Follow Yiuel's Struggle With Swedish

[Yiuel]

Jag lär mig svenska.

And have all intentions to be as perfectly bilingual as possible within 4 years.

But right now, I must say that I am full of frustrations. With many examples, I was able to grasp a lot of concepts, but right now, I have learned a great lesson.

DO NOT RELY ON ORTHOGRAPHY.

I have been trying to use Swedish orthography to actually sing songs. Not good. The biggest problem with Swedish orthography is that, like English, you have many irregularities. But that is not everything. Like Japanese kanji, Swedish is highly contextual. This can be learned, and it should, but it doesn't help the basic learner pronounce it well.

So I'll use what I used for Japanese pronunciation : I'll use a system that can tell me how to pronounce what I am singing (IPA for the win) and I'll write all the songs using this. If I find an allophony that I distinguish but Swedish doesn't (unstressed e vs. stressed e) I'll write it down allophonically. When learning Japanese, knowing that /si/ is closer to "shi" than "si" helped me a lot as first.

So yeah, frustrating as it is, I know there's a way beyond it.

So, bottom line : never trust national orthographies, unless they are actually phonemic. (The Japanese writing system is entirely phonemic, so it can be trusted at some level, but you still need a few adaptations.)

[Ceresz]

Lycka till med studierna !

In a way I'm actually glad you're struggling somewhat with the orthography. To me, that just means that we aren't as bookish as Skolverket wanted us to be, once upon a time . Although I should probably warn you that you're more likely to find spelling pronunciations in songs and stuff like that, especially if you listen to Kent. That's not to say you can't hear plenty of spelling pronunciations out in the real world or on TV/radio.

Anyway, I'm glad you're learning Swedish and I do wish you good luck in your studies. There are plenty of Swedes here to practice with or ask question, if you need us .

Edit: Oh, and I have to say that I agree with you on the fact that Japanese has a fairly easy orthography. It probably has the easiest orthography out of all the languages I keep coming back to (it's far better than the French or Icelandic othographies).

[Ossicone]

But don't ask him because he'll teach you all the bad things!

[Ceresz]

But don't ask him because he'll teach you all the bad things!

Yeah, probably...

Just last night I looked up the etymology of kuk, for whatever reason, and learned that gök (common cuckoo), is apparently related to kuk and is another way of saying... well, kuk. Spread the word!

[Shrdlu]

Sju sjuka sjömän. Also, the accented difference between jag tar på mig nu(I'm putting on cloths now) and jag tar på mig nu(I'm touching myself now)

[Xonen]

But right now, I must say that I am full of frustrations. With many examples, I was able to grasp a lot of concepts, but right now, I have learned a great lesson.

DO NOT RELY ON ORTHOGRAPHY.

I have been trying to use Swedish orthography to actually sing songs. Not good. The biggest problem with Swedish orthography is that, like English, you have many irregularities. But that is not everything. Like Japanese kanji, Swedish is highly contextual. This can be learned, and it should, but it doesn't help the basic learner pronounce it well.

That's... rather different from my experience, at least. I'd say the orthography is, most of the time, a pretty reliable indicator of the pronunciation. Of course, there are exceptions, and the words containing them naturally tend to be among the most commonly used ones... But I wouldn't compare it to English, not to mention Japanese. Then again, I've been regularly exposed to Swedish orthography for pretty much as long as I've been able to read, so maybe I've just been subconsciously picking up all the subtleties since early childhood. Any specific examples of stuff you find difficult?

[Ossicone]

I wouldn't say I've found the orthography particularly bad. (It was harder than my previous L2 - cause it's hard to beat Spanish.) I did find it annoying at first though but I'd say I got used to it after a few months of not-so-rigorous study.

Lately, I got a bit back into Swedish after watching the TV series Arne Dahl. It's pretty good if you like crime drama and it's good listening practice.

[Yiuel]

About Kent, I know. What I know that they spell-pronouce, I avoid it. That's actually a reason why my teacher avoided Kent, even though he likes their music much. I have one song from them, and their spelling pronunciation is annoying.

I am not saying that Swedish is especially difficult. I get most things right. But you do have some things that do not help much, so I'll have to keep notes on everything I use for pronunciation. It's those few details that turn out to annoy me as hell. :P (Incidently, that annoys me about English and French as well, but my constant contact since childhood with both makes it somewhat easier. Esperanto and Japanese are a lot better in that respect.)

I will probably get used to it after some time.

(Also, remember, I am about as far away from Sweden at I am from my hometown (about 10 megameters), I will not have a lot of contact with Swedish unless I bring it to me. I know that for pronunciation, everything is a lot easier with songs at first to get used to the phonology. I'll get to conversations afterwards.)

[Ceresz]

About Kent, I know. What I know that they spell-pronouce, I avoid it. That's actually a reason why my teacher avoided Kent, even though he likes their music much. I have one song from them, and their spelling pronunciation is annoying.

The spelling pronunciation doesn't really bother me that much. I guess I'm somewhat used to it by now, even though I notice it every once in a while. [æːɾ] for <är> I can live with, but [deːt] for <det> just sounds awful. He probably doesn't speak like that. I also have to say that I find spelling pronunciations somewhat more tolerable in singing.

It's a good thing you're paying attention to those things, though .

I am not saying that Swedish is especially difficult. I get most things right. But you do have some things that do not help much, so I'll have to keep notes on everything I use for pronunciation. It's those few details that turn out to annoy me as hell. :P

Fair enough . How are you doing with du/den/det/de/dem being pronounced with [ɾ] (or some other kind of rhotic) instead of the expected [d] in situations like...

• • Vad sa(de) du?
  • Är det bra eller?
  • Vad gör de?

...and so on?

Okay, that last one can be pronounced with [ɖ] instead, but whatever.

I will probably get used to it after some time.

I'm sure you will. You've just got to keep at it.

[Yiuel]

I'll answer later, but for now, do any of you have a good Swedish dictionary where it explains the pronunciation of words? (Even better if it includes pitch patterns.)

[Prinsessa]

[æːɾ] for <är> I can live with

I pronounce this [r] usually, especially in "pausa"-like positions. :( [r:::::::] is an awesome consonant to stop and hold if I need to think about what to say next, not only in this word.

I am not saying that Swedish is especially difficult. I get most things right. But you do have some things that do not help much, so I'll have to keep notes on everything I use for pronunciation. It's those few details that turn out to annoy me as hell. :P

Fair enough . How are you doing with du/den/det/de/dem being pronounced with [ɾ] (or some other kind of rhotic) instead of the expected [d] in situations like...

• • Vad sa(de) du?
  • Är det bra eller?
  • Vad gör de?

...and so on?

I wouldn't consider this standard, but dialectal to central Swedish.

Okay, that last one can be pronounced with [ɖ] instead, but whatever.

I do it for the second one too, and I hear people here around Skaraborg (I've moved from Gothenburg recently) doing it all the time. D:

As for that orthography, it is bad. Weirdnesses like <och>, words like <man> being spelled without double consonant despite the actual pronunciation with a short vowel and the etymology of a geminated consonant, and so on. The trickiest, however, is probably the fact that Swedes tend to have this awful mentality that it is somehow "dorky" to alter the spelling of recent loanwords, making written Swedish in general more and more difficult when it comes to figuring out how to pronounce words, if they're recent loans, and even if one knows the language from which they are taken, which is of course the case in general when it comes to the many English loans streaming in recently, it makes the orthography awfully non-unified and irregular.

Another thing is the unmarked non-initial stress in loanwords, or words with loaned prefixes (which is especially problematic in the case of the stressed, native för-, and the non-stressed, non-native för-, identical in form, but differing in stress, with no indication whatsoever as to which is which in what word). Swedish does need some orthographic adjustments, even if it's just a small one. Especially to normalise the spelling of those recent loanwords.

I wish you the best of luck, Yiuel.

[DrGeoffStandish]

[æːɾ] for <är> I can live with

I pronounce this [r] usually, especially in "pausa"-like positions. :( [r:::::::] is an awesome consonant to stop and hold if I need to think about what to say next, not only in this word.

Which reveals that you're from the west coast.

Fair enough . How are you doing with du/den/det/de/dem being pronounced with [ɾ] (or some other kind of rhotic) instead of the expected [d] in situations like...

• • Vad sa(de) du?
  • Är det bra eller?
  • Vad gör de?

...and so on?

I wouldn't consider this standard, but dialectal to central Swedish.

Not standard but colloquial. I say [ɾ] in all those examples:

• "Va sa ru?"
  "E rä bra älle?"
  "Va jör råmm?"

I guess younger speakers tend to be more bookish, at least that's what I hear personally among kids around 20 years old. Being born around 1980 I probably belong to the last generation that at least had some sophistication in separating spoken and written language.

As for that orthography, it is bad. Weirdnesses like <och>, words like <man> being spelled without double consonant despite the actual pronunciation with a short vowel and the etymology of a geminated consonant, and so on.

I'd say the unhistorical treatment of e and ä is the most severe flaw in Swedish orthography. Hadn't it been for the incorrect spelling with e, when it should be ä, the preposition med (ON með) would be pronounced the same in standard Swedish as in practically all existing dialects. Same with det (should be dät), erhålla (should be ärhålla) etc.

[Prinsessa]

[æːɾ] for <är> I can live with

I pronounce this [r] usually, especially in "pausa"-like positions. :( [r:::::::] is an awesome consonant to stop and hold if I need to think about what to say next, not only in this word.

Which reveals that you're from the west coast.

\o/

Fair enough . How are you doing with du/den/det/de/dem being pronounced with [ɾ] (or some other kind of rhotic) instead of the expected [d] in situations like...

• • Vad sa(de) du?
  • Är det bra eller?
  • Vad gör de?

...and so on?

I wouldn't consider this standard, but dialectal to central Swedish.

Not standard but colloquial. I say [ɾ] in all those examples:

• "Va sa ru?"
  "E rä bra älle?"
  "Va jör råmm?"

Colloquial it is, of course, but I really do hear it rarely if at all by speakers in Skaraborg, at least, since they, like I said, seem to prefer the retroflex sandhi, so it's not universally colloquial.

I guess younger speakers tend to be more bookish, at least that's what I hear personally among kids around 20 years old. Being born around 1980 I probably belong to the last generation that at least had some sophistication in separating spoken and written language.

I agree, and this is sad.

As for that orthography, it is bad. Weirdnesses like <och>, words like <man> being spelled without double consonant despite the actual pronunciation with a short vowel and the etymology of a geminated consonant, and so on.

I'd say the unhistorical treatment of e and ä is the most severe flaw in Swedish orthography. Hadn't it been for the incorrect spelling with e, when it should be ä, the preposition med (ON með) would be pronounced the same in standard Swedish as in practically all existing dialects. Same with det (should be dät), erhålla (should be ärhålla) etc.

Hopefully I can make you a little happier by telling you that I pronounce all of those with [E:] myself, at least, as did (do) most people I grew up with; it seems Skaraborg people do it for all three and Gothenburg people do it for all except <det>. My general impression of northern dialects, and probably southern ones in general as well, is that this goes for all three, too, so it does seem to cover the most ground in Sweden, at least, though not necessarily the most speakers, as a lot of them are clustered in the middle of the country, naturally.

[Ceresz]

I'm afraid I have /e:/ in both det and med, although I do realize these two with an [E] in unstressed positions. I do have /E:/ in erkänna and words like that. I think that's something I got from my mother a few years ago, though, so before that I had /e:/. I could probably learn to use /E:/ in det/med as well, but I think we're just going to have to accept that it's (at best) dying out in central Swedish, and that language change based on reasons we don't really like is still language change. I still hear /E:/ pronunciations from others not originally from this area though, which is just wonderful. I might add that I actually did change my pronunciation of -or from /Ur/ to /Er/. That's just personal preference though, and there's really nothing wrong with /Ur/ other than the way it came about, at least as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, maybe we shouldn't derail Yiuel's thread too much, unless he finds it interesting .

Edit: Just wanted to add that, when a friend of mine heard me pronounce fåren as ["fo:n'a] (' is supposed to a grave accent, but I couldn't find one on my phone), instead of ["fo:rEn] he started laughing like crazy. He also laughed at my pronuncation of ntl as [Nkl] in words like egentligen and äntligen. I should probably mention that we were fairly high when this happened, so that might be the reason for his laughter. Otherwise he would've probably just have noticed it and moved on.

[rickardspaghetti]

Why can I never have as fun as you, Ceresz?

[DrGeoffStandish]

Colloquial it is, of course, but I really do hear it rarely if at all by speakers in Skaraborg, at least, since they, like I said, seem to prefer the retroflex sandhi, so it's not universally colloquial.

This must be a new phenomenon, not part of the old dialect?

Hopefully I can make you a little happier by telling you that I pronounce all of those with [E:] myself, at least, as did (do) most people I grew up with; it seems Skaraborg people do it for all three and Gothenburg people do it for all except <det>. My general impression of northern dialects, and probably southern ones in general as well, is that this goes for all three, too, so it does seem to cover the most ground in Sweden, at least, though not necessarily the most speakers, as a lot of them are clustered in the middle of the country, naturally.

Indeed, today novations (at least those that infect greater areas) most often originate - or perhaps get popularized - in Stockholm. I don't think stockholmers themselves are particularly innovative, it's just that they tend to pick up a dialectal trait or some foreign influence they like and spread it by having a high status in Sweden. If they decided, stockholmers could probably make the thick l gain terrain again after 300 years of retreating.

Just wanted to add that, when a friend of mine heard me pronounce fåren as ["fo:n'a] (' is supposed to a grave accent, but I couldn't find one on my phone), instead of ["fo:rEn] he started laughing like crazy.

Well, that is a weird pronounciation. I'd say [¹foː.ɾə.nɐ] myself. In Jamtish we don't even have the word får, though; one'd say souðęn [²sɞɵː.ʋæn] (Old West Norse ack. sauðana) instead.

He also laughed at my pronuncation of ntl as [Nkl] in words like egentligen and äntligen. I should probably mention that we were fairly high when this happened, so that might be the reason for his laughter. Otherwise he would've probably just have noticed it and moved on.

In this case it's simple phonology, [ŋkl] for ntl isn't weird at all, pretty standard I'd say. In Jamtish we often turn t into k in other positions as well, e.g. Old Norse þrútna 'swell, increase' has become trúkne. I guess the reason is that the combination tn is more difficult to pronounce than kn. (Note that tn > kn is not consequent in Jamtish since, e.g., one has vatna 'water' > vatne rather than "vakne". Perhaps vowel length is involved? I should check up more examples.)

[Prinsessa]

I do have /E:/ in erkänna and words like that.

/E:/ realised as [{:] in your case, I guess?

Colloquial it is, of course, but I really do hear it rarely if at all by speakers in Skaraborg, at least, since they, like I said, seem to prefer the retroflex sandhi, so it's not universally colloquial.

This must be a new phenomenon, not part of the old dialect?

I don't know. It may well be some sort of hypercorrection. I do love the sound of it, though.

[Yiuel]

I really need a good dictionary with pronunciations.

Also, within a few months, I'll start the second step; actually listening to stuff said in Swedish to understand.

[Ceresz]

Well, that is a weird pronounciation. I'd say [¹foː.ɾə.nɐ] myself. In Jamtish we don't even have the word får, though; one'd say souðęn [²sɞɵː.ʋæn] (Old West Norse ack. sauðana) instead.

Well, normally I'd probably just say ["fo:rEn] or something like that. I'm not really sure where I got it from, but probably through some sort of analogy of bena and stuff like that.

/E:/ realised as [{:] in your case, I guess?

Yes.

I really need a good dictionary with pronunciations.

If I come across a dictionary with pronunciations I'll let you know. I doubt I'll find one that includes the accents, though. Personally I suck at transcribing them.

Also, within a few months, I'll start the second step; actually listening to stuff said in Swedish to understand.

Sounds good.