Dutch <oe> (where does it come from)?

[merijn]

A very simple question for those of you who know more about the history of Dutch than I do: Why do we Dutch write <oe> for /u/, and not just <u> like the Germans do? What historical process is the source for this crosslinguistically strange orthography?

[hwhatting]

It's the same story as with English "oo" - Dutch "oe" is the continuation of a Germanic /o:/ that became /u(:)/ in several Western Gmc. languages independently. In High German, it happened earlier, via a diphthong /uo/ that is attested in OHG and MHG, while in English it happened during the Great Vowel shift.
Adding "e" and "i" was a way to indicate length in the late medieval / early modern orthographies of the North-Western German empire. You can still see that in German Place names like Soest ([zo:st]) or the toponyms in "-broich" (pronounced [bro:x] or [bru(:)x]) in the Niederrhein area. So we have:
Germanic *Go:D-
Old / Middle English, Old Saxon, Old Ripuarian and Middle Dutch /go:d/ or /Go:d/, written "good, god, goed, goid" in the various orthographies. This long /o:/ is still maintained in several Low German dialects.
OHG / MHG guot
NHG gut /gu:t/
New Engl. /gud/ written "good", Dutch /Gud/ written "goed".

[MisterBernie]

You can still see that in German Place names like Soest ([zo:st]) or the toponyms in "-broich" (pronounced [bro:x] or [bru(:)x]) in the Niederrhein area.

*adds Soest to the list of German places whose pronunciation I have to remember, like MeckPomm*

[linguoboy]

You can still see that in German Place names like Soest ([zo:st]) or the toponyms in "-broich" (pronounced [bro:x] or [bru(:)x]) in the Niederrhein area.

*adds Soest to the list of German places whose pronunciation I have to remember, like MeckPomm*

*adds "Mecklenburg" to the list of German places whose pronunciation I have to remember, like "Soest"*

[Jipí]

I heard that locals say /ˈmeːklənbʊrk/, since in Northern Germany Vck often marks a long vowel, but us uninformed foreigners down here say /ˈmɛklənbʊrk/, as it's spelled.

[Grunnen]

It's the same story as with English "oo" - Dutch "oe" is the continuation of a Germanic /o:/ that became /u(:)/ in several Western Gmc. languages independently. In High German, it happened earlier, via a diphthong /uo/ that is attested in OHG and MHG, while in English it happened during the Great Vowel shift.
Adding "e" and "i" was a way to indicate length in the late medieval / early modern orthographies of the North-Western German empire. You can still see that in German Place names like Soest ([zo:st]) or the toponyms in "-broich" (pronounced [bro:x] or [bru(:)x]) in the Niederrhein area. So we have:
Germanic *Go:D-
Old / Middle English, Old Saxon, Old Ripuarian and Middle Dutch /go:d/ or /Go:d/, written "good, god, goed, goid" in the various orthographies. This long /o:/ is still maintained in several Low German dialects.
OHG / MHG guot
NHG gut /gu:t/
New Engl. /gud/ written "good", Dutch /Gud/ written "goed".

This is more or less what I would have expected. Do you have a source for this? Perhaps something that goes a bit into details? I would really be interested in that.

[RTLPM]

Anyway, the Dutch <u> is pronounced /y/, that's why they can't use it for /u/, am I right?

[Grunnen]

Anyway, the Dutch <u> is pronounced /y/, that's why they can't use it for /u/, am I right?

Yes, Dutch <u> is indeed often used to represent /y/, although it can also be /ʏ/. So using it for /u/ as well would be confusing. That doesn't mean it can't in principle be used that way. But it isn't used that way except sometimes in loan words.

[Dewrad]

A very simple question for those of you who know more about the history of Dutch than I do: Why do we Dutch write <oe> for /u/, and not just <u> like the Germans do? What historical process is the source for this crosslinguistically strange orthography?

Almost exactly the same process whereby the French write <ou> for /u/ and <u> for /y/. Middle (?? or was it Old?) Dutch represented /u/ with <u>, and /o:/ with <oe>. /u/ became /y/, thus <u> came to represent /y/. /o:/ became /u/, and so <oe> came to represent /u/. This is all sensu lato, of course: the exact details of whether it was /y/, /y:/ or /ʏ/ aren't significant.

[finlay]

seems to me to be an exceedingly common change, at least in Europe. at the very least I can already see Swedish and Greek having done the same.

[hwhatting]

This is more or less what I would have expected. Do you have a source for this? Perhaps something that goes a bit into details? I would really be interested in that.

Those are all bits and pieces I remember from various sources. And most of my books on historical linguistics are in Germany, so I can't even start to look them up. Always a good source on German historical developments is the dtv Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. It also covers the developments from PIE to Western Germanic and sometimes also treats Dutch matters in passing. IIRC, the information about "e" and "i" being used to indicate lengthening I have from Hans Eggers' "Deutsche Sprachgeschichte" - at the back of each volume he has a section with sample texts from the respective periods and he mentions this orthographical convention when discussing a medieval or early Modern German text from Cologne.

[linguoboy]

seems to me to be an exceedingly common change, at least in Europe. at the very least I can already see Swedish and Greek having done the same.

Brythonic as well. That's why u is /ɨ/ in Welsh and w had to be pressed into service for /u/.

Outside of Europe, there's Dhegiha Siouan. In Omaha-Ponca, you have a complete merger of /u/ and /i/ (as in the Romance variety Surselvan) whereas Kansa and Osage have a strongly-fronted /u/ and an /o/ that can be realised as [ʊ].

[Skomakar'n]

seems to me to be an exceedingly common change, at least in Europe. at the very least I can already see Swedish and Greek having done the same.

Brythonic as well. That's why u is /ɨ/ in Welsh and w had to be pressed into service for /u/.

Outside of Europe, there's Dhegiha Siouan. In Omaha-Ponca, you have a complete merger of /u/ and /i/ (as in the Romance variety Surselvan) whereas Kansa and Osage have a strongly-fronted /u/ and an /o/ that can be realised as [ʊ].

And Faroese goes the other way around, using short ‹í ý› for /ʊi/, and long for /ʊi(j)/. It also has short ‹ú› as /ɪ/ and short ‹ó› as /ɛ/ in certain environments.

[Grunnen]

Those are ... from Cologne.

Thanks!

[Salmoneus]

seems to me to be an exceedingly common change, at least in Europe. at the very least I can already see Swedish and Greek having done the same.

Brythonic as well. That's why u is /ɨ/ in Welsh and w had to be pressed into service for /u/.

Outside of Europe, there's Dhegiha Siouan. In Omaha-Ponca, you have a complete merger of /u/ and /i/ (as in the Romance variety Surselvan) whereas Kansa and Osage have a strongly-fronted /u/ and an /o/ that can be realised as [ʊ].

Another example: English. Well, future-English: /u/ is quite fronted in many dialects (and completely fronted in some). I think it's only a matter of time before /@U/ is .

[finlay]

what, reversing the diphthongisation or something?

In the context of Scottish accents, I think I already hear as /o/ because /u/ is almost never a back vowel (it's almost never a back vowel in England either, but it's more stereotypical in Scotland or something). I remember an Italian girl I taught one time who was called Giusy, but I always heard it as if it was Josie with a strong Scottish accent. Certainly, vocalised L can become or [o] as well as [w].

[Travis B.]

seems to me to be an exceedingly common change, at least in Europe. at the very least I can already see Swedish and Greek having done the same.

Brythonic as well. That's why u is /ɨ/ in Welsh and w had to be pressed into service for /u/.

Outside of Europe, there's Dhegiha Siouan. In Omaha-Ponca, you have a complete merger of /u/ and /i/ (as in the Romance variety Surselvan) whereas Kansa and Osage have a strongly-fronted /u/ and an /o/ that can be realised as [ʊ].

Another example: English. Well, future-English: /u/ is quite fronted in many dialects (and completely fronted in some). I think it's only a matter of time before /@U/ is .

Seconded, at least for the fronting of /uː/ and /ʊ/, which at least over here in North American English is well on its way, and likely complete in some varieties. (It should not be hard to find NAE varieties that actually consistently have [y(ː)] and/or [ʏ] therefor, particularly from what I have heard of NAE varieties along the West Coast. I have even heard NAE speakers who have gone another step and unrounded unstressed [ʏ] from /ʊ/ to [ɪ]...)

(My own dialect is actually highly atypical in that it preserves back realizations of both in most positions, but even it shows clear evidence of this in places, especially between coronals, but also to a lesser extent adjacent to them.)

On the other hand, in NAE I have seen very little evidence for any raising of /oʊ̯/ to a high monophthong; rather the two main changes seen are either monophthongizing it to a mid-high monophthong [o(ː)] or opening, unrounding, and fronting it to something like [ɐʊ̯] or even [ɛʊ̯] (and possibly centralizing the offglide as well). If anything, in many varieties in probably the coming century or so I would expect it to gradually merge with /aʊ̯/ (which already is commonly realized as something like [æʊ̯]).

[Nortaneous]

On the other hand, in NAE I have seen very little evidence for any raising of /oʊ̯/ to a high monophthong; rather the two main changes seen are either monophthongizing it to a mid-high monophthong [o(ː)] or opening, unrounding, and fronting it to something like [ɐʊ̯] or even [ɛʊ̯] (and possibly centralizing the offglide as well). If anything, in many varieties in probably the coming century or so I would expect it to gradually merge with /aʊ̯/ (which already is commonly realized as something like [æʊ̯]).

I've met people who have a full-on [ɛʊ̯] for /aʊ̯/.

(bout-boat(-belt) merger?)

[linguoboy]

On the other hand, in NAE I have seen very little evidence for any raising of /oʊ̯/ to a high monophthong; rather the two main changes seen are either monophthongizing it to a mid-high monophthong [o(ː)] or opening, unrounding, and fronting it to something like [ɐʊ̯] or even [ɛʊ̯] (and possibly centralizing the offglide as well). If anything, in many varieties in probably the coming century or so I would expect it to gradually merge with /aʊ̯/ (which already is commonly realized as something like [æʊ̯]).

[eʊ̯] is consider typical of Balmorese. My grandma talked like that, but the nucleus seems a bit more retracted in my father's speech, perhaps [ɘʊ̯]?

[Travis B.]

On the other hand, in NAE I have seen very little evidence for any raising of /oʊ̯/ to a high monophthong; rather the two main changes seen are either monophthongizing it to a mid-high monophthong [o(ː)] or opening, unrounding, and fronting it to something like [ɐʊ̯] or even [ɛʊ̯] (and possibly centralizing the offglide as well). If anything, in many varieties in probably the coming century or so I would expect it to gradually merge with /aʊ̯/ (which already is commonly realized as something like [æʊ̯]).

[eʊ̯] is consider typical of Balmorese. My grandma talked like that, but the nucleus seems a bit more retracted in my father's speech, perhaps [ɘʊ̯]?

Regardless, it is easy to predict from this standpoint that a large portion of NAE will essentially lack non-low back monophthongs, except for the [ɔ] found as part of /or/, and a larger portion of NAE will lack high and near-high back monophthongs. (And then dialects like my own will be in the "weird relict" category of NAE varieties in this regard...)

[Nortaneous]

edit: I should probably mention that the bout-boat merger is not likely in some dialects (at least IMD), because /au/ is monophthongizing to [æː]. ([æə̯] IMI)

Regardless, it is easy to predict from this standpoint that a large portion of NAE will essentially lack non-low back monophthongs, except for the [ɔ] found as part of /or/, and a larger portion of NAE will lack high and near-high back monophthongs.

Do any of those dialects not seem like they're headed in the direction of at least developing [o] from /ol/ (and some /o/ in some dialects, e.g. 'both')?

[johanpeturdam]

Well, almost:

And Faroese goes the other way around, using short ‹í ý› for /ʊ/, and long for /ʊi(j)/.

This is dialectical and limited to North Streymoy, but it's dying out. Short í/ý otherwise is /ʊi/ and long is /ʊi:/.

It also has short ‹ú› as /ɪ/ and short ‹ó› as /ɛ/.

Only when before -gv, and in the dialects of Suðuroy, the latter doesn't change, so there: <ógv> [ɔkf].

[Skomakar'n]

Well, almost:

And Faroese goes the other way around, using short ‹í ý› for /ʊ/, and long for /ʊi(j)/.

This is dialectical and limited to North Streymoy, but it's dying out. Short í/ý otherwise is /ʊi/ and long is /ʊi:/.

... I'm stupid. I know perfectly well to pronounce, say, ‹nýtt› as /nʊit/, so I don't know what I was thinking.

It also has short ‹ú› as /ɪ/ and short ‹ó› as /ɛ/.

Only when before -gv, and in the dialects of Suðuroy, the latter doesn't change, so there: <ógv> [ɔkf].

I know, but it does happen!

[johanpeturdam]

Well, almost:

And Faroese goes the other way around, using short ‹í ý› for /ʊ/, and long for /ʊi(j)/.

This is dialectical and limited to North Streymoy, but it's dying out. Short í/ý otherwise is /ʊi/ and long is /ʊi:/.

... I'm stupid. I know perfectly well to pronounce, say, ‹nýtt› as /nʊit/, so I don't know what I was thinking.

Well, it should actually be [nʊiʰt:]. The <nýt> is [nʊi:t] or [nʊi:ʰt], if you speak my dialect.

It also has short ‹ú› as /ɪ/ and short ‹ó› as /ɛ/.

Only when before -gv, and in the dialects of Suðuroy, the latter doesn't change, so there: <ógv> [ɔkf].

I know, but it does happen!

Indeed.