How come that masculine words that start with b,d,t in dialect get ‘den’ as articles instead of ‘de’?

Answer

Dear Mr Verde,

Dutch used to have cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative. Not so long ago, the definite article had the following masculine forms:

nominative: de
genitive: des
dative: den
accusative: den

The accusative form den (which was thus used with masculine nouns, mainly when the clause with the noun was the direct object of the sentence) became the general form in some Dutch dialects with the disappearance of the case system. It is a phenomenon that you also see in Italian, for example. Masculine Italian nouns ending in -o evolved from Latin nouns in the accusative form ending in -um. Figlio evolved from the Latin accusative filium. The nominative was filius. The m of filium disappeared in folk Latin and u in filiu evolved into an o in later Italian. The change from a u to an o is not very surprising. If you say a u with the jaws further apart, you automatically get an o. A spontaneous sound shift, as there are so many. The same is the case with, for example, the adjective felice, which developed from the accusative form felicem (nominative felix). Here too, the m of felicem has disappeared in popular Latin.

The accusative form den was thus used before masculine nouns in certain dialects, eg the Brabant dialects. Moreover, die n van den was only (and still is) pronounced if the initial sound of the following word (which can also be an adjective between the article and the noun) is one of the following sounds:

a vowel
h
b
d
t
r (only in Flemish Brabant)

For example:

the fat paoter [omdat het woord dat op het lidwoord volgt met een d begint en omdat poater mannelijk is]

den/dem farmer [omdat het woord dat op het lidwoord volgt met een b begint en omdat boer mannelijk is]

The fact that only with a vowel, an h, a b, a d, a t (and sometimes an r) can be heard with an n, has to do with ease of pronunciation. Keeping the n in den provides ease of pronunciation if a vowel, an h, a b, a d, a t (and somewhat also an r) follows. This ease of pronunciation can be described on the basis of the term place of articulation. You pronounce the n with your tongue against your upper teeth. It is a dental consonant (a dental consonant). So are the d and the t. That explains why the n fits so well with the d and the t. The b is a consonant that you pronounce with the two lips together. It is a biliabial consonant (lip consonant). That is why in den boer is actually said dem boer. The n becomes an m and thus also becomes a lip consonant. An m and a b are perfectly easy to pronounce one after the other. With n followed by an r you can no longer make the n really audible, but in the transition between den and the r you can easily hear a remainder of the n. The r is pronounced with the tongue near the upper teeth. The dental consonant n in den actually disappears, but remains more or less in a nasal-sounding e in de before the r is pronounced. In the transition to a vowel, the n in den is preserved because the n here facilitates that transition. Pronouncing two vowels in succession is more difficult than placing an n between them. In all other cases it is not difficult at all to pronounce de without n. The son, the present, the moment, the window. (In Dutch it is of course the moment and the window, but in Brabant and Flemish it is the moment and the window.)

It is indeed strange that this does not happen with a p. A p is a bilabial consonant (a lip sound), so you would expect den to appear before it, just like a b. In fact, both de and den are perfectly pronounceable when followed by a word beginning with p. It must be ascribed to a coincidental development that the n in den is conserved at a following b (the n then becomes an m) and not at a following p.

We see something similar in Italian. You have an Italian name. Therefore, I suspect that the following digression is of some use to you. The Italian masculine definite article is il or lo. Both words evolved from the Latin accusative illum (= the demonstrative pronoun die). The m disappears, leaving illu. The u becomes an o. Then we have illo. And then it depends on which sound the next word begins with whether we are left with only the end of illo, namely lo, or only the beginning of illo, namely il. For example, we say il with il medico (the doctor), il cane (the dog), il gatto (the cat) and so on, but we say lo when the next word starts with:

s followed by another consonant (lo sbadiglio (the yawn), lo sdegno (the indignation) …)
z (lo zaino (the backpack), lo zio (the uncle) …)
x (lo xilofono)
gn (lo gnu (the wildebeest) …)
ps (lo psicologo …)
i od y (only when pronounced j) (lo yogurt)

And that same lo is shortened to l’ when a vowel follows (l’occhio (the eye)).

Here, too, everything has to do with ease of pronunciation. In il cane an l and a k easily follow each other in the pronunciation. With zaino it is easier to prefix lo than to prefix il. Just like with the farmer and the poater, you might also wonder why it is lo psicologo but not also lo posto. Well, it’s il posto. Why with p+s, but not with p alone? Well. Therefore. Because the language has evolved that way.

Sincerely,

Peter Debrabandere