Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Moderator: Johanna

User avatar
Johanna
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6124
Joined: 2006-09-17, 18:05
Real Name: Johanna
Gender: female
Location: Lidköping, Westrogothia
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Johanna » 2016-01-18, 8:17

Woods wrote:Thanks!

What about ung – is it pronounced /ɵŋ/ or /ʉŋ/? (I’m using your symbols and terms, even though I’m not sure what some of them mean in advanced phonology :) I.e., is ng considered a digraph like sk?

Det var så lite :)

In most accents and dialects in Sweden, the pair is actually [ʉ̟ː] - [ɵ], that is the long version of the sound is almost as fronted as /ʏ/, and the main difference between it and /yː/ lies in the type of rounding, while the short version is a central sound, and almost as open as schwa.

The phonemes are usually written /ʉː/ and /ɵ/ respectively, and in Finland that's pretty much their exact pronunciation as well.

Yes, ⟨ng⟩ is a digraph and stands for /ŋ/. ⟨sk⟩ on the other hand is only a digraph before soft vowels - skära /ɧɛːra/ - while before hard vowels it's not - ska /skɑː/ - instead you need the trigraph ⟨skj⟩ there - skjul /ɧʉːl/

Woods wrote:I also thought that sköterskor would have a /ʃ/ – /’ɧøːtɛʃkʊr/ or /’xøːtɛʃkʊɾ/ as somebody presented it to me. Are these /-rs-/ and /-ʂ-/ standard pronunciation? And what exactly is /ʂ/?

[ʂ] is a voiceless retroflex fricative, it's pretty much [ʃ] pronounced a bit further back in the mouth and with the tip of your tongue bent backwards a little. The same goes for [ʈ] in relation to [t], [ɖ] to [d] and [ɳ] to [n].

Down south where they have an uvular /r/ and in Finland they don't assimilate /rs/ into [ʃ] or [ʂ], so when writing the phonemes rather than phones you've got to keep them separate. That's also the reason why you write /ɧ/ rather than anything else, since the actual realisation of that phoneme varies a lot throughout the Swedish-speaking area, down south it's always [x] or something close to it, around here it's that in some positions and [ɕ~ʃ~ʂ] in others, up north it's always [ʂ], and in Finland the standard pronunciation is [ɕ~ʃ].

The way the standard accent is described, /rs/ is assimilated into [ʂ] rather than [ʃ], but to be honest, I doubt anyone south of Sundsvall would hear the difference, and the exact sound depends on which ones come before or after anyway, borste is [bɔʂːʈɛ] since because of the assimilated /rs/ the /t/ needs to be retroflex, [ʈ], and that makes [ʂ] the only option, while fors is usually [fɔʃː] since there's no other retroflexes around so you don't have to pronounce the assimilated /rs/ that far back.

Woods wrote:What? Was it more common to hear /ɛr/ than /ʊr/ before the spread of the standard language? And why would it be chosen then?

Yes it was, and it still is among people over 50 or so, and in many parts of the country it's still the one most kids use, but it's not the most densely populated areas.

And it is like this because the standard accent was modelled on the written language rather than the other way around, and the -or ending was there because it's a remnant of the old -ur suffix that you find in Faroese and Icelandic. It might exist in a few dialects still, but none of which the written standard was modelled upon, in it it's there for purely etymological reasons.

Not that there is such a thing as an official standard accent these days though, but there is a sort of media one that's thought of like it, and it shares a lot of traits with that old standard one that they tried to force onto everyone for about a century.

Woods wrote:In Danish and standard Norwegian (as far as I know) it’s nice there’s only one ending (-er), whereas in Swedish there are so many (or, ar, er) and that’s so confusing.

That's Bokmål only, Nynorsk has -ar too, but it's used in a much more regular manner than in Swedish, I'll give you that. Danish has -e and -er, and a quick look says there are rules for when to use what, but that there are also quite a few exceptions.

The thing is, it's not that hard to know when to use -or, first of all the noun has to be common gender, and except for in a few cases (e.g. ros - rosor) they all end in -a. Hylla - hyllor, råtta - råttor, jacka - jackor, mössa - mössor... This works both ways, when a noun is common gender, has two syllables and end in -a, you can be sure its plural is -or.

There is an equivalent for -ar: common gender nouns that have two syllables and end in -e. Kudde - kuddar, måne - månar... But yeah, contrary to -or there are many more nouns that don't follow this pattern but end in -ar nevertheless, like säng - sängar, stig - stigar, häst - hästar...
Swedish (sv) native; English (en) good; Norwegian (no) read fluently, understand well, speak badly; Danish (dk) read fluently, understand badly, can't speak; Faroese (fo) read some, understand a bit, speak a few sentences; German (de) French (fr) Spanish (es) forgetting; heritage language, want to understand and speak but can't.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-01-18, 20:36

Tack en gång till :)

Men jo mer du lär mig nya saker, jo mer har jag nya frågor!


⟨sk⟩ on the other hand is only a digraph before soft vowels - skära /ɧɛːra/ - while before hard vowels it's not - ska /skɑː/ - instead you need the trigraph ⟨skj⟩ there - skjul /ɧʉːl/

So, what are soft vs. hard vowels?


[ʂ] is a voiceless retroflex fricative, it's pretty much [ʃ] pronounced a bit further back in the mouth and with the tip of your tongue bent backwards a little.

That makes sense.


The same goes for [ʈ] in relation to [t], [ɖ] to [d] and [ɳ] to [n].

That doesn’t :) What languages/words are you talking about?


I doubt anyone south of Sundsvall would hear the difference

Well, at least you got me to pronounce the [ʂ] a little bit “further back in the mouth and with the tip of my tongue bent backwards a little” :)


since because of the assimilated /rs/ the /t/ needs to be retroflex, [ʈ]

Now I’m kind of trying to figure out what the retroflexion means. It should be a typically Swedish thing – most of the examples in the Wikipedia article are from Swedish. There’s also one from Russian/Polish, and we’ve got the same word in Bulgarian – жаба (which they’ve transcribed as /’ʐaba/, I would transcribe that as /’ʒaba/ though, and I’m not kind of sure if Russian/Polish and Bulgarian sound the same in regards to this (retroflex?) sound.


And it is like this because the standard accent was modelled on the written language rather than the other way around

Am I the only one to whom it would be totally annoying to have to write -or if I pronounced the thing as -er?


The thing is, it's not that hard to know when to use -or, first of all the noun has to be common gender, and except for in a few cases (e.g. ros - rosor) they all end in -a. Hylla - hyllor, råtta - råttor, jacka - jackor, mössa - mössor... This works both ways, when a noun is common gender, has two syllables and end in -a, you can be sure its plural is -or.

Wow, that’s grammar I wasn’t aware of. You know, my Swedish is pretty much on an elementary level, I think, for now, unfortunately :(

So can I think of -or as the common gender plural ending for two-syllable words ending in -a only? (with a few exceptions :D Are there such rules as of when to use -er and -ar? (There are no more endings, are there?)

Ah, indeed you answered my last question as well – but you see, the patterns get mixed up and at the end it gets super hard to know what ending to use.

(You don’t have to tell me everything… I’ll probably find this in grammar books later on – so feel free to skip the last two questions, for now your advice on phonology is much more appreciated!)

On another topic (not that I have anything against dialects – on the contrary, they’re great, but maybe more in a spoken form than as separate written norms) – I’m really surprised that nynorsk still has fans, books get printed in that language and so on, with only 12% of the population living in municipalities where this is the official form (according to Wikipedia).

User avatar
Johanna
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6124
Joined: 2006-09-17, 18:05
Real Name: Johanna
Gender: female
Location: Lidköping, Westrogothia
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Johanna » 2016-01-18, 22:05

Woods wrote:Tack en gång till :)

Men jo ju mer du lär mig nya saker, jo ju mer nya frågor har jag nya frågor!


Woods wrote:So, what are soft vs. hard vowels?

It's basically a front vs central/back distinction, the soft vowels are ⟨e i y ä ö⟩ and the hard ones are ⟨a o u å⟩.

Woods wrote:
Johanna wrote:The same goes for [ʈ] in relation to [t], [ɖ] to [d] and [ɳ] to [n].

That doesn’t :) What languages/words are you talking about?

Swedish. In all Sweden-Swedish accents that have an alveolar /r/, /rt/ assimilates to [ʈ], /rd/ to [ɖ], /rn/ to [ɳ], and we've already covered how /rs/ becomes [ʂ] or [ʃ].

Woods wrote:Now I’m kind of trying to figure out what the retroflexion means. It should be a typically Swedish thing – most of the examples in the Wikipedia article are from Swedish. There’s also one from Russian/Polish, and we’ve got the same word in Bulgarian – жаба (which they’ve transcribed as /’ʐaba/, I would transcribe that as /’ʒaba/ though, and I’m not kind of sure if Russian/Polish and Bulgarian sound the same in regards to this (retroflex?) sound.

It's a typically North-Germanic thing, in Norwegian it works exactly like in Sweden-Swedish, and in Faroese they keep the /r/ separate from the next consonant, but it still makes it retroflex, so /rd/ for example becomes [ɹɖ̥].

South Asian languages are littered with retroflexes as well, but they have a completely different history in those.

Woods wrote:Am I the only one to whom it would be totally annoying to have to write -or if I pronounced the thing as -er?

I didn't say it was a good thing, I despise spelling pronunciations and the way they're taking over the language, and it had been a much smaller problem if the orthography had actually made sense.

As for the rest, I'm answering that in the discussion thread since it's about grammar rather than pronunciation :)
Swedish (sv) native; English (en) good; Norwegian (no) read fluently, understand well, speak badly; Danish (dk) read fluently, understand badly, can't speak; Faroese (fo) read some, understand a bit, speak a few sentences; German (de) French (fr) Spanish (es) forgetting; heritage language, want to understand and speak but can't.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-01-19, 22:35

I didn't say it was a good thing, I despise spelling pronunciations and the way they're taking over the language, and it had been a much smaller problem if the orthography had actually made sense.

What were the ideas behind modern Swedish orthography indeed?

For the rest, I will review and reread your advice on the different types of sounds. One day, I may actually go through the whole "Swedish pronunciation" thread... I remember myself asking a lot of pronunciation questions about three years ago... I guess you guys have moved them all there :)

User avatar
Johanna
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6124
Joined: 2006-09-17, 18:05
Real Name: Johanna
Gender: female
Location: Lidköping, Westrogothia
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Johanna » 2016-01-25, 12:15

Woods wrote:
I didn't say it was a good thing, I despise spelling pronunciations and the way they're taking over the language, and it had been a much smaller problem if the orthography had actually made sense.

What were the ideas behind modern Swedish orthography indeed?

Damn, I missed your reply :oops:

The general idea was to make it simpler, the problem was that they pretty much stopped at /v/ always being represented by ⟨v⟩, /eː/ by ⟨e⟩*, and /ɛː/ by ⟨ä⟩*, and it also had some stupid baggage from a century or two before that they didn't get rid of, like how when /ð/ was dropped in certain positions, it went from ⟨dh⟩ to ⟨d⟩... The same for /ɣ/, when it was actually pronounced it was written ⟨gh⟩, when it became silent it was still there in the form of ⟨g⟩**. They also totally scrambled ⟨e⟩ and ⟨ä⟩ when they stood for the short versions of the sounds, and for no good reason really.

So what we ended up with was an orthography that neither makes sense from an etymological point of view, nor represents the pronunciation very well.

* It's still not perfect, but that has more to do with different dialects and accents preferring one sound over the other in certain words, for example det är is pronounced either /deː eː/ or /dɛː ɛː/, both are equally correct and neither is seen as substandard.

** This is why jag is pronounced /jɑː/.


Woods wrote:For the rest, I will review and reread your advice on the different types of sounds. One day, I may actually go through the whole "Swedish pronunciation" thread... I remember myself asking a lot of pronunciation questions about three years ago... I guess you guys have moved them all there :)

That sounds like a good plan :)

Actually, there are still lots of questions about pronunciation in the Swedish discussion thread, I just saw the opportunity when dEhiN created this thread, and it had gone on for a little while, to make it into a general thread for questions on the topic, so that they didn't disappear among everything else. But since it's rather new, moving the old stuff here without messing it up would be very difficult, especially since a lot of posts are about more than pronunciation.

And while we're still a bit OT, I want to give you a tip: if you include the person's name in the quote tag, like I've done with yours, they will get a notification that someone has answered to their post :)
Swedish (sv) native; English (en) good; Norwegian (no) read fluently, understand well, speak badly; Danish (dk) read fluently, understand badly, can't speak; Faroese (fo) read some, understand a bit, speak a few sentences; German (de) French (fr) Spanish (es) forgetting; heritage language, want to understand and speak but can't.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-01-27, 14:05

Johanna wrote:Damn, I missed your reply :oops:

No worries :)

Sometimes I need more time to review yours, but your advice is always super helpful.


Johanna wrote:I want to give you a tip: if you include the person's name in the quote tag, like I've done with yours, they will get a notification that someone has answered to their post :)

Well, I wasn’t quite sure how to edit the quote tag to do that, but okay – I needed to click on the quote button to see :)


Johanna wrote:what we ended up with was an orthography that neither makes sense from an etymological point of view

Well yeah… sometimes I see words like säsong… For a French speaker that looks really awful!

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-01-27, 14:10

By the way, is there any probability for future reforms, taking the language back to a more etymological type of writing?

I'm also curious when the last reforms took place?

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2819
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2016-01-27, 18:53

Woods wrote:By the way, is there any probability for future reforms, taking the language back to a more etymological type of writing?

No. :(

On the other hand, everyone is free to use the language, so it should be possible for a dedicated group to accomplish something along those lines, at least among themselves. I once talked with a woman who had used Linear B for corresponding in Swedish with someone, and she said that it worked fine. :D

For my part, in the dialect thread, I have not changed the spelling, but tried to correct and expand it a little. This is done with a phonemic purpose, so etymology has had no part there. :|

Woods wrote:I'm also curious when the last reforms took place?

Shorter forms of some words have become normalised in writing, such as ska, bli, ha, but only for some, while other shorter spoken forms are not written.
In the 1960s titles as address were replaced with the du pronoun.
In 1945 the last remnants of personal verb endings were abolished.
In 1906 -fv- -f -dt hv- were abolished.
Masculine and feminine gender were abolished in 1900.
There was some e/ä and o/å change in the 1880s or something, and qv- became kv- in 1889. The spelling was relatively stable after being defined in 1801, but in the 1860s things became more fluid, and there were several decades of spelling strife thereafter. Things had calmed down by 1900, and the 1906 change was very unexpected. It was suddenly executed by the minister for church and education, and it changed what did not need to change, while it left what needed change unchanged. :(
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Voicing of final consonants d, g, b, v

Postby Woods » 2016-03-27, 11:07

How much are consonants at the end of words voiced in Swedish?

Do they sound like German – completely unvoiced (die Hand = /di hant/, der Hund = /deɐ hunt/ and so on), like in English or French – very well pronounced and voiced (the dog = /ðə dog/, god = /god/ etc.), or something in between?

How would you pronounce the following words (it would be great if you could provide more examples):

själv – /ɧelv/ or /ɧelf/
dag – /dag/ or /dak/ (well I guess it’s /da:/ and it’s not a good example... can we think of a different one – maybe väg – /veg/ or /vek/?
gud – /gyd/ or /gyt/
ulv – /ɵlv/ or /ɵlf/… or /ɵl/ – maybe not a good example again?
snabb – /snab/ or /snap/

Is there a firm rule or does it depend on the word? And if there is one (like for example, they’re all something between voiced and unvoiced – I’m just guessing) – does it apply to all four or do they act differently?

I think d/t, g/k, b/p and v/f are the only pairs that can be both voiced and unvoiced in Swedish – I don’t miss anything, do I?

I exclude words like ord where the final sound is not one that can be either voiced or unvoiced (r, l, m, n, ŋ, I don’t know if there are any other ones), and sounds that do not have the voiced equivalent in Swedish – /ʃ/, /s/, /h/).


P.S. (on a previous topic) Johanna, yesterday I heard an example of someone saying /'roser/ instead of /'rosor/ (in a song) and I checked - the singer is from Stockholm. Very strange :) But I guess I myself will say /'rosor/ - since I'm a foreigner, if both are accepted, I guess it'll be better to go with the pronunciation that coincides with the writing.

Allekanger
Posts: 238
Joined: 2012-04-12, 19:41
Real Name: Alex
Gender: male

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Allekanger » 2016-03-29, 8:18

There is a difference between /p t k/ and /b d g/ in final position, so all of your examples are pronounced with a voiced consonant. Regarding the degree of voicing, I'd say my own pronunciation of final /b d g/ is certainly unaspirated and slightly voiced, I think. My final /p t k/ are voiceless and aspirated.

The difference in voicing remains between /f/ and /v/ as well, so /ɧɛlv/ is pronounced with two voiced final consonants. This contrast can be seen in your example ulv /ɵlv/ and the given name Ulf /ɵlf/. It was originally the same word, but the latter got its pronounciation from the way its written (another example of that famous spelling pronunciation that Swedish speakers are so very good at).

You can tell from the spelling whether the consonant is voiced or not. I can't think of any exceptions...
Når trollmora lagt di elva små trolla å bunde fast dom i svansen
Då sjunger o sakta för elva små trolla di vackresta orl o känner
O aj aj aj aj buff...


- svenska, English, español, 日本語, eesti keel, (julevsámegiella, kalaallisut).

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2819
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2016-03-30, 21:36

Allekanger wrote:You can tell from the spelling whether the consonant is voiced or not. I can't think of any exceptions...

There are always cases like dag-dags (da-daks) and hav-havs (hav-hafs).
Woods wrote:yesterday I heard an example of someone saying /'roser/ instead of /'rosor/ (in a song) and I checked - the singer is from Stockholm. Very strange But I guess I myself will say /'rosor/ - since I'm a foreigner, if both are accepted, I guess it'll be better to go with the pronunciation that coincides with the writing.

The -or is an artificial pronunciation that was supported by the government and used in rikssvenskan, while -er is the traditional and folkish pronunciation, that was discouraged by the government. Depending on who you ask, both are unaccepted, but in different circles, similar to thick l.
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-03-31, 10:57

Thank you both guys for the clarification.

Jürgen, what is "thick l?"

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2819
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2016-03-31, 16:59

Woods wrote:what is "thick l?"

Swedish has several l-sounds, and one of them has been rather ill treated by the authorities in recent centuries, and that is the thick l (tjockt l).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroflex_flap
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjockt_l
This l occurs in medial and final positions in certain surroundings, so generally when you have -l- and -l in the spelling it is thick, with some exceptions, while l- and -ll- and -ll are thin.

An example of exceptions, then: A nearby t or d often results in thin l, so tält and äldre have thin l, while valv, klen, bläck have thick l.

Official Swedish does not have thick l, but lots of Swedish speakers do have it, although its use might be lessening.
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-03-31, 19:21

Can you find a sample (a song, a verse, a link to an online dictionary with recorded spelling or anything) where I can hear the distinction? Is it something like the difference between English l (thick) and French/German l (thin)?

I'll try to have a look at the articles, but I'm not sure I'll understand (not now though, if I don't go to sleep I'll die :doggy: ).

User avatar
hashi
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 9170
Joined: 2008-11-02, 2:39
Gender: male
Country: NZ New Zealand (New Zealand / Aotearoa)
Contact:

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby hashi » 2016-03-31, 22:40

English doesn't have a thick l, although some dialects do have a dark l (which is an entirely different thing).

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-04-01, 7:41

hashi wrote:English doesn't have a thick l, although some dialects do have a dark l (which is an entirely different thing).

Well, I'm just trying to compare this thick l to something - and I guessed it might be just darker, compared to the one that is not thick, like English l is compared to the French one. So it's something different, okay :)

Why some diaclects - as far as I've been aware, all (major) English dialects have only this darker, front l, different than the clear one in German, French, Spanish, Italian, Danish etc.

Oslo Norwegian seems to me to have the exact same dark l that English has. I haven't noticed it being used along with a different one by the same speaker.

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2819
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2016-04-02, 11:58

Woods wrote:Can you find a sample (a song, a verse, a link to an online dictionary with recorded spelling or anything) where I can hear the distinction?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1MfXTdEzL4
This rather ugly song from 1981 or something has "tjockt l" (here written L) in äLva (älven) in several places, starting at 0:21, and struLa at 0:39, pLättä 1:04, but thin l in valsa 1:07, thick in möLjä 1:12, lång 1:14, ledi 1:32, vallen 1:34, stalle 1:39, 1:41 (<det>), taLa 1:42.

Thick l is articulated at the same spot as retroflex rd, and has often been replaced by rd in modern speech due to the spelling (gård) while some words retain an l spelling (svål, stel), thus making the non-L speakers using an ahistoric thin l here in their spelling pronunciation.
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-04-05, 20:21

Hi Jürgen (should I write the dots actually?), thanks a lot for the reply! I'll listen to the song one of the next days and then probably ask more questions :)

User avatar
Jurgen Wullenwever
Posts: 2819
Joined: 2009-04-10, 19:32
Gender: male
Country: SE Sweden (Sverige)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Jurgen Wullenwever » 2016-04-06, 19:32

Woods wrote:Hi Jürgen (should I write the dots actually?)

That depends on your purpose.

-If you want to write correct German you should. :evil:

-If you just want to write my username you should not, since I do not. I just happened to choose that internet alias when I joined another forum in 2005, and this historical character JW had a surname with approximately the same meaning as mine. :twisted:
Chekhov wrote:I don't know about naive worldviews, but Jurgen Wullenwhatever pisses me off to no end because of his extreme pessimism and cynicism. You'd think the world was going to end imminently when talking to that guy.

Jag är rebell: jag sockrar teet, saltar maten, cyklar utan hjälm, och tänder glödlampor.

User avatar
Woods
Posts: 244
Joined: 2007-11-14, 12:43
Gender: male
Location: Aarhus
Country: DK Denmark (Danmark)

Re: Svenskt uttal / Swedish pronunciation

Postby Woods » 2016-04-10, 8:40

Well, if you named yourself after this historical German person, then I think I should :)

I listened to the song – I cannot hear very clearly, but it sounds a little bit more like r. I’ll be aware of it and notice it if I hear speakers use it in the future. So this is disappearing, right? I cannot say I like it, based on the song :)

Otherwise my overall impression of the Swedish l is that it's somewhere between French and Finnish l (the French one being as clear as possible and the Finnish one being darker, but not as dark as the English one). But there might be ten more types of Swedish l I'm not yet aware of :ohwell: There seems to be more to Swedish pronunciation than one could imagine :)

But it's becoming my favourite language for pronunciation analysis (maybe because of you guys) :ohwell:

...I'm listening again, it really sounds like r.


Return to “Swedish (Svenska)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest