Talk:Dutch phonology

message: This article repeatedly cites Collins and Mees's book. The reader is pointed to a PDF of this that was very conveniently available in late 2016 on the website of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University (Ukraine), deleted (or moved) since, but nevertheless even now very conveniently available thanks to Wayback. Offhand I know nothing about the coauthors, but the URL doesn't suggest that one of them was then teaching at the university. Shouldn't the link be removed as a inviting the reader to a likely copyright violation? -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and turns out the PDF was linked from ~50 articles. I just removed the link in every one of them. I had done the same in one a couple years ago but didn't realize it was used in so many... Nardog (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, Nardog! (You've made me feel very lazy.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Collins and Mees: copyright status

message: The Dutch short O is described as being open: ɔ
This seems so wrong! The sound, in fact, is very closed, just listen to "jongens", for instance. The sound is not really very different from the open u sound in the German equivalent "Jungen". Perhaps, it depends on the individual speaker, but virtually every time I hear speakers who pronounce a very closed short "o" sound.
Or listen to "vol" (= "full"), for instance, at forvo.com:
Examples "vol zijn van", "vol vuur", and even more noticeable: "vol in beeld" (really sounds like engl. "full").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.206.90 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. There is considerable variation in height for /ɔ/ (cf. Booij (1995:7) who cites this source), which should be mentioned here. The entry for /ɔ/ needs to be reworked anyway, since it contains OR about "pharyngealization" which is only mentioned in passing by Collins & Mees (2003), and is falsely attributed to Verhoeven (2005) and Gussenhoven (1999) who don't mention it all (@pagewatchers: have I overlooked something?). –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one who had the IP 84.58.206.90 on October 6 2020 and started that topic... Many thanks also from my side! I thought for sure that someone would argue against it, but it seems that there really is something to what I am observing. - And yes, there are exactly those examples in your link that I had in mind (dom, tong, vol etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.199.46 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

text: What they actually write is: "There is retraction of the tongue-root towards the pharynx wall". I have rephrased this to "pharyngealization" (following the preceding version), but if you think that this is inapt, I'll be the last one to protest if the "pharyngealization"-thing is completely scrapped. But FWIW, pharyngealized back vowels are not unheard of in the lit, and are e.g. described for Upper Saxon, nɔˤ. –Austronesier (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like "retracted tongue root" to me. A difficult and controversial notion. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: open/close vowels

message: The article mentions "north" and "south" many times, but it is not explained what this means. I don't know. Is Amsterdam already the northern Netherlands? Or is it only Groningen and Friesland that is north? --K. 20:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends; in a discussion of Flemish versus Netherlands Dutch, the border forms the obvious dividing line. But within The Netherlands itself, the Rhine/Meuse delta is seen by many Dutch citizens as a major dividing line, both culturally and linguistically. Still, the central, standard dialect associated with the Randstad is not usually thought of as "typically Northern" (even if Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht are all situated north of the great rivers) --- one would be inclined to regard as such: Gronings, Friesian (a language not a dialect, albeit mostly for linguistic-historic reasons, given that the modern forms of Friesian and standard Dutch have converged in so many respects) and West-Friesian (as the Dutch call the speech of Northern North Holland, i.e. North of the Zaanstreek). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6C58:E74F:F368:C5D9 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Phonologically, the border more or less follows the great rivers, with a transition zone. Northern Dutch as used in this article is mostly used in the West of the Netherlands, not in the North. What variety has more prestige is a matter of opinion. PiusImpavidus (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I also think that this should be incorporated into the article. The current article contrasts "Belgium" with "north". Assuming that the sound files are from a speaker of Standard Belgian Dutch, I think "Belgium" doesn't need to be changed. But "north" should be specified further, and in some places should be replaced by (Standard Netherlandic Dutch). Barefoot Banana (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  explain North and South 

message: I feel that intercalated schwa's, so typical of the Dutch language, have something to do with this. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:6C58:E74F:F368:C5D9 (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this about? Can you expand so that people can discuss? Barefoot Banana (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  stress 

message: There was one [ɹ] missing. Added it! Not sure whether a secondary stress should be indicated here though. 
Wathiik (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   [ˈneidəɹˌlɑndəɹs] 

message: The use of /ʃ ʒ/ vs. /ɕ ʑ/ is inconsistent in the article. They refer to the same phoneme. Gussenhoven (1999) and Verhoeven (2005) use /ʃ ʒ/. Exarchus (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  /ʃ  ʒ/ or /ɕ  ʑ/ ?