Pronunciation!

[nettchelobek1]

Well, I study Dutch since eight months, I can read a text and comprehend the main idea, because of the german and english cognates, I also have a dutch learning book of Berlitz, I do grammar exrcises, and I also have two conversation books, however I don't have any cassette or CD to listen the right pronunciation, I have some hints in the coversation books, but I need an accurate page that has dutch pronunciation, so I have the opportunity to pronounce it good. Well, I would appreciate any suggestion that can help me to master this beautiful language.

[Nounoursette]

You can have a look to a thread I posted a few months ago: "Uitspraak voor beginners: hulp alstublieft!"

[nettchelobek1]

well, hmmm, can you give me the link, so I can see it?

[Teup]

Well, here is a page with some files..
http://homepage.mac.com/schuffelen/dupron.html

But, it's not too reliable. Some comments are simply wrong.

K is always voiced, also before N

[k] can be voiced ([g]) due to coarticulation (usually between vowels) but usually it really isn't voiced (just [k]).
But note: consonants are never aspirated, like they are in both English an German.

Many people in Holland, especially in the West, don't pronounce the N at the end of words. I consider that sloppy and incorrect, but I have to admit to a certain softening of my final N's

This is wrong. The suffix -en (whether on verbs, on nouns..) is acutally supposed pronounced without the [n] in Standard Dutch. Yes, even in Belgium.

And there are a couple more inaccurate or just wrong instructions there.. but just thought I should mention the site, because it will contribute.. all sources have errors, the more sources the better
Any questions/suspicions/doubts, ask. I know "everything" about Dutch pronunciation

[Axystos]

Unilang's wiki has a few links to dutch courses where there is bound to be some pronunciation info. Check them out here

[Blake]

This is wrong. The suffix -en (whether on verbs, on nouns..) is acutally supposed pronounced without the [n] in Standard Dutch. Yes, even in Belgium.

This is also wrong . You may or may not drop the final -n in pronunciation. It is by no means compulsory in Standard Dutch.

You should, however, be careful using those pronunciation guides because they're mostly only focussed on the Dutch (from the Netherlands) version and not on the Flemish version. Nevertheless, both the Dutch and the Flemish (i.e. Southern part of the language area) versions are Standard Dutch.

To hear Flemish: http://www.vrtnieuws.net
To read some things about pronunciation (and grammar and...): http://www.taaldatabanken.com

[Teup]

This is wrong. The suffix -en (whether on verbs, on nouns..) is acutally supposed pronounced without the [n] in Standard Dutch. Yes, even in Belgium.

This is also wrong . You may or may not drop the final -n in pronunciation. It is by no means compulsory in Standard Dutch.

Hmm ok, you're right, to keep them and use it as onset of the next syllable is quite ok ("lope nin"), but I think to consequently keep it in every context isn't (to me "pan met vet" is ok, but "te maken met" sounds very unnatural). But that may well be different for different regions. Anyway, if one of the two options would contribute to a foreign accent, to me it would definately be keeping them instead of losing them. Losing them is the safest option, I'd say.

In a way that's on a par with foreigners pronouncing [z] and [v] 'properly', which sound accentish to me. And that's a shame, since it need not be that way. All you'd have to do is make no distinction with [s] and [f], which is both easier and sounds more native-like. Of course, that only applies to (the biggest part of) The Netherlands. In Belgium most people do pronounce [z] and [v] as such.

[Vogelvrij]

No, keep the z en v, it is so ugly when they are the same pronounced as s en f

[dorenda]

What about the Groningers? They also pronounce all the n's at the end, don't they?
I know someone who pronounces everything very carefully, including final n's, but she doesn't sound foreign at all (and she isn't). I think it really depends on whether how you pronounce the n's fits with the rest of your pronounciation, if it will sound like a foreign accent or not. If you pronounce some things like they do in one place, and other things like they do somewhere else, that will make it sound unnatural.
And about replacing all z's and v's with s's and f's, that is what I think sounds really unnatural, unless the rest of your accent is also Amsterdams or so. And it sounds ugly too. Sometimes I hear people pronouncing certain things with s's and f's and I can't understand how they can say it that way. I also do it, but I think only when these letters are in particular positions in the word or so. I don't know exactly when. I also sometimes find myself saying z or v instead of s or f.

[Teup]

The current situation for Standard Dutch of The Netherlands is like this: [n]'s at suffixes are dropped, [v] and [z] are pronounced [f] and [s], except when between vowels. This is ABN if you will. There are regions where the [n]'s are not dropped, and places where people actually do pronounce the <z> and <v> in an English fashion, but as it's regional I agree it should fit into the overal accent, it depends on the region you're in. But by default, no [n]'s, and [f] and [s] are to be recommended.
It indeed happens that we are starting to say [v] and [z] where they don't belong. That is natural: since the phonemes are disappearing from Dutch, a [z] pronunciation will be just another variant of [s], they will become interchangable. I often find that people, when they stress a word, pronounce a [z] ("dat is pas in dezember") because it sounds like a more accurately articulated [s] or something. People also overgeneralize and say things like "veertig" with a [v], which it historically never had. That sort of thing only points out [z] and [v] are disappearing from our mental system (if I do pronounce them, it'd rather be influence by spelling than that my language really is that way), just like the <g> and <ch> difference has, although again, like with [z] and [v], some people in the south still make the distinction.

[Blake]

The current situation for Standard Dutch of The Netherlands is like this: [n]'s at suffixes are dropped, [v] and [z] are pronounced [f] and [s], except when between vowels. This is ABN if you will. There are regions where the [n]'s are not dropped, and places where people actually do pronounce the <z> and <v> in an English fashion, but as it's regional I agree it should fit into the overal accent, it depends on the region you're in. But by default, no [n]'s, and [f] and [s] are to be recommended.
It indeed happens that we are starting to say [v] and [z] where they don't belong. That is natural: since the phonemes are disappearing from Dutch, a [z] pronunciation will be just another variant of [s], they will become interchangable. I often find that people, when they stress a word, pronounce a [z] ("dat is pas in dezember") because it sounds like a more accurately articulated [s] or something. People also overgeneralize and say things like "veertig" with a [v], which it historically never had. That sort of thing only points out [z] and [v] are disappearing from our mental system (if I do pronounce them, it'd rather be influence by spelling than that my language really is that way), just like the <g> and <ch> difference has, although again, like with [z] and [v], some people in the south still make the distinction.

First of all, "ABN" doesn't exist, it is AN. And in AN (Standard Dutch) both the version with and the one without the final -n are correct. Also both the versions with [f, s] and [v, z] are correct. It is true that in Belgium, most people tend to keep the final -n and pronounce [v and z], but this is by no means general. Both pronounciations are correct and Standard Dutch. I know some people from the Netherlands don't like to admit that Belgian Dutch is ALSO Standard Dutch, but nevertheless, that is the case.

[HerrFraeulein]

Het Vlaamse minderwaardigheidscomplexje speelt weer op...

[Blake]

Het Vlaamse minderwaardigheidscomplexje speelt weer op...

Of de Nederlandse megalomanie... Het is maar hoe je het bekijkt

[Teup]

Ach, meer-/minderwaardigheid is niet aan de orde wat mij betreft, maar wél het pro-eenheidsgebeuren waar de Vlamingen zo van blijken te houden versus diversiteit

First of all, "ABN" doesn't exist, it is AN. And in AN (Standard Dutch) both the version with and the one without the final -n are correct. Also both the versions with [f, s] and [v, z] are correct. It is true that in Belgium, most people tend to keep the final -n and pronounce [v and z], but this is by no means general. Both pronounciations are correct and Standard Dutch. I know some people from the Netherlands don't like to admit that Belgian Dutch is ALSO Standard Dutch, but nevertheless, that is the case.

Hence the "if you will" On my university the term ABN is still around as everyone knows what it means (who cares about the political nitpicking and all ). The conventions for standard in The Netherlands that I have been taught and which I can agree on, would prescribe (though of course, transcription conventions never prescribe, but you understand what I mean) a devoiced [z] and [v], and no final [n]. If people do pronounce that [n], as in lopenin, that is regarded an intrusive sound which is not a phoneme of the word itself (similar to english idearof for idea of). For Dutch in Belgium, [v] and [z] would be more appropriate. Let's face it: there is a significant difference in pronunciation here between Belgium and The Netherlands. We might as well reflect that. I'm of course not saying Flemish Dutch is off standard, or that Netherlandic Dutch is; but I would rather say [z] in Netherlandic Dutch and [s] in Flemish Dutch is off standard/regional. In your view, in the entire Dutch area both [s] and [z] are tolerable. But wouldn't you agree "son" for "zon" sounds off standard from your perspective? It's not a homogene standard if you ask me. I'm OK with it if there's some "ABN" in Flanders; even as it implies that I would be an uncivilized speaker of Flemish Dutch

[Blake]

Hence the "if you will" On my university the term ABN is still around as everyone knows what it means (who cares about the political nitpicking and all ). The conventions for standard in The Netherlands that I have been taught and which I can agree on, would prescribe (though of course, transcription conventions never prescribe, but you understand what I mean) a devoiced [z] and [v], and no final [n]. If people do pronounce that [n], as in lopenin, that is regarded an intrusive sound which is not a phoneme of the word itself (similar to english idearof for idea of). For Dutch in Belgium, [v] and [z] would be more appropriate. Let's face it: there is a significant difference in pronunciation here between Belgium and The Netherlands. We might as well reflect that. I'm of course not saying Flemish Dutch is off standard, or that Netherlandic Dutch is; but I would rather say [z] in Netherlandic Dutch and [s] in Flemish Dutch is off standard/regional. In your view, in the entire Dutch area both [s] and [z] are tolerable. But wouldn't you agree "son" for "zon" sounds off standard from your perspective? It's not a homogene standard if you ask me. I'm OK with it if there's some "ABN" in Flanders; even as it implies that I would be an uncivilized speaker of Flemish Dutch

Of course there are differences between north and south. But both variants are ONLY varianst of ONE standard form. The standard is homogeneous as it only accepts 2 variants which form it.
By the way. ABN is a very incorrect term as it implies that dialects are no "decent" form of language, which is, of course, completely and utterly incorrect (and even foolish).