# Dutch: /ɣ/ and /x/



## dihydrogen monoxide

Could the sounds /ɣ/ and /x/ cause speech impediment in Dutch?


----------



## elroy

As a native speaker of Arabic, which has the same two phonemes, my guess would be no, since I've never known them to be associated with any speech impediments in Arabic.


----------



## berndf

To my knowledge, in the Netherlands, /ɣ/ and /x/ are merged for most speakers. In Belgium I am not sure.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

I meant that if someone had a speech impediment it would show in those two sounds /ɣ/ and /x/. Do native speakers of Dutch pronounce these two sounds without issue when they're three years old. How does a two or three year old child replace /ɣ/ and /x/?


----------



## berndf

I don't quite understand. /ɣ/ and /x/ aren't more difficult to produce than any other consonant. Why should they have problems with those but not with others?


----------



## Sobakus

I think these two sounds in Dutch perfectly reproduce an infant gargling on either milk, saliva or both :-) The OP is in fact correct to suggest that there are sounds which are acquired by children quite late, and sometimes not at all (/r/ and the velarised /ɫ/ are notorious for this, or eg. other doubly-articulated consonants); in this case however I'm fairly positive that everybody with the roof of their mouth intact and in possession of at least the back portion of their tongue can pronounce these sounds perfectly well.


----------



## Swatters

berndf said:


> To my knowledge, in the Netherlands, /ɣ/ and /x/ are merged for most speakers. In Belgium I am not sure.


Quite separate. I'm not as aware of the full dialectal variety of Belgian Dutch as I am of Belgian French, but anecdotally all the Flemings I've ever met with a voiceless /ɣ/ have turned out to be L2 speakers (and indeed [χ] for /ɣ/ is something a lot of French-speaking Belgians do when speaking Dutch).

There's the West Flanders province where initial /ɣ/ > [ɦ] and /h/ is deleted, but it's not like that merges /ɣ/ and /x/ either


----------



## berndf

Swatters said:


> Quite separate. I'm not as aware of the full dialectal variety of Belgian Dutch as I am of Belgian French, but anecdotally all the Flemings I've ever met with a voiceless /ɣ/ have turned out to be L2 speakers (and indeed [χ] for /ɣ/ is something a lot of French-speaking Belgians do when speaking Dutch).
> 
> There's the West Flanders province where initial /ɣ/ > [ɦ] and /h/ is deleted, but it's not like that merges /ɣ/ and /x/ either


I am hearing here [ɦ], [ç] and [x] in the samples by Belgians and [χ] in the sample from the Netherlands but nowhere [ɣ].


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> I am hearing here [ɦ], [ç] and [x] in the samples by Belgians and [χ] in the sample from the Netherlands but nowhere [ɣ].


I know [ɣ] from Iberian romance languages but I've never quite understood how to pronounce the sound in Belgian Dutch because it's different somehow.  It often has some kind of /j/ quality added but it's not really that either.  I wondered about adopting /g/ which is what the king says.

Edit: A few of those Brugge pronunciations sound like /r/. A lady says /Bryçje/.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> It often has some kind of /j/


You mean a palatalised [ɣ], i.e. [ʝ]. Yes, this ofter merges with [j], as in English where _yellow_ (compare with German _gelb_) and _young_ (compare with German _jung_) start with the same sound.



merquiades said:


> I know [ɣ] from Iberian romance languages but I've never quite understood how to pronounce the sound in Belgian Dutch because it's different somehow.


Many German Frankish and other Central German dialects have [ɣ] as well. And there is nothing like that in Belgian Dutch. If the distinguish /ɣ/ and /x/ I can't hear the difference. The German  [ɣ] sounds very similar to a modern German /r/, i.e. [ʁ]. In dialects that have both sounds, minimal pairs like _Wagen_ (_car_) and _Waren_ (_commodities_) are are practically impossible to maintain.


----------



## elroy

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I meant that if someone had a speech impediment it would show in those two sounds /ɣ/ and /x/.


Again, if it’s anything like Arabic, no.  No one ever mispronounces these sounds.  On the contrary, some people with a speech impediment product [ɣ] for [r].


----------



## Swatters

I see what you mean, I can hear the difference but what most speakers on forvo produce can't really be called a cardinal [ɣ]. It still sounds noticeably more fortis than /x/ to me, in a similar way other fricatives contrast by not quite voicing but phonation at the beginning of words:

There's a few recording on Forvo with both phonemes at once, if you want to compare:
een *g*ezin sti*ch*ten
*g*elukki*g*e verjaarda*g*
ne*g*enveerti*g*
*g*oo*ch*elen
*g*es*ch*rokken
*g*es*ch*ift
*g*enadesla*g* *g*even
*g*eldi*g*
vo*g*elvlu*ch*t
re*g*enboo*g* (several BE and NL speakers on that one)

There's should be speakers who did pairs like lig/liggen, zeg/zeggen, lach/lachen to compare also.


----------



## berndf

Swatters said:


> It still sounds noticeably more fortis than /x/ to me


More? Now I am completely confused.  [ɣ] is the voiced variant of [x], i.e. it is supposed to be the _less_ fortis of the two.


----------



## Swatters

Less is what I meant,sorry


----------



## bearded

Some years ago I visited the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.  The way Dutch people pronounced gh was hardly distinguishable (by my 'Latin' ear) from ch (Fan Hòch, sort of). I mean, I perceived their gh as unvoiced.


----------



## berndf

Swatters said:


> Less is what I meant,sorry


So, when you are saying _less fortis_, you acknowledge that [ɣ] and its palatalised allophone [ʝ] are generally devoiced to [x] and [ç], respectively, but remain weaker than [x] and [ç] when they realise /x/. Do I understand you correctly?

In your sample _re*g*enboo*g*_, I hear a voiced-unvoiced contrast in one of the Belgian speakers (MissTerry), i.e. /ɣ/=[ʝ] and /x/=[x], while I head both as [x]~[χ] for all speakers from the Netherlands (I.e. compete phonemic merger and no allophonic palatalisation). Do you agree with me on that?

In the pronunciation of another Belgian speaker (jaaan), I hear both as devoiced, i.e. [ç] and [x], but I can sense a lenis-fortis contrast. Is that what you mean?


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Some years ago I visited the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.  The way Dutch people pronounced gh was hardly distinguishable (to my 'Latin' ear) from ch (Fan Hòch, sort of). I mean, I perceived their gh as unvoiced.


In native words, <gh> is obsolete spelling only preserved in names. Irrespective of if it is supposed to stand for /ɣ/ or /x/ in non-final positions, final <gh> always stands for /x/ (Dutch features, like German, phonemically neutralising final obstruent devoicing). Thus, _van Gogh_ is phonemically /van ɣɔx/. But most speakers in the Netherlands realise it [fan xɔx].


----------



## raamez

berndf said:


> In your sample _re*g*enboo*g*_,


Is it only me or all the samples sound somehow different? 
The Belgian ones sound more German to my ear while the third one sounds the most "Dutch" one.


----------



## berndf

raamez said:


> The Belgian ones sound more German to my ear while the third one sounds the most "Dutch" one.


I can relate to that. I guess it is mainly that Belgian Dutch has the same allophonic palatalisation of /x/ as German while Netherlands Dutch does not have it. Swiss German also lacks it. That is why some people say they find that Swiss German and (Netherlands) Dutch sound similar.


----------



## Swatters

berndf said:


> So, when you are saying _less fortis_, you acknowledge that [ɣ] and its palatalised allophone [ʝ] are generally devoiced to [x] and [ç], respectively, but remain weaker than [x] and [ç] when they realise /x/. Do I understand you correctly?
> 
> In your sample _re*g*enboo*g*_, I hear a voiced-unvoiced contrast in one of the Belgian speakers (MissTerry), i.e. /ɣ/=[ʝ] and /x/=[x], while I head both as [x]~[χ] for all speakers from the Netherlands (I.e. compete phonemic merger and no allophonic palatalisation). Do you agree with me on that?
> 
> In the pronunciation of another Belgian speaker (jaaan), I hear both as devoiced, i.e. [ç] and [x], but I can sense a lenis-fortis contrast. Is that what you mean?


That sounds about right, except I can't really determine how jaaan is saying /ɣ/ (it's palatal and very short, but beyond that...). But sofiekeh at the bottom of the page (under Flemish) is doing exactly what you describe.

And the Netherlandic Dutch speakers are indeed striking by how little allophonic variation they have in those sounds.



raamez said:


> Is it only me or all the samples sound somehow different?


Regenboog is hitting a lot of the phonemes that vary a lot between Dutch varieties. /r/ has many variants (alveolar or uvular, trilled or fricative or approximant, etc), as do /ɣ/ and /x/ as we're discussing. Then you have long/tense /eː/ and /oː/, that tend to come out as diphthongs in Netherlandic Dutch, but monophthongs in Belgian Dutch (another similarity with standard German)


----------



## merquiades

Swatters said:


> Regenboog is hitting a lot of the phonemes that vary a lot between Dutch varieties. /r/ has many variants (alveolar or uvular, trilled or fricative or approximant, etc), as do /ɣ/ and /x/ as we're discussing. Then you have long/tense /eː/ and /oː/, that tend to come out as diphthongs in Netherlandic Dutch, but monophthongs in Belgian Dutch (another similarity with standard German)


Pinpointing, hearing and making the distinction between /r/, /ɣ/, /ʝ/, /ç/ and /x/ is the major problem I have with Belgian Dutch. 
I also subconsciously want to apply "German" logic which obviously does not work.
I end up substituting Spanish phonemes which are clear cut distinctions between all of these But that is wrong.


----------



## Red Arrow

Berndf, it would be nice if you stopped pretending like all people in the Netherlands sound the same. This is a general trend I noticed over the years with you and it is not particularly helpful in this thread. I hope you understand.

The two sounds are distinguished in the Brabantian and Limburgish accents, both in the Netherlands and Belgium. Waggel and kachel don't rhyme in those accents.

Indeed, in some accents, both sounds are palatalized. How much depends on the vowels surrounding it.

There are no minimal pairs between /ɣ/ and /x/. They occur in rather (but not completely) complementary positions:

/ɣ/
-occurs at the beginning of a word
-occurs between vowel sounds

/x/
-occurs in sch- and -cht
-occurs between vowels, but the preceding vowel has to be any of these six vowels: /ɑ ɛ ɪ ɔ o: ʏ/
-occurs at the end of a word
-occurs at the beginning of words, but only in loanwords from Greek

I have recorded the following words: *waggel, kachel, ga, Guy, chemie*

Vocaroo | Online voice recorder

The IPA symbols might be wrong, but the difference is definitely there.


----------



## Red Arrow

I have been told earlier on that it is not very useful to record enunciated words, so here is a recording of an old poem for children. It has plenty of g and ch. I am speaking in my normal accent with little effort to sound “correctly”.

Vocaroo | Online voice recorder

*Green*: /ɣ/
*Black*: /x/



> Toen vader ’s mor*g*ens wakker werd,
> toen riep hij: Wel verdraaid!
> Kijk nu eens wat er is *g*ebeurd *(devoiced g after s)*
> de trap is we*gg*ewaaid *(devoiced g after ch)*
> 
> En moeder zei: Hoe moet dat nu?
> Hoe komen we beneden?
> De hele trap is we*gg*ewaaid,
> met vijfenzesti*g* treden *(devoiced g before t)*
> 
> De kinders kwamen uit hun bed
> en riepen: Heerlijk ze*g*! *(final devoicing)*
> We kunnen lekker niet naar s*ch*ool,
> want onze trap is we*g*.
> 
> En vader nam de telefoon
> en belde naar ’t kantoor.
> Ze*g *baas, de trap is we*gg*ewaaid, *(voiced g before b)*
> ik kan niet komen hoor!
> 
> Maar ja, er was *g*een brood in huis,
> *g*een melk, *g*een kaas, *g*een fruit;
> ze konden het niet halen ook,
> ze konden er niet uit.
> 
> Daar zaten ze, drie da*g*en lang.
> Ze waren bleek en ma*g*er.
> Want niemand kon naar boven toe,
> *g*een bakker en *g*een sla*g*er.
> 
> Toen belde vader ’t vlie*g*veld op *(devoiced g before f)*
> en riep: Hallo, Hallo!
> Stuurt u een helikoptertje
> en krij*g*en we ’t cadeau?
> 
> Er kwam een helikoptertje,
> dat landde op het plat.
> Het bra*ch*t hen naar beneden toe.
> Ziezo, en dat was dat.
> 
> En moeder zei: Nu moeten wij
> een nieuwe trap *g*aan bouwen. *(devoiced g after p)*
> Maar vader riep: A*ch* Bets, waarom? *(voiced g before b)*
> We zullen ’t zo maar houden.
> 
> En voortaan houden ze ’t maar zo.
> Ze zijn nu er*g* tevreden.
> Ze *g*aan per helikoptertje
> omhoo*g* en naar beneden. *(You can also say omhoog in this case, linking the word with en. I am surprised I didn’t do that, maybe because it’s a poem.)*
> 
> En vader ze*g*t: Nu zie je, Bets
> die trappen zijn maar ouderwets!


----------



## berndf

Red Arrow said:


> Berndf, it would be nice if you stopped pretending like all people in the Netherlands sound the same.


You got me there. I sometimes say "Netherlands" when what I means is Hollandic.


----------

