(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
::::First of all, why are you refering to {{IPA|/ç/}} as a variant of {{IPA|/ɧ/}}? They are distinctly different phonemes and should not be considered variants of one another moreso than they are of /s/. They're all fricatives and they might be easy to confuse for non-native speakers, but that's about it. |
::::First of all, why are you refering to {{IPA|/ç/}} as a variant of {{IPA|/ɧ/}}? They are distinctly different phonemes and should not be considered variants of one another moreso than they are of /s/. They're all fricatives and they might be easy to confuse for non-native speakers, but that's about it. |
||
:::::I do not. I state that there are Swedish speakers who express their sje-sound ''rather as a variant of {{IPA|/ç/}},'' other produce it further back in the mouth, making it darker, {{IPA|[ɧ]}}, and for still others the locus of articulation is '''in front''' of that of {{IPA|[ç]}}, although the perceived sound is more similar to {{IPA|[h]}}, {{IPA|[w]}}, and {{IPA|[ɧ]}} than of {{IPA|[s]}}, {{IPA|[ |
:::::I do not. I state that there are Swedish speakers who express their sje-sound ''rather as a variant of {{IPA|/ç/}},'' other produce it further back in the mouth, making it darker, {{IPA|[ɧ]}}, and for still others the locus of articulation is '''in front''' of that of {{IPA|[ç]}}, although the perceived sound is more similar to {{IPA|[h]}}, {{IPA|[w]}}, and {{IPA|[ɧ]}} than of {{IPA|[s]}}, {{IPA|[ɕ]}}, or {{IPA|[ç]}}. /[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 10:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
::::As for the {{IPA|/ɧ/}} being pronounced labial; it has to do with what vowel the {{IPA|/ɧ/}} precedes. If it's a front vowel, it will be more labial. If it's a back vowel, it will be dorsal. Just try saying ''skida'' and ''sjal'' and you'll notice the difference. Quotes on this from literature on phonetics have been pasted in [[Talk:Voiceless_dorso-palatal_velar_fricative]]. The sound is however not '''bi'''labial, like /f/ and /v/, even when it does precede front vowels. This can be easily confirmed with a very simple experiment: |
::::As for the {{IPA|/ɧ/}} being pronounced labial; it has to do with what vowel the {{IPA|/ɧ/}} precedes. If it's a front vowel, it will be more labial. If it's a back vowel, it will be dorsal. Just try saying ''skida'' and ''sjal'' and you'll notice the difference. Quotes on this from literature on phonetics have been pasted in [[Talk:Voiceless_dorso-palatal_velar_fricative]]. The sound is however not '''bi'''labial, like /f/ and /v/, even when it does precede front vowels. This can be easily confirmed with a very simple experiment: |
||
Line 260: | Line 260: | ||
:::[[User:Johan Magnus|Johan Magnus]] 15:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Johan Magnus|Johan Magnus]] 15:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
::::Regardless of if the articulation '''really''' is bilabial or labiodental (in the most extreme case), there is a need for a notion of this allophone that we can agree on. |
|||
::::As already hinted at, I think the notion {{IPA|/ɧ/}} for the sje-phoneme is suboptimal and confusing. I would suggest {{IPA|/ʃ/}}. |
|||
::::Then there is the issue of its frontal allophone(s). |
|||
::::* [[Image:Rounded labiodental fricative.PNG|12 px]] is less than perfect, since it's not noted by IPA. |
|||
::::* {{IPA|ɧ<sup>f</sup>}} is to be written <nowiki>{{IPA| &#615;<sup>f</sup> }}</nowiki>, which is too complicated, and additionally it seems pretty much counterintuitive to use a sign for a sound that is ''defined'' as velar and postalveolar to denote a sound that ''lacks'' these qualities |
|||
::::* {{IPA|fʷ}} has the sole disadvantages that in any table over phonemes, the location for /f/ is already occupied (well, and then Lindblad disapproved of it) |
|||
::::* {{IPA|ɸ}} has been criticized by [[User:Karmosin|Isotalo]] since the sound is too different from {{IPA|ɸ}} in other languages, and it's also dubious whether there really exists a ''bilabial'' articulation or if the articulation in question is in fact ''labiodental'' |
|||
::::Could it maybe be a workable compromise to ''use'' {{IPA|fʷ}} but in tables ''place'' it at the location of {{IPA|ɸ}}? Is this a good usage? |
|||
::::One could then say that |
|||
:::::''{{IPA|[ ʃ ]}} and {{IPA|[ ʂ ]}} are differently articulated, but the difference is hard to perceive, which is also the case for {{IPA|[ fʷ ]}} and {{IPA|[ ɧ ]}}; they are all allophones of the phoneme {{IPA|/ʃ/}}, although {{IPA|[ ʂ ]}} is more common as the assimilation of {{IPA|/rs/}} in many dialects.'' |
|||
::::Are there any better alternatives? |
|||
::::/[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 11:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Since this is a general Swedish phonology there is no reasonable doubt of what symbol we should us. The differences in articulation we're discussing here are so detailed that they are irrelevant to almost everyone except phoneticians. I have yet to see any Swedish phonology that uses anything other than {{IPA|[ɧ]}}, and I have seen no relevant argumentation to the contrary. To be honest, I'd say we're by now bordering on [[Wikipedia:no original research|original research]]. |
|||
:::::I have the feeling that a lot of this discussion has to do with a perceived sense of Stockholm-centered linguistic hegemony of which I appear to be a representative. This is absolutely not the case. {{IPA|[ɧ]}} is a representation of all the similar sounds in all dialects and Standard Swedish variants that use it. Any truly subtle variations are best brought up in more specific articles like [[voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative]]. |
|||
:::::And above all, the only confusion of what {{IPA|[ɧ]}} actually is exists ''only among non-native speakers''. Native speakers simply do not have these problems even if they speak a variant that doesn't use {{IPA|[ɧ]}}. That this should make us deviate from well-established phonetic terminology or even describe it with symbols for sounds that don't actually exist in native Swedish vocabulary makes absolutely no sense. Especially now that we we even have actual recordings of the sounds. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 14:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:35, 18 March 2005
Discussion threads moved from Talk:Swedish language.
I think it was about time we had a separate article for this, and moving the discussions seemed like a proper move. Peter Isotalo 09:37, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Phonetics
When I did my edits, I just fixed the formatting - I apologize if I accidentally introduced any errors. I actually don't know much about the language, but in reading the article I noticed that it was asking someone to do an IPA transcription (which I do know how to do).
Anyway, I'll fix the phonetics. "put" for short 'a' should be "putt" instead. That's clearly a typo. Also, I don't agree with "weird" as being a model for IPA /e/. At least in American English, the sound in "weird" is /i/, not /e/. The closest sound to /e/ (at least in American English) is the 'ai' in "pail", as vowels preceding 'l' in English tend to automatically un-diphthongize. But I realize that in British RP the sound may be different...
ADDENDUM: I've clarified that pronunciations are for General American and not (for instance) RP.
ADDENDUM: I think the confusion over using "marsh" (not my idea!) as the English equivalent for 'sj' is that in most U.S. pronunciations - especially those using a retroflex 'r', as in the Texan dialect - the sequence 'rsh' gives a curvature to the tongue that creates a sound more similar to the 'sj' sound than anything else in English. In other words, it's a poor approximation that doesn't work for non-rhotic English dialects like RP and ENE/NY/Coastal Southern American.
Dave 06:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Swedish pronounciation is similarly differentiated as that of English, given the differences between Australian, American, RP, and not to forget Indian English. I think the best thing we Swedish speakers can do, is to ensure that the IPA transcriptions are right, then it's your call as English speakers to make further transcriptions to English.
;-) --Johan Magnus 12:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. If you make any changes to the phonetics, I'll fix the English.
Dave 17:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
More phonetics
Hello, native Swede here.
I see many (and sometimes rather large) problems with the IPA transcriptions, some of which I have altered. I discuss these and my other issues below, but I will not make upheaving changes myself; this post is intended as background information for future actions. Since I have no simple way of writing IPA characters directly here, I will use SMACKIE throughout this post.
Vowels
Firstly, there exist open allophones of 'ä' [E:] and 'ö' [ø:], namely [æ:] and [&:]. The shift is usually triggered by a following 'r', but some dialects ignore this or use the second variant all the time. I've added this information.
Secondly, I would not say that the short vowels are as uniform as they appear in the chart. For example, I don't accept out of hand that 'a', 'i' and 'y' must lose their tension when short; I can usually detect a clear difference between Swedish "sitt" and English "sit". Furthermore, 'e' can also retain its closed quality (and this isn't even necessarily a dialectal difference like the 'r+s' issue; there are many who would normally employ [E] that still differentiate between the two vowel sounds in, for example, "bekväm"). And short 'ä' should be [E], not [æ].
Consonants
Lots of strangeness here!
First of all: 'u' is not a back vowel. It is central, and even a bit closer to [y] than it is to [u].
On to the consonants:
'g' has three sounds: /g/ (hard), /j/ and /sj/ (soft). It's /sj/ in loan words like "garage", "genre", etc.
'k' does absolutely not have the sound of /sj/ -- and especially not the two variants (of at least three) listed! The soft 'k' phoneme is /tj/, which, like /sj/, is hard to define. I myself have found the best way to do it is to regard it as the unvoiced counterpart to /j/: [j°]. That is, an unvoiced approximant, which, like [w°], requires an increased airflow to be strong enough to be heard among the other sounds, and so can for all intents and purposes be labeled a fricative (but not one equal to [ç], since the position of the tongue does not change). The reason for this classification is that I feel that both [ç] and especially [C] (which are both used to denote /tj/ in various places) have too much turbulence for the actual spoken sound. Either way, equating soft 'k' with /sj/ is wrong -- the /sj/ and /tj/ sounds are wholly distinct.
Now, /sj/. As mentioned, there are three main allophones of this phoneme: [S], [s_] and [%]. How it is realized is heavily dependent upon regional customs, but there is also considerable overlap between the sounds. [S] is typically employed in loan words like "schlager" and "dusch" and is typically spelt "sch". However, not only can such words be pronounced using [s_] (or even [%]) instead, but [S] is also a direct "alternative" to [%], where the latter is typically used. For example, "sjösjuk" can be pronounced either ['%ø:'%ü:k] or ['Sø:'Sü:k]. The use of [S] in such circumstances seems to dominate among women, and so [S] is sometimes referred to as "fruntimmers-sje" ("womens' /sj/"). [s_] is usually the result of 'r+s', but it's not uncommon (especially in the northern parts) to use this sound for other types of /sj/; this is, I reckon, usually done for "proper" [S], but may also replace [%] (['s_ø:'s_ü:k] is not at all alien). So, in summary, the various realizations of /sj/ are a quagmire indeed (and there are probably even more sides to it than I have tried to bring up here). :)
Next up, calling the /sj/ realization of 'ch' hard and the /tj/ one soft (I presume this is what is meant, but, as outlined above, neither transcription is satisfactory) is not consistent with the 'sk' case: both sounds should be considered soft. Furthermore, the variation between /sj/ and /tj/ for 'ch' is also very unpredictable; some pronounce "chans" /sjans/, others say /tjans/. Now, actually, there is a hard variety of 'ch', namely [k] (as in "och"), but both this and the soft variation are wholly disconnected to the soft/hard vowel environment. Hence, the inclusion of 'ch' in the table, as it is, is misleading.
Continuing with the soft/hard consonant combinations, I would also object to the "single-type" ones' being labeled "hard" -- it would be better to just have one IPA column and instead have multiple rows for 'sk' ("sk (hard)" and "sk (soft)", for example), and possibly 'ch'. Also, as already explained, 'kj'/'tj' as [S] is inaccurate while the /sj/ entries need to include [S].
Finally, I would add the sequence 'gn', which is pronounced [Nn].
English
I would also like to comment a bit upon the English "equivalents".
First of all, I'm not so sure that having them is such a good idea in the first place. This is partly due to the fact that English and Swedish differ much in several basic phonetic areas, such as the purity of vowels and the presence/absence of affricates; therefore, any attempt to approximate the pronunciation using only English data will never give an adequate picture of the actual Swedish conditions. And partly, as Dave pointed out, in trying to circumvent these limitations by using more or less specialized phonetic occurrences, all those who are not familiar with the case at hand will be unable to understand what is meant. Can't we trust people who are interested enough to look at a phoneme table to interpret (or at least be able to look up) IPA only?
Now, if they are to stay, I would suggest making them more (in some cases, much more) refined, so as to not only constitute the one phoneme in English which is perceived as being closest to the Swedish one in question, but rather function as a reasonable approximation, in terms understandable to non-phoneticians. The current "level" is much too inconsistent on this point.
For some concrete examples, consider that:
1) it should be clearly stated that [e], [o] and [ø] are not diphthongs, so that only the first part of the English sound should be used
2) the description for [ü] seems fairly useless to me; would not the sound explained actually be [Y]?
3) [â] is a very poor approximation of our short 'a' [a]
4) stating that short 'å' is [O] == 'au' in "caught" is ambiguous, since if I'm not mistaken that is only valid for BE -- in AE, this vowel sound is usually [A] (and there is therefore a direct contradiction with the column header)
Reactions?
--LRC 20:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- My chief reaction is that one of the most frustrating aspects of learning Swedish is the exaggerated sureness many Swedes possess, that their personal dialect is the one and only correct variant. Rather than changing IPA-transcription back and forth, it would be of great value if it could be denoted which dialects use the different realizations of the variant vowel- and consonant sounds.
- As a sidenote, I discovered that you, LRC, changed the notion /sound/ to [sound], which I find astonishing, as I'm used to the convention that brackets are used for IPA-transcriptions of words but slashes for sounds. /Tuomas 00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree -- and that is precisely why I raised the issue; I find many of the current (or recent) claims to be too specific to be applicable to a general article about the Swedish language as an official entity. This is also the reason why I only made minor changes to the article itself, since if everyone changes stuff back and forth between "their" correct variants, things could get ugly (or at least confusing and misleading for people who actually want to discover something from reading the article).
- Now, your suggestion about identifying dialectal variations is, from a factual point of view, very good. However, there is also the question about how much of this information should be included in the main Swedish article, and what could/should be lifted to a separate article about Swedish dialects -- one which may even fit better in the Swedish version of Wikipedia. I myself have no objection to including such data in this article, but I am not familiar with the current view on how extensively this kind of "narrow" information is to be included in general-purpose articles -- for if we do start down this road, it will get extensive and would require the participation of a good number of Swedes. The alternative way would be to keep the article about "official Swedish" (rikssvenska, if you will) and just note that there are variants regarding certain things (such as my attempt with the open allophones of 'ä' and 'ö').
- And it is against this background that my post should be seen -- I reckon that this article should primarily (as in, where not stated otherwise) deal with rikssvenska and I tried to mark the portions where the text should be called into question on this point. I do believe that I tried to present a neutral case based on the Swedish that is taught in schools, and I apologize if I still came across as, as you put it, possessing an exaggerated sureness that my personal dialect (emphasis mine) holds sway, for that was not my intent. It should, however, be noted that my emphasis on the /sj/ vs. /tj/ issue is due to the fact that Swedish does possess both phonemes and they do form minimal pairs -- while it is true that not all speakers of Swedish may recognize the difference, you would never know about their co-existence from reading the current article. And this, I feel, is a serious fallacy, but I am uncertain as to how to go about integrating the information, as I tried to lay out earlier. In fact, there is probably material here for a whole separate article about sje and tje.
- Finally, regarding // vs. []. As far as I know, the convention is that phonemes are put between slashes, whereas the actual phonetic transcriptions (of phonemes, morphemes or words) are put within brackets. Example:
- in American English, /t/ can be realized as [t], [t^h] and [2]
- Seeing as how the schwa sound is not a contrasting phoneme in Swedish, but rather (as stated in the article) an allophone of 'e', I decided to change it. I must say that I find nothing particularly astonishing about it.
- Finally, regarding // vs. []. As far as I know, the convention is that phonemes are put between slashes, whereas the actual phonetic transcriptions (of phonemes, morphemes or words) are put within brackets. Example:
- --LRC 13:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My view, as someone who lived for four years in Sweden, and had started studying the language almost ten years before, is that the different high status varieties is a phenomenon extremely frustrating to cope with for students of Swedish, once the problem is recognized, and that these therefore better are given a prominent and non-biased coverage in this article. Details, peculiarities and other dialects are (imho) better to cover in specialized articles. If there somewhere should be a coverage specificly or exclusively for "rikssvenska", then that is preferably in the Sveamål article, which I guess rikssvenska in this context should be understood as.
In my opinion, this English language article probably best is (primarily) geared towards readers knowledgable and interested in general linguistics, but it can't be forgotten that foreign students of Swedish are likely to edit the article from time to time. Teachers of Swedish, and textbooks on Swedish, may have rather conflicting views on what's a "correct" realization of the initial sounds in skjära, tjära, stjärna, gärna, kär and skjär — to mention one of the most problematic issues. The article should not invite to changes back and forth by "forgetting" to mention these differences. Bättre att stämma i bäcken än i ån!
--Ruhrjung 14:19, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- My use of the term rikssvenska was unfortunate, since it as the article (correctly) states is both controversial and vague. In my circles, so to speak, it refers to some kind of (more or less imaginary) neutral and standardized dialect of Swedish; that is, a common template (or compromise) for the Swedish language as a singular entity. The news anchors of the national television channels are probably those who most would agree speak this "dialect". A better term for what I mean would perhaps be Swedish as it is taught in schools and is given in domestic dictionaries, which imho would be the best starting-point for a foreigner who wishes to learn (about) the language -- s/he can specialize hirself in a variety of choice later.
- As for your examples: I reckon anyone would be hard pressed to find any textbook which does not state that skära, stjärna and skär use "sje-ljudet" whereas tjära, kärna and kär use "tje-ljudet"; they may disagree upon how to pronounce them (and I know that some people are incapable of distinguishing some /sj/ relizations from a /tj/ one and vice versa), but the classification is certainly there. So, although there is considerable disagreement, if you will, regarding the realizations of /sj/ and /tj/, which I also tried to bring forth before, I will repeat that they are contrasting phonemes and should be treated as such, which I think the current article fails to do.
- --LRC 18:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I started to comment on this, but felt my old frustration shining through too obviously. Jumping over the comments, I would only like to stress that natives and non-natives most probably view this differently.
- What about three columns for pronounciation in the tables, one for high-status Götalandsmål (like Ljungby-variety or Lund-variety of Rikssvenska), one for "utjämnad" Finland-Swedish (that according to my perception phonetically would cover also the high-status Norrland-variety rather well) and one for high-status Svealand pronounciation (like Uppsala-variety of Rikssvenska)? Wouldn't that make these things less confusing?
- --Ruhrjung 20:56, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
- That might be a good idea (although I would emotionally protest against the notion of any Småland-dialect to be denoted as high-status variety. ...But I think I understand your thoughts. Educated, maybe even rural[1], dialects from the Ljungby area may be perceived as rather easy to comprehend for foreigners, and closer to the high-status variety people sometimes adopt in Lund than for instance the speech of Carl Bildt).
- --Johan Magnus 11:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pronunciation files and phonetics
I've added a bunch of pronounciations recorded by myself for almost all the vowels. Do you think we still need the English approximations?
Also, I definetly think we should remodel the phonetics tables. It doesn't make any sense to sort a guide on phonemes according to spelling. That should somehow be explained under Orthography. You can see how I structured it at svenska over att Swedish wikipedia. That seems more logical to me. - karmosin 07:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I went on and got bold and redid the tables. I've always been skeptic to approximations of phonemes, and now that I've recorded pronunciation files, it feels quite unnecessary. I know the .ogg-format isn't all that popular, but it's what we've got and it's probably better that we try to push it as much can than to ignore sounds altogether.
- I'm going to add comments about dialect variations on all the phonemes later, as well as a proper source. - karmosin 23:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I guess you will reinsert the contents of the remarks that got lost?
- Swedish pronunciation of consonants is similar to that of most other Germanic languages, including English.
- Some consonants and consonant combinations have both "hard" and "soft" sounds. These consonants are hard when preceding a back vowel (a o u å), and soft when preceding a front vowel (e i y ä ö).
- T, N, L, and to a lesser extent D are pronounced dentally (with the tongue touching the teeth instead of the hard palate).
- Following a long vowel, the combination R + an alveolar consonant (T, D, N, L, S) may be pronounced as a single retroflex consonant (ʈ, ɖ, ɳ, ɭ, ʂ). This change occurs in northern and middle Swedish dialects, and is not hindered by word-boundaries.
- The sound "sj" or soft "sk", (IPA ʂ ~ ɧ ~ ɸ) is listed here as "sh" as in "marsh", although there is considerable variation inbetween speakers of Swedish. See Voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative for more details.
/Tuomas 16:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, but more detailed. Don't worry, they'll be up in a week or so, and more specific to boot.
- The old tables weren't bad, but they were too concerned with orthography. I don't think orthography and phonetics shouldbe should be mixed up like that. I could use some help with the IPA. How do I write the two different kind of accents properly? You know, to separate "stegen" from "stegen" ("ladder" from "the steps"). - karmosin 16:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
tje-sje dichotomy
Being born in a northern neighbourhood of Stockholm, I do of course feel at home with the now simplified table that states:
Phoneme (IPA) |
graphemes | Pronunciation sample, IPA and translation |
---|---|---|
ʂ | rs, sch | /koʂ ʂlɑːgɛr/, "cross", "hit" (song) | kors, schlager,
ɧ | sj, stj, | /ɧʉː ɧæːɳa ɧʉːl/, "seven", "star", "shed" | sju, stjärna, skjul,
ç | k, tj | /çʉːr, çɪnd/, "bull", "cheek" | tjur, kind,
...but it must be concluded to be a gross oversimplification, not at all helpful neither to Swedes nor to non-Swedes. The sad truth is that Swedes use too many fricatives for their own good, and even Swedes with a good linguistic ear get problems to distinguish between, for instance, she/chess (/ʃ/ - /tʃ/)
The article would, in my humble opinion, gain a lot from introducing the concepts of morphemes and allophones — also for the particular variants of vowel-sounds coloured by 'r.' As far as I can see, /ʂ/ as used in the table above is the phonetic realization of two quite different things. On one hand, an assimilation of r+s, and on the other hand a realization of the morpheme that otherwise is sounded /ç/ or /tç/. Similarly /ɧ/, /ɸ/ and /ʃ/ are all allophones with similar function, that I believe one can demonstrate for oneself with simple minimal pair excercises.
The previous solution with allophones denoted in groups ( ʂ ~ ɧ ~ ɸ ) was definitely more instructive although I am a bit unsure about the details, since textbooks and teachers are so evasive on the subject. Which of the phonemes can be used both for tje- and sje-sounds?
/Tuomas 18:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, we could group the allophones together. But I don't think we should be moralizing over how many fricatives the Swedes use. :-)
- I don't quite understand what you mean by "rs" being used for /ç/ and /tç/, though. In what dialect would this occur? And in what words? - karmosin 20:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I have a proposal for how you should interpret that! :-)
- Schlager is a relatively recent borrowing from German, and different Swedish speakers nativize that word to their idiolect's phonology differently. Some make the initial sound to a loud and clear /s/, some make it a /ç/ or /ʂ/ which may sound rather strange and "accented" to some who have learned German, and others may use /ʃ/. Speakers take a suitable approximation from the set of sounds they are used to. But they don't believe it to be the same sound as the assimilation of r+s. The latter can be divided, for instance when singing or when speaking very slowly and with exaggerated clarity. The former can not. You see?
- However, it would be wrong to assume that the initial sound in Schlager is either a tje- or a sje-sound. If it was a tje-sound, then some people (who say /tç/ for tje-sounds) should say [tçla:ger], and I bet they do not. If it was a sje-sound, then people who say /ɸ/ for sje-sounds should say [ɸla:ger], and I bet they do not! :-)
- --Ruhrjung 21:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I see that you use the symbol 'ɸ' for the typical whistling-sound that is usual in Götaland for the sje-sound. However, are you really sure that 'β' wouldn't be more accurate? As far as I understand, the former is unvoiced and the latter is voiced. Isn't the whistling-sound initial to sked and sju in fact a voiced sound?
--Ruhrjung 21:42, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Seems unvoiced to me. But you are maybe right with regard to schlager.
- /Tuomas 14:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) :-)
- I am not unfamiliar with the use of /s/ when pronouncing schlager, but /ç/? In what dialects and in what contexts? Also I am a bit unsure about the description of schlager as perceived as a recent borrowing. It has been around in written Swedish since 1920 [2] and I have the impression that it has become completely assimilated into Swedish culture and language by now. The tabloid press coverage and the hysteria surrounding the Eurovision contests would seem as soild evidence of that, if anything.
- And then there's the voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative and it's allophones. I am a bit new to the discussion about this sound and phonetics in general, and I've read about certain Swedish dialects realizing that sound ɸ at the mentioned article, (though I can't see any further discussion about it). Here you also mention that β is a possible allophone of /ɧ/. This is completely new to me and I can't relate to it at all. Especially about some dialects realizing it as [ɸ], since I am familiar with the sound from my studies of Japanese. I know that /ɧ/ is often pronounced labially (see link for explanation and recording of the two variants), but bilabially? Sound downright foreign to me. :-)
- Could you quote some sources on this matter? karmosin 16:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- No, not really, since (which is already noted above) textbooks are evasive and Swedes are cronically confused on these issues, I've no memory of any good written sources. You have to learn it the hard way when you arrive to Sweden. But compare the sje-sounds of the following examples, which all demonstrates a sje-sound that is rather a variant of /f/ or /v/ than of /ç/, labial rather than dorsal:
- And more marketdly dialectal Scanian:
- /Tuomas 16:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Could you quote some sources on this matter? karmosin 16:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, why are you refering to /ç/ as a variant of /ɧ/? They are distinctly different phonemes and should not be considered variants of one another moreso than they are of /s/. They're all fricatives and they might be easy to confuse for non-native speakers, but that's about it.
- I do not. I state that there are Swedish speakers who express their sje-sound rather as a variant of /ç/, other produce it further back in the mouth, making it darker, [ɧ], and for still others the locus of articulation is in front of that of [ç], although the perceived sound is more similar to [h], [w], and [ɧ] than of [s], [ɕ], or [ç]. /Tuomas 10:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, why are you refering to /ç/ as a variant of /ɧ/? They are distinctly different phonemes and should not be considered variants of one another moreso than they are of /s/. They're all fricatives and they might be easy to confuse for non-native speakers, but that's about it.
- As for the /ɧ/ being pronounced labial; it has to do with what vowel the /ɧ/ precedes. If it's a front vowel, it will be more labial. If it's a back vowel, it will be dorsal. Just try saying skida and sjal and you'll notice the difference. Quotes on this from literature on phonetics have been pasted in Talk:Voiceless_dorso-palatal_velar_fricative. The sound is however not bilabial, like /f/ and /v/, even when it does precede front vowels. This can be easily confirmed with a very simple experiment:
- Pull down your lower lip towards your chin and hold it down while pronouncing the words skiva and skiffer. The /ɧ/s and all other sounds will be fully recognizable, but just try sounding the bilabial /v/ or /f/ properly without the use of both lips. karmosin 18:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Slight mistake in the example: /v/ and /f/ are of course labiodental, and not bilabial. They are, however, sounded with the lower lip. karmosin 11:46, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The tje- and sje-sounds are particularly problematic to discuss — for many reasons. One is the wide range of allophones, another is their obscurity. But the chief problem is the lack of coherence between different writers on Swedish phonology.
Your example above would work perfectly well within the phonological system of Stockholm-, or Mälardals-, dialects, but not with the examples Tuomas has given, that are all from Götaland. Unfortunately, I can not listen to the given .ogg-examples, but Tuomas' examples come through loud and clear.
Let me try to be a little bit more specific about what sound we here are aiming at. It might in the end get concluded, that the sound in reality is labio-dental just like /f/, however much more labialized and rounded, why one of many thinkable notations for the sound would be [fʷ]. Björn Lindström, one of the regulars at se.humaniora.svenska, maybe denotes the same sound as [ʍ], a Voiceless labial-velar fricative, and Jan Böhme, another regular at s.h.svenska, seemingly accepts the notion [w̥], a voiceless labial-velar approximant, although I strongly disagree with the idea that the sound we are trying to pin down should be velar. Quite the contrary, the important feature is that it in its pure or extreme form lacks the [ʁ]-like quality of [ɧ]. In fact, it can be described as a modification of /ɧ/ characterized by 1/ a relaxed tongue, 2/ narrowed jaws, and 3/ rounded lips.
The linguist Claes Garlén used the symbol [ ] in Svenskans fonologi i kontrastiv fonologisk belysning, published by Institutionen för nordiska språk, Stockholm, 1984. He writes on page 71: den primära förträngningen är labiodental (the primary occlusion is labiodental), but on the same page I'm not quite clear over whether he too uses this symbol for a velarized sound, or if the meaning is that he groups this sound together with the velarized [ɧ] as the "dark" sje-sounds that he says are the best to teach foreign students of Swedish instead of the "bright" [ʃ ~ ʂ] that are not as easy to differentiate/distinguish from the "bright" tje-sounds.
On the Wikipedia articles, one central issue is then whether the production of the sound is predominantly labiodental, or if it is bilabial sound which may be an idea I am responsible to have introduced here at Wikipedia. I don't know if I'm responsible, but it's not impossible. I am, however, not able to find any authority who would state so.
But since the sound can be taught by either labialization of /f/ or by starting at [pʰ], then during continued aspiration narrowing the jaws and/or lips back towards the start-position, I find it reasonable to (tentatively) classify the sound as bilabial.
--Johan Magnus 12:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's important to remember that these sounds are indiscrete in the meaning that they constitute a continuum, aproximately as follows:
- [ s ] — unvoiced alveolar fricative
- [ ɕ ] — unvoiced alveolo-palatal fricative
- [ ç ] — unvoiced palatal fricative
- [ ʃ ] — unvoiced postalveolar fricative (English: she)
- [ ʂ ] — unvoiced retroflex fricative
- [ ʃʷ ] — labialized postalveolar fricative (German: schön)
- [ ɧ ] or maybe [ ʃˠ ] — velarized palatoalveolar fricative
- [ ɧf ] — "labialized dorso-postpalatal" fricative or "velarized labiodental" fricative[4]
- [ ] or maybe [ fʷ ] — labialized voiceless labiodental fricative
- [ x ] — voiceless velar fricative
- [ χ ] — voiceless uvular fricative
- [ ɸ ] or [ ʍ ] or whatever symbol would be the correct one for a sound that I perceive as bi-labial and free of velar harshness
- (I am not clear over whether Leinonen (2004) who uses the symbol [ ɧf ] intends this to denote a sound distinguished from, or similar with, Lindblad's [ ].)
- I guess very few humans are able to distinguish between all of the sounds above. For instance, I believe I lump ʃ ~ ʂ together, like also ʃˠ ~ fʷ, and I wonder if I am, really, able to hear differences between ɕ ~ ç and x ~ χ with any degree of reprodubility.
- Similarly, it seems obvious for me that people speaking Southern rikssvenska often have about three states in their perception. A sound is either a /s/, or "a clean sje-sound" ([ ɸ ] or thereabout), or it is somewhere inbetween. The inbetween-area maybe covers ɧ ~ ʂ ~ ɕ and the correct interpretation must rely on cues outside of phonetics. In the same way, it seems obvious for me that speakers of Svealand rikssvenska also have about three states in their perception. A sound is either a /s/, or a ɕ ~ ʃ tje-sound, or a sje-sound (ɧ and beyond) with plenty of allophones due to phonological context and sociolinguistic factors.
- /Tuomas 09:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to see at least one study that confirms a pronounciation variation that is accomplished labiodentally like an [f]. It seems somewhat far-fetched to me.
- Per Lindblad (1988) did X-ray studies and concluded that his own occlusion for a sje-sound, aswell as that of another "South Swede", was labiodental, just like /f/, and contrary to half-a-dozen Svealand-Swedes in the study, that all raised the dorsum of their tongue against the velum, which makes the primary occlusion dorsovelar. He argues that the labialization is "secondary" in the meaning that it produces a resonance chamber between the lips and the teeth that increases the strength of the sound. He uses the notion [ ] and disapproves of [ fʷ ] since he thinks the auditive and functional differences to /f/ are too important. --Johan Magnus 15:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ...the primary occlusion of the airflow. Other occlusions deemed less important for the auditive impression of the sound. The reasoning by Garlén is rather brief, and there is not much more to quote, but the context is comparisons of primary occlusions for different fricatives, where the location and size of the occlusion gives the fricative its character, while the resonance space (usually) in front of the occlusion modifies it more or less. --Johan Magnus 15:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The bilabiality issue is somewhat vague, I agree. There is just one sentence in the longer citation of Ladefoged and Madiesson that mentions this:
- The sound in question is one variant of the pronunciation of the phonological element [ ʃ ] [i.e. /ɧ/], which is highly variable in Swedish dialects, receiving pronunciations ranging from a palatalized bilabial sound to a velarized palato-alveolar one to a fully velar one.
- I would like to see a study that can actually confirm this and specify in which dialect it occurs. Also, to describe it as a [ɸ] is not satisfactory if it's palatalized. There is a recoding of the [ɸ], that makes this quite obvious if you listen to it.
- http://www.nordiska.su.se/personal/riad-t/ArtikulatoriskFonetik.pdf refers to Gårding (1977) when it denotes one allophone of the sje-sound as "labial fricative" which can not be interpreted to be different from "bi-labial fricatives". I do not know what Gårding says in Gårding, E., 1977. The Scandinavian word accents. Lund: Gleerups. — but one wouldn't guess he has been particularly focused on sje-sounds. --Johan Magnus 19:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The discussion at Talk:Voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative explains why the interpretation should not be bilabial. The sound you described earlier was labial, for instance. Just not bilabial. Have you actually listened to the sound file at voiceless bilabial fricative? Peter Isotalo 11:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- To me it seems as if Per Lindblad's claim of more than one place of articulation being quite common might be more accurate than Ladefoged or Madiesson believe, but that's just a guess. It would at least explain a lot of the confusion about the whole labial discusssion. Peter Isotalo 10:13, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
- The issue here is not what's most common. That's put beyond question: The population that considers Svealand-fricatives most correct outnumbers the population that considers Götaland-fricatives as most correct — and also the Finland-Swedes. Nor is the issue here if Lindblad's claim of [ɧ] being articulated at two places at the same time is accurate or not. It's an unusual statement, in an international perspective, but I believe the view is accepted. However, with this definition of [ɧ], can it be used for a South-Swedish sje-sound that doesn't have any coronal consonant allophones?
- The chief issue here is, as I see it, if there at all exists (high-prestigeous) sje-realizations in the range fʷ ~ ɸ, or if the idea of a "bilabial" sound in the endpoint of a continuous series is a chimera that maybe after all rightfully should be characterized as a "rounded" or "labialized" "labiodental fricative", i.e. a "labialized /f/".
- And here comes my shortcoming. I interpret a "labialized f" as synonymous with a "bilabial fricative", i.e. with ɸ since it's unvoiced. Maybe I ought to be ashamed of my limited knowledge, but it's a dozen years since I followed lectures in linguistics, and I've not made much use of these concepts since then.
- Johan Magnus 15:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Regardless of if the articulation really is bilabial or labiodental (in the most extreme case), there is a need for a notion of this allophone that we can agree on.
- As already hinted at, I think the notion /ɧ/ for the sje-phoneme is suboptimal and confusing. I would suggest /ʃ/.
- Then there is the issue of its frontal allophone(s).
- is less than perfect, since it's not noted by IPA.
- ɧf is to be written {{IPA| ɧ<sup>f</sup> }}, which is too complicated, and additionally it seems pretty much counterintuitive to use a sign for a sound that is defined as velar and postalveolar to denote a sound that lacks these qualities
- fʷ has the sole disadvantages that in any table over phonemes, the location for /f/ is already occupied (well, and then Lindblad disapproved of it)
- ɸ has been criticized by Isotalo since the sound is too different from ɸ in other languages, and it's also dubious whether there really exists a bilabial articulation or if the articulation in question is in fact labiodental
- Could it maybe be a workable compromise to use fʷ but in tables place it at the location of ɸ? Is this a good usage?
- Then there is the issue of its frontal allophone(s).
- One could then say that
- [ ʃ ] and [ ʂ ] are differently articulated, but the difference is hard to perceive, which is also the case for [ fʷ ] and [ ɧ ]; they are all allophones of the phoneme /ʃ/, although [ ʂ ] is more common as the assimilation of /rs/ in many dialects.
- One could then say that
- Are there any better alternatives?
- /Tuomas 11:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since this is a general Swedish phonology there is no reasonable doubt of what symbol we should us. The differences in articulation we're discussing here are so detailed that they are irrelevant to almost everyone except phoneticians. I have yet to see any Swedish phonology that uses anything other than [ɧ], and I have seen no relevant argumentation to the contrary. To be honest, I'd say we're by now bordering on original research.
- I have the feeling that a lot of this discussion has to do with a perceived sense of Stockholm-centered linguistic hegemony of which I appear to be a representative. This is absolutely not the case. [ɧ] is a representation of all the similar sounds in all dialects and Standard Swedish variants that use it. Any truly subtle variations are best brought up in more specific articles like voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative.
- And above all, the only confusion of what [ɧ] actually is exists only among non-native speakers. Native speakers simply do not have these problems even if they speak a variant that doesn't use [ɧ]. That this should make us deviate from well-established phonetic terminology or even describe it with symbols for sounds that don't actually exist in native Swedish vocabulary makes absolutely no sense. Especially now that we we even have actual recordings of the sounds. Peter Isotalo 14:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)