I am very far from an expert on Dutch phonetics, but my guess would be that what sounds lik sk to you is actually closer to the proper s-ch pronunciation.
During our first year of life we have learned which frequencies correspond to which phonemes of our native language. The mappings for other languages are different, and so two instances of the same phoneme can sound totally different to us (e.g. Chinese r sometimes sounds like French j to me and sometimes like English r) and two different phonemes can sound the same to us.
Thanks, that explains a lot. Seems she's imported that dialect into English!
She also inserts extra syllables between l or r and a following consonant. For instance, the way she says "melk" sounds like "mellik" and "kerk" sounds like "kerrik". I had long thought this was how dutch was supposed to sound, but I've noticed the nice lady who reads out the sentences here on duolingo doesn't do this. Is this a common dialectal feature as well?
Hi Jazzybeard, Sorry, I noticed your last comment about mellek and kerrek just now.. Schwah insertion is used to ease pronunciation and not necessarily dialect, although most ABN (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands) speakers would prefer melk and kerk without it. Here is a link to a useful site about Dutch language on this phenomenon: https://onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/advies/svarabhaktivocaal (you might need Google Translate ;))
English is the only language I know in which the progressive is not optional. (Only Spanish comes close to English in this respect, but it's not quite as strict, either.) In most European languages you can express it in some way or other, but you only bother if it really matters and you want to stress it, if the progressive nature can't be inferred from context, or as an affectation. This is one of the persistent difficulties for learners of English.
The Dutch progressive is a bit cumbersome. In this case it would be: "Bent je een schoen aan het dragen?" ("Are you a shoe at the wearing?") But unless the other person has only a single leg, the progressive is redundant because it is implied.
The progressive is not a deeply ingrained feature of a language. It arises naturally out of people's desire to express things drastically.
At first it's not a progressive at all but something you can say only on rare occasions to make clear that the action is going on right now. In that stage it's usually a relatively clumsy expression. Then people start to use it more and more generally, and they start to abbreviate it. Instead of "I am in the process of going", or something else to that effect, they say "I am in the going", "I am in going" and finally "I am going". They also start to use it when something is not actually going on right now but will be very soon. And at some point it becomes so normal to use this new tense/aspect that it becomes odd, and finally a grammar mistake, not to use it when you could.
For some reason a lot of linguistic developments that are going on all over Europe have happened faster in English. This is one of them. In German you still say that you are "at the doing something" if you really want to express the progressive aspect, and even that is colloquial. In Dutch, which is more progressive than German though less than English, you can use the same clumsy expression as in German, but it's already a regular feature of the standard language. In French you say that you are "in train [original meaning: movement] of doing something". All these progressive forms are still so long that they have little chance of becoming mandatory before they have been abbreviated.
Yes, and Irish has continuous present etc., like "Bíonn mé ag siúl" means "I walk" (if it is an everyday, repeated activity) or the colloquial "I do be walking", as many Irish people would say; but "Tá mé ag siúl" means "I am walking" as in right now... Irish is complicated! I learned it at school for 12 years, and I'm still kind of confused :D
@ataltane: Oops, slip of the tongue, yes yes, of course I meant "bíonn mé", not "beidh mé"! But you can also say "Tá mé ag siúl" when you mean "I am walking" as opposed to "I walk". I'm editing my original comment now to make sure I don't confuse anyone :) Have a lingot for your troubles!
Are you also confused about the difference between "it is" and "it's"? This is the most similar phenomenon in English. Just think of jij as the long form and je as the shortened form, somewhat similar to a contraction.
Using "it's" instead of "it is" makes a sentence slightly less formal. Sometimes "it is" is stressed and we wouldn't normally use "it's" instead. (Example: "Yes, it is." This never becomes: "Yes, it's.") And "it's" is ambiguous because it can also mean "it has".
Using je instead of jij makes a sentence slightly less formal (or at least did so a few decades ago). Sometimes jij is stressed and we wouldn't normally use je instead. (Example: "Het is jij." This never becomes: "Het is je.") And je is ambigous because it can also mean jou or jouw.
It is sort of a trick question. The Dutch sentence is totally stupid. It really asks about a single shoe. So of course you have to translate it as a single shoe, not a pair.
Maybe it is about someone who broke a leg and now has a cast, so that he or she can wear at most one shoe. Some people then only wear thick socks on the other foot instead of a shoe. It could be related to this.