As I tried to point out earlier, authors like P. Hedelin and K. Garlén describe the educated, non-regional, «neutral» accent; how to put the blame on them, in that respect?! It's like you expected to find glottal stops in EPD or LPD transcriptions...
I believe that one of the major problems of some pronunciation dictionaries, like the Swedish ones, is to confuse between phonemic & phonetic levels (probably not in theory, but in their very transcriptions); I'm convinced a good pronunciation dictionary should provide purely phonemic transcriptions – also providing a careful description of their actual realisations, of course!
Anyway, all that you had pointed out is highly intriguing!!
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:My speech has only the back sound [x] for back "sj".
I listened to some recording of yours, and to those of some other Swedish speakers, and it's actually roðunded: [xʷ].
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:Now in the initial descriptions of the books, they actually say that they primarily mean the back dorso-velar sound, but use the double sign phonemically to adhere to all types of "sj" sounds, so they have their backs covered, but the dictionary might be misinterpreted by the casual reader, who will imagine a very difficult sound, instead of the actual simple one.
Here the purpose of the authors isn't completely inconsistent, I reckon, as their transcriptions show much many details to be phonemic, but they use a diaphone(me) for the «sj-sound». :/
Actually, a good neutral Swedish accent has a velarised postalveo-palatal «[ʆᶭ]» or, using more official symbols [ ʃʲˠ]; thus it has (or «should have») both a dorso-potalveo-palatal articulation and a slight/lax dorso-velar one.
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:{...} the usual is back [x], and the other is front [ɕ]. Some words always have [x], other words always have [ɕ], and some words can have both, depending on the speaker.
All the words you recorded have the back articulation:
would you please give me some words where you pronounce the front(er) allophone/taxophone? And some where I can find both?
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:To make things worse, the [ɕ] is also the way to say "tj" and "rs".
{...}
They then, as most other descriptions of Swedish, differentiate two actually similar sounds, [ɕ] and [ʂ], which is unnecessary. They and their surroundings perhaps speak like that, but many do not nowadays.
Do you merge "tj" & (the front) "sj" altogether in the same phone(me)? And do you seriously pronounce "rs" the same way?!? It's very surprising to me, although I realise they have different distribution, then there'll hardly be any homophonous words.
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:The distribution of [ɽ] follows some general principles, but then there are a number of exceptions.
I wasn't aware of this variant. It seems to me like the sound which is frequent in Norwegian for /l/ in the Oslo area.
Can you give me some more hints of the distribution of this sound in the lexicon: where is it avoided?
Jurgen Wullenwever wrote:{need to sleep}
Sleep tight.