Talk:Swedish phonology/Archive 2

message: I made a mess here just this hour. 
Booze might have been instrumental.
All in all, the effect was that when I tidied up, I did edit the intro.
The reason for this was that I thought it needed wikification, and that it wouldn't be right to expect someone else to do it - neither did the wikification-banner look nice on top of the article.
In the process, I commented out the following:
:which are all regional variations of orginally central Swedish dialects spoken around the capital of Stockholm, as well as local dialects. The latter are seperate from the regional varieties and all have an individual linguistic history that can be traced back to Old Norse.
It's no secret that I disagree, but my point here is that in any case, this is not a theory fit for the introduction. It's neither sufficiently important nor established.
This was not really intended as a slap in the face of Inter's request to abstentation from edits — you see, I didn't revert back to Johan's version, which had been much easier — I was only disturbed by the incoherence with common layout for Wikipedia articles. 
/Tuomas 15:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikified 

message: The /r/-phoneme can (in Swedish) be realized as alveolar trills, uvular and velar trills, as a voiced sibilant and as retroflex assimilations. I hold it to be too limited to link the /r/-phoneme to alveolar trills. 
Peter proposes (above):
:...is as far a I know perceived by most people as an alveolar trill, even when allophones are used.
This I find hard to believe. I don't think people perceive in terms of phones at all, but in phonemes. Peter is of course invited to present support for his knowledge.
I change this back to /r/-phoneme.
--Johan Magnus 07:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alveolar trill]], [[trill consonant]], and the /[[r]]/-phoneme 

message: First, this page doesn't mention anything about the retroflex n, which is as common as the s, d, t, l mentioned. Second, I would say that Swedish has a retroflex r in the word karl, (although not the name Karl). Would anybody agree with me, or is this only a strange idea I have picked up from an obscure dialect. I live in Stockholm, by the way... =S Also, I think the curse "fan" have a unique vowel glide or something. Something like a quick X-Sampa /A:a/ , it could possibly be due to the intonation, though. (unsigned)
:We simply haven't gotten to it due to all the disputes. :-/ You're absolutely right about the retroflex consonants, though. They are common and they will be mentioned. However, I would say that karl (as in "man") is pronounced  with an alveolar approximant rather than a retroflex one. I'd say that  is used by some people, but that it's far less common than . The retroflex approximant seems to me like distinctly masculine, working class or particular to older (45+) native Stockholmers. This is going purely on my own gut feeling of how it sounds, though.
:All of the tables are intended to be be phonemical with the actual realizations discussed in text, so  that's why "/r/ + dental consonant"-combinations aren't in there. The vowel glide of fan seems right to me, but it's hard to tell without a recording. Peter Isotalo 14:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Retroflex n ought of course be mentioned.
:Glides is a more complex issue. As a rule, Swedes tend to recognize their own usage as monophthongs also when others would identify diphthongs or triphtongs. Some words are deliberately pronunced in a less prestigeous way by many speakers; chiefly the Swedish counterparts to four-letter words: Fan ("the devil") is a common swear word, and as such often pronunced with more of a glide.
:--Johan Magnus 21:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroflex 

message: Rättade lite stavfel.
(posted at 11:47, July 1 2005 by 213.115.224.7)
Translation:
Corrected some spelling errors.
:The somewhat nonstandard spelling is intentional (it's used in the text it was taken from) and I would really prefer if it stayed that way. Also please take more care when changing things like andra to andre, because that's not what is said in the recording. For those who don't know Swedish the difference lies in gender declension. Den andra means "the other" and can be either female or gender neutral. Den andre, however, can only be used when refering to someone or something masculine.
:Peter Isotalo July 1, 2005 11:56 (UTC)
::This difference is of course a frozen relict from Old Swedish. In Old Swedish one would have: þenn aðri (masc. > den andre), þenn aðra (fem. > den andra) and þet aðra (neut. > det andra). (Here ðr comes from an older nnr which is restored in Modern Swedish though with an extra d.)
::Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling errors

message: User:Imiraven I examined the long vowel represented by "a" in the word "dag". It sounds very similar to the long vowel in English "caught".
:Yeah, it's similar, but it's not nearly as rounded.
:Peter Isotalo 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The long "a" in Swedish is controversial

message: Appearently the text was supposed to be written with non-standard spelling, but I think that it should at least be said somewhere that it is. Aszev 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordanvinden 

message: Unless the speaker of Standard Swedish in question has a more or less severe speaking disorder, västkustskt is pronounced not more assimilated than "västkuskt". (Not even in very v e r y quick speech it may become "västkust" since it is more probable that it'd become "vässkuskt" at an earlier stage of assimilation thus giving "vässkust" in quick speech.)
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Västkustskt pronounced "västkust"!?

message: Why doesn't the article claim that Swedish has long consonants when it claims that Swedish has long vowels? A broad transcription of e.g. matt as  but mat as  is very inconsistent. If the broad transcription is supposed to be consistent, one should instead write matt  vs mat , right? The broad transcription of the inventory of vowel phonemes can be grouped into the two disjoint groups of long and short vowels, i.e.
:Vlong = { ; ; ; , ; ; ; ;  }
and
:Vshort = { ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  },
respectively. Note here that  is the short version of  and  and that the vowels in each group are matched w.r.t. ';'. By employing the disjoint Vlong and Vshort, the length mark can be considered non-phonemic and is thus redundant in the broad transcription. In the narrow transcription, one should of course use the length mark for both vowels and consonants, since there are no stressed monosyllabic words in (Standard) Swedish with a short vowel + short consonant.
If noone is against mu proposition above, I will make the suggested changes as soon as possible. 
Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 19:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swedish has long consonants