of which I'm still not fully convinced), don't you think that's a rather strong hypothesis?

I would think these were polygenetic evolutions, without much interlingual influences.


----------



## Talib

Joannes said:


> Seen its diffusion (if it is in fact the same sound, of which I'm still not fully convinced), don't you think that's a rather strong hypothesis?
> 
> I would think these were polygenetic evolutions, without much interlingual influences.


Hard to say. It could simply be a combination of both.

But I do notice that this phone is found mainly in western Europe, in languages which would have contact with one another.


----------



## Joannes

Talib said:


> But I do notice that this phone is found mainly in western Europe, in languages which would have contact with one another.


I agree as far as the Iberian varieties plus Occitan are concerned, although except for Basque these languages are obviously simply _genetically_ related as well. But Greek and (some varieties of) Dutch (supposing for the latter that it is in fact this sound)?!


----------



## avok

Everybody seems to be interested in the "s" of the Dutch language (and also the Castillian Spanish etc) but what about the "z" sound?? The way "s" sounds like "sh", "z" sounds like the French "j" or "zh" . "Ik jôl" for "ik zal "


----------



## Talib

Joannes said:


> I agree as far as the Iberian varieties plus Occitan are concerned, although except for Basque these languages are obviously simply _genetically_ related as well. But Greek and (some varieties of) Dutch (supposing for the latter that it is in fact this sound)?!


That might have to do with Greek and Dutch being members of the Indo-European family, as Spanish et al are.


----------



## Joannes

avok said:


> Everybody seems to be interested in the "s" of the Dutch language (and also the Castillian Spanish etc) but what about the "z" sound?? The way "s" sounds like "sh", "z" sounds like the French "j" or "zh" . "Ik jôl" for "ik zal "


In the varieties of Dutch in which I've noticed the remarkable pronunciation of /s/, /z/ and /s/ and other voiced and voiceless fricatives coincide, all being pronounced without voice.

Edit: By the way, for the phrase *ik zal*, one would have a voiceless pronunciation /ik sal/ even in the varieties that do distinguish between voiced and voiceless fricatives, due to assimilation.



Talib said:


> That might have to do with Greek and Dutch being members of the Indo-European family, as Spanish et al are.


Right, but that's no areal evolution then. I can't tell for Greek, but as far as Dutch is concerned, I think an evolution out of PIE is again unlikely since no other Germanic language has this sound. (And let me stress that the majority of Dutch varieties don't have it either!)


----------



## Reinyer

It's just an accent people in Amsterdam have. Actually you can notice different accents around almost each big city in the Netherlands. Isn't this the case in each country? notice I notice the different accents around Amsterdam, in the north of the country (especially Friesland) and in the south fairly easily, I even notice the accent they have in Utrecht while I live close to that city myself.
Of course local channels will give you a wrong idea of the language, as local channels in other countries would give you a wrong idea of the language there. If you want to get a good idea of the neutral form of our language, you should watch the public channels instead.


----------



## Forero

I have heard what I consider to be the same Dutch "s" sound from every Dutch- or Afrikaans-speaking person I have ever met - except for some Belgians and some of those on the website mentioned by Avok and others.  Some of the people I have met are from S. Africa, some from Holland, and some from (mainland) Friesland.  I have even spent a week or two in the Hague.  The Belgians I have met also used a French-like "g" sound, so I assumed French influence affected their "s" and "z" as well.

In each case, a person's "z" sound was just the voiced counterpart to the same person's "s" sound.

The accents on that website (Boet, Mick, etc.) seem unusual to me.  Some use the Dutch "s", some inconsistently, and some seem to use the ordinary "s" (as from French or English or German).  There was even a speaker (sorry I don't remember which one) who used an "r" sound just like my own AE "r".


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Forero said:


> The Belgians I have met also used a French-like "g" sound, so I assumed French influence affected their "s" and "z" as well.


Could you please give examples or a bit more information on this?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Forero

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Could you please give examples or a bit more information on this?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank



The usual Dutch "g" (/x/), resembles the Castillian "g" before "e" or "i", but the "g" I have heard from Belgians was like the French or English "g" (/g/) before "a", "o", or "u".  In English we call this latter sound a "hard g", but my Dutch friend said Belgians have a "very soft g".  Sorry for being vague, but the usual Dutch "ge" is strangely like the Castillian "ge" (that used to be like "zhe", then "she"), and both are different from their neighbors' "ge".

Bringing "g" into the discussion probably just makes things more complicated than they need to be, but I thought it was interesting.

I am hoping a real sibilants expert familiar with Dutch "s" and "z" will read through this thread and straighten out our inaccuracies, and it would be nice to have an explanation of both the Dutch "s" and "z" and the Castillian "s" from someone who can describe accurately what our tongues are doing differently.

I for one am confused by the sibilants whose symbols my computer can't show and the arbitrary terminology of phonetics.  And what I think of as "standard" may not be the actual standard for the symbols and terms of phonetics.  All I can do is guess, but I would like to really know.


----------



## Outsider

avok said:


> Everybody seems to be interested in the "s" of the Dutch language (and also the Castillian Spanish etc) but what about the "z" sound?? The way "s" sounds like "sh", "z" sounds like the French "j" or "zh" . "Ik jôl" for "ik zal "


Which "z" sound? I thought Dutch had only voiceless sibilants!



			
				Forero said:
			
		

> I for one am confused by the sibilants whose symbols my computer can't show and the arbitrary terminology of phonetics. And what I think of as "standard" may not be the actual standard for the symbols and terms of phonetics. All I can do is guess, but I would like to really know.


Take a look at the link I posted in the first page of the thread.


----------



## Joannes

Forero said:


> The usual Dutch "g" (/x/)


There's nothing usual about a /x/ pronunciation of <g>. On the contrary in fact, if you take Standard Dutch as 'usual'.



Forero said:


> but the "g" I have heard from Belgians was like the French or English "g" (/g/) before "a", "o", or "u".


It definitely isn't. It's always a fricative, not an obstruent. /g/ is no Dutch phoneme, pronunciation of [g] only occurs in assimilation or borrowings.



Forero said:


> In English we call this latter sound a "hard g", but my Dutch friend said Belgians have a "very soft g".


Yes, because it is a voiced palatal fricative whereas the Dutch have a velar one, which is voiceless in some varieties too.



Outsider said:


> Which "z" sound? I thought Dutch had only voiceless sibilants!


I'm afraid your wrong. In most of the language area, people do distinguish between /s/ and /z/.


----------



## Forero

Outsider said:


> Take a look at the link I posted in the first page of the thread.



It looks like the author (Ruud Harmsen) is in the same fix we are.


----------



## avok

Outsider said:


> Which "z" sound? I thought Dutch had only voiceless sibilants!


 
the Dutch (out of Amsterdam or Holland?) make a difference between an "s" and a "z". As we have discussed, for the speakers of the languages that keep the distinction between "s", "sh", the Dutch "s" sounds somewhere between "s" and "sh" and I go on and say that: "the Dutch who make a distinction between an "s" and a "z" pronounce their "z" somewhere between "z" and "zh" (the French "j"). And the only example I can come up with is "zal" which, to my ears, sounds like "zhal"/"jal".


----------



## Outsider

Thank you both. I got it now. I'd got the wrong impression from Harmsen's essay.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, thoxiii.

The closest I've heard to Vlaams is Jacques Brel.  Was his Nederlands authentic Vlaams, or was his actually a French accent?  I can't tell the difference between his "s", "z", and "g" and the French ones.

How does the Amsterdamer "s" sound to you?  Is it between a French "s" and a French "ch" or something else entirely?


----------



## HKK

French style g's are not Flemish. Jacques Brel couldn't pronounce it exactly the right way. It's a tough sound: voiced palatal fricative. Kudos if you can do it


----------



## Forero

HKK said:


> French style g's are not Flemish. Jacques Brel couldn't pronounce it exactly the right way. It's a tough sound: voiced palatal fricative. Kudos if you can do it


 
Hi, HKK.

Is that velar before "o" but palatal before "i"?

Does the Flemish "s" sound like a German "ß", or different?  Can you describe it phonetically?


----------



## Joannes

Forero said:


> Is that velar before "o" but palatal before "i"?


 
For pronunciation of <g>, there's never a difference in _place_ of articulation (at least not within one variety). Sometimes a <g> in writing may be pronounced voiceless, e.g. at the end of words or in environments triggering assimilation.

The northern Dutch pronunciation of <g> is a velar (or sometimes even uvular) one. The southern Dutch it is palatal. (Whether it is followed by <o> / <u> / <a> or rather <i> / <e> does not matter.)

(In West-Flanders pronunciations of <g> and <h> coincide in what would be my pronunciation of Arabic ح but I'm not sure if that works the other way around. )



Forero said:


> Does the Flemish "s" sound like a German "ß", or different? Can you describe it phonetically?


 
Yes, it's a German <ß>, basically.


----------



## jazyk

In het Amsterdams wordt de s-klank ongeveer als een sj uitgesproken. Daardoor konden de Amsterdamse leerlingen geen onderscheid maken tussen Engelse woorden als _sin_ ('zonde') en _shin_ ('scheenbeen').


----------



## Lopes

The amount of people in Amsterdam who actually pronounce it that way is, I think, really small and getting smaller and smaller.. Such a shame..


----------



## FrankVdb

Lopes said:


> I'm afraid I still have to disagree. Maybe another Dutch native could give his/her opinion?



In Dutch, an s is an s. The local variety spoken in Amsterdam may incline towards sh. This is by no means standard pronunciation! The Dutch language area has a lot of local varieties, especially south of the river Waal.


----------

