Talk:Stød

message: The choice of "hatter" as example is confusing because the Danish word is "hatte". --Troels Nybo 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatter 

message: Is "stød" really the commonly accepted English-language linguistic term for the glottal
stop/laryngealization in Danish?
"Stød" in Danish is similar to the glottal stop occurring in non-standard English and lowland Scots, and I never actually saw anybody refer to the phenomenon as "stød" when speaking of these languages (since both many English dialects and lowland Scots are heavily influenced by Nordic languages, I wouldn't be surprised if the phenomenon had a common origin for the three languages - but then I'm not a historical linguist; Larry Trask would definitely have had an opinion on this, had he still been among us).
Maybe the appropriate term to adopt is "glottal stop", possibly qualified as "Danish glottal stop", to enable us to use the same term to describe the phenomenon in different languages? If so, this article should be renamed to "Danish glottal stop". 
Agger 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, we could mention that the word translates as "thrust", and use that term throughout the article, since that would make it easier for the English-speaking population to read it, as well as making it easier for those units that read for the blind to do so. Zuiram 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no renaming, please. The term "stød" is the only term I have ever seen used for this Danish phenomenon (in English scholarship). I do not disagree with Zuiram that one may explain the phenomenon by translating it with something like "thrust," but on no account should the article be renamed or the term "stød" be replaced throughout by "thrust." If the character "ø" is considered problematic, I would consider it reasonable to replace it with regular "o" throughout the article, as long as some clear reference to the proper spelling, with "ø" is made in the beginning. By the way, I would be greatly surprised if North English glottal stop has anything to do with "stød." For more information on "stød", please refer to Anatoly Liberman's book Germanic Accentology, Vol. 1 The Scandinavian Languages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. I will add this title to the list of references. Lufiend 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is sometimes also used for similar phenomena in other languages too, see for instance here .Kallerdis (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate naming 

message: Is the accent of American actor Christopher Walken an example of stød? He puts a really strange kind of stress on vowels that seems kind of like what is described here
--143.236.168.60 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless he speaks danish it is not stød. He just speaks with a weird kind of creaky voice.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Walken 

message: Hello. There seems to be a problem with the part that says "this means that only syllables ending in a long vowel, a diphthong (i.e., vowel + [ʁ]/[j]/[v]) or one of the consonant phonemes [m], [n], [ŋ], [l] and [ð] can take the stød." The problem is that allophonic notation is used (square brackets []), while what (precedes and) follows is the term phoneme. And it looks like the allophonic notation is used incorrectly, too. For instance, I would guess that, instead of "[ʁ]", there should be "[ɐ]" ([ɐ̯]), possibly, if you see fit, with an indication that it's a realization of /r/ (the phoneme). I don't know much about Danish phonology (yet), so I just wanted to point out the problem so that somebody take care of it. Cheers, Ryba g (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. I have changed the article accordingly, using the more appropriate phonemic notation instead. Kokoshneta (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoneme ≠ allophone 

message: Would some (preferably native) Danish speaker please add some sound files, to illustrate the differences between minimal pairs of words with and without stød?
yoyo (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound files 

message: § Phonetics has the following sentence: 
: The first phase has a relatively high pitch and high intensity and a high F0, whereas the second phase sees a drop in intensity, pitch and F0.
Since (auditory) pitch is practically a direct mapping of (acoustic) F0, isn't it redundant to mention them both as if they were independent? Thnidu (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch vs. F0? 

message: In South Zealand where I grew up, the local dialect has no standard Danish stød, but instead vowels in syllables that would have stød are doubled. So the underlying feature is there, it just yet another system. This leads to fun when children learn to count syllables, since stød is more common in monosyllabic words. For instance Kaffe (Coffee), has no stød and is pronounced Kaff', while Te (Tea), has stød and is pronounced Te-æ. Carewolf (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "doubled" vowel is in fact a stød. As mentioned in the article some zealandic varieties have extra stød occurrences.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Zealand Stød

message: I propose that this article be merged with Danish phonology and simply become a section of that article. Since we already have a phonology article separate from Danish language, I think it's an overkill to also have a separate article for stød. It's not even that long, so we could just copy-paste this article into the Danish phonology one. Peter238 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it didn't hurt to ask. Thank you for your input, guys. Nomination withdrawn. Peter238 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Danish phonology 

message: Hello. I'm curious whether these transcriptions are correct:
* læser  / læser  - shouldn't these be ,  (I thought only long vowels and sonorants could carry the stød?), or is that how the source transcribe these?
* hænder / hænder - the same as above.
* My biggest concern is with  and . These can't be phonemic transcriptions, as Danish doesn't allow geminated plosives. I'm guessing these should be  and  (I'm not sure what's the first vowel), respectively, whereas  and  are, in fact, simply trække and trækker, i.e. orthographic forms. Peter238 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was right about the last one. Den Danske Ordbog states that trække is pronounced . Peter238 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of our transcriptions 

message: Hi guys, I wonder if the word hænder is rendered syllable-by-syllable as  or ? Thanks! Awesomemeeos (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , do you have any knowledge of this? -- Awesomemeeos (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  is correct. /nˀʌ/ is not a possible syllable in Danish.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stod positions before consonants and after vowels 

message: MOS:FOREIGN markup was reverted by , with "stød is not a foreign word but an English word borrowed from Danish in this context hence the additional markup is unnecessary, please reinsert other changes separately". That's clearly not correct. It's a Danish word, unique to the linguistics of Danish, which linguists use in English when writing about Danish because we don't need to invent a new English word. It's not a fully assimilated English word; it's Danish jargon used by a vanishingly small percentage of English speakers as technical jargon in English for the same (non-English) thing.  MOS:FOREIGN definitely applies here, just as it does to writing about ethnic dishes almost unknown in the West, or discussing the Arabic concept of  in kinship. Just because English-speaking anthropologists would not always italicize the latter in an anthropology journal, or someone writing a Oaxacan cookbook in English probably wouldn't bother with italics around the former, that doesn't mean MOS:FOREIGN doesn't apply when writing these non-English terms on Wikipedia. The point of the italics to indicate it's not an [assimilated] English word and won't appear in most or any English-language dictionaries, and the point of the  markup is to ensure proper pronunciation by screen readers (for now; it's likely other uses of this metadata have arisen or will arise as the Web continues to develop; e.g. one could right now create a script to analyze the frequency of Danish words in English Wikipedia by looking for this markup, so removing it skews the data, though of course we have a long way to go in marking up the rest of such material).  PS: It's also crappy to revert fixes you do not dispute just to revert ones you do, especially when guideline-based rationales for  of them were provided and you have not refuted any of them. The onus is on the person with the iffy dispute, per WP:EDITING policy. (There is no WP:V argument to make in the other direction, that the material is "challenged", since we do know for a fact that it's Danish – that information is reliably sourced and obvious in the context anyway.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, this is by now an English word, though certainly specialized linguistic vocabulary - but this does not make it non-English you also won't find "theta-roles" or "ergativity" in most English dictionaries. As you will see  if you were to look at the titles of the references in the articles, "stød" is now a linguistic term that is used in the description of languages other than Danish. So no, MOS:Foreign does not apply, and it shouldn't have italics because it doesn't in the cited sources. If you don't want all of your changes reverted you might consider not doing them all in a single edit. I think the rationale regarding screen readers is reasonable. Your musings about onus is neither here nor there, you made a bold edit and I reverted it, there is no burden on anyone to sort the wheat from the chaff for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. Probably less that 0.00001% of the English-speaking population know this word. It is not assimilated.  Even our article Danish language gives it in the markup I did.  WP's guidelines and practices are what I'm following, you're doing WP:ILIKEIT.  The word is not found in nearly any major English-language dictionaries, including American Heritage, Random House Unabridged amd Collins via Dictionary.com, Cambridge, OxfordDictionaries.com, nor the Corpus of Global Web-Based English – not even under an anglicized spelling of stod.  Only Merriam-Webster has it (and probably OED, since it tries to record  term that ever shows up more than a couple of times in English, but I'm not going to pay a subscription fee to find out).  Google Books Ngrams shows the frequency of stød in English-language books to be  lower than even a term like Festschrift, which most people wouldn't consider assimilated either. I'm restoring my work, and you can RfC it if you continue to disagree in the face of both policy- and source-based arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup 

message: At various points in the first season of Skam, I swear I hear the character Eva, who is from Bergen, saying nei ('no') exactly the way we Copenhageners would pronounce it—with stød (see e.g. season 1, episode 10, 16 minutes, 15 seconds). Perhaps stød has been picked up by some Norwegian dialects? I couldn't find any sources on this online, though, but I hope someone can find one. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (Talk – Contribs) 19:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bergen has tonal accents just like the rest of the country (only a tiny minority of Norwegians lack them in their speech). Any kind of creaky voice used by Norwegians is non-phonemic and therefore isn't stød. Also, nei has just one syllable and so it can be pronounced with any tone, with or without creaky voice. Only trøndersk and a few other dialects (also spoken in that area, rather far away from Bergen) distinguish monosyllabic words based on pitch accent. In other words, whether she said  or  matters as little as whether she said  (with Tone 1, which is falling in Bergen) or  (with Tone 2, which is rising in Bergen). Forgive me if I got the vowel wrong - the diphthong starts in the open central area in Copenhagen. I don't know which vowel is used in Bergen; in Oslo it'd be . Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is stød used in some Norwegian dialects? 

message: I changed the pronounciation of stød per the ref; you then reverted my edits to properly reflect H:IPA-DA. Per WP:SYNTH, that seems to be OR. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: in the system used on H:IPA-DA stands for an unaspirated voiceless alveolar stop. Using  for that sound is not an IPA usage, given the fact that the contrast between this and  is purely affrication. , used by Basbøll and Grønnum is an overly complicated transcription that was replaced with  after a discussion we had last year. I'm not sure what WP:SYNTH has to do with this. H:IPA-DA is an in-house convention that doesn't have to follow any source religiously, I also see no problem with replacing non-IPA transcriptions with their IPA counterparts. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR in pronunciation 

message: We need to mention that while Urban East Norwegian and Standard Swedish contrast Tone 1 and Tone 2 only in non-final syllables of polysyllabic words, there are dialects that do not have such restriction (e.g. trøndersk) and can also contrast the tonemes in monosyllables. In some dialects there can even be two (or perhaps even more?) tones in one word, which makes them even more similar to Danish.
Also, what about tones applied to groups of words in UEN (gro igjen  'grow anew' vs. gro igjen  'grow over')? Is there a similar phenomenon in Danish? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how about "gÅ igen" (leave, after just arriving) vs "gå igEn" (haunt, as in genganger/gjenganger/wiedergänger) ? Flight714 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stød vs. pitch accent in regional Norwegian and Swedish 

message: I strongly recommend that the paragraph about stød as an example of creaky-voice laryngealization should be reconsidered and preferably removed as I find it to misrepresent both. I have no idea why it has ever been suggested as a way of description, unless someone once read that stød is about stress (which it is, but not in the sense of stressing the vocal cords or larynx leading to a distorted sound, but in the sense of accentuating or adding weight). Note that in the danish article nothing of that kind is mentioned either.
Flight714 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it, then, when it's not realized as a glottal stop? Sounds like you're mistaking a phonetic description for a phonological one. Nardog (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is basically a sort of emphasizing or accentuation by way of shift of weight within the vowel(partioning the vowel into 2-3 connected micro portions) without necessarily altering it's duration though this may occur,and without any distortion or altering of neither sound quality of the vowel nor it's pitch. The differing airflow in stød vs non stød is silent and takes place entirely above the larynx, in the mouth and through the nostrils, not unlike in certain french words ( note that quite a number of stød syllables contain " n ", also mirroring French praxis, save the clogged nasal timbre) To what degree any distorted or creaky-voiced effect should occur among random test examples, this would be considered strangely crude and unnecessary,as if tensions were erroneously directed to the vocal cords,not in any way typical. It's rather unfortunate that this misconception has found it's way into the english article from where it seems to spread via quotes and translations. Flight714 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources to back that up? That the typical realization of stød is creaky voice is pretty well established, including Basbøll (2005) and Fischer-Jørgensen (1989) cited in the article. And isn't "glottal spænding (en spænding i stemmebåndet)" a mention of "[any]thing of that kind"? Nardog (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creaky-voice laryngealization 

message: If two-syllable words with accent on the first syllable don't take stød, then how do words like "maler" have stød on the first syllable, despite being a two-syllable word with accent on the first syllable? Unless I misunderstood something, this looks like a contradiction to me.
AnyGuy (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maler has two meanings and you can distinguish between them by the use of stød. Maler the noun (a painter) is without and maler the verb as in 'jeg maler' (I paint) has stød. 185.5.164.103 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense that stød can be used to make that distinction. But, as AnyGuy says, there is surely a contradiction in the article as it states that "two-syllable words with accent on the first syllable do not take stød", without mentioning exceptions (first line under heading "Stød-basis and alternations"). This would surely mean that the words like læser, hænder and maler could never use stød in any context (which is evidently not the case). 62.232.134.130 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification please on the rules for Stød-basis