▁the ▁di ph th ong al ▁pron unci ation ▁was ▁still ▁perce ived ▁as ▁un ref ined ▁and ▁' s ou thern ' ▁by ▁educated ▁speak ers ▁in ▁the ▁six teenth ▁century , ▁showing ▁that ▁the ▁change ▁had ▁not ▁yet ▁spread ▁to ▁all ▁areas ▁and ▁layers ▁of ▁Dutch ▁society ▁by ▁that ▁time . ▁ ▁Following ▁the ▁previous ▁change , ▁mon oph th ong isation ▁of ▁opening ▁di ph th ongs : ▁ ▁> ▁, ▁ ▁> ▁. ▁The ▁result ▁might ▁have ▁also ▁been ▁a ▁short ▁v owel ▁( as ▁in ▁most ▁Dutch ▁dialect s ▁today ), ▁but ▁they ▁are ▁known ▁to ▁have ▁remained ▁long ▁at ▁least ▁before ▁. ▁ ▁Begin ning ▁in ▁late ▁Middle ▁Dutch ▁and ▁continu ing ▁into ▁the ▁early ▁Modern ▁Dutch ▁period , ▁sch wa ▁ ▁was ▁slowly ▁lost ▁word - fin ally ▁and ▁in ▁some ▁other ▁un str essed ▁sy ll ables : ▁vr ou we ▁> ▁vr ouw , ▁he vet ▁> ▁heeft . ▁This ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁consist ently ▁however , ▁and ▁sometimes ▁both ▁forms ▁continued ▁to ▁exist ▁side ▁by ▁side , ▁such ▁as ▁mate ▁and ▁ma at . ▁ ▁Word - final ▁sch wa ▁was ▁restored ▁in ▁the ▁past ▁singular ▁of ▁weak ▁ver bs , ▁to ▁avoid ▁hom oph ony ▁with ▁the ▁present ▁third - person ▁singular ▁because ▁of ▁word - final ▁de vo icing . ▁However , ▁it ▁was ▁lost ▁in ▁all ▁irregular ▁weak ▁ver bs , ▁in ▁which ▁this ▁hom oph ony ▁was ▁not ▁an ▁issue : ▁irregular ▁d ach te ▁> ▁d acht ▁(