Jump to content

Talk:Swedish phonology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)

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:


Fricatives
Phoneme
(IPA) 		graphemes Pronunciation sample, IPA and translation
ʂ rs, sch listenⓘ kors, schlager, /koʂ ʂlɑːgɛr/, "cross", "hit" (song)
ɧ sj, stj, listenⓘ sju, stjärna, skjul, /ɧʉː ɧæːɳa ɧʉːl/, "seven", "star", "shed"
ç k, tj listenⓘ tjur, kind, /çʉːr, çɪnd/, "bull", "cheek"

...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 [1] 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)
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)
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[3]
  • [ ] 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) (1980) [ I guess I must have misinterpreted my own handwriting. Johan Magnus] 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)
Concerning Garlén's comments: What exactly is [ ] a primary occlusion of? Of /ɧ/? If so, in which dialects or variants? Please give us the context of that snippet of text. Preferably the entire paragraph.
...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| &#615;<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?
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.
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)
I do not quite follow you here, and intend to return with comments later when I maybe understand you better. :) --Johan Magnus 07:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Interpreting a discussion like this as a discurse on "linguistic imperialism" is obviously not farfetched for the Swedes.
The differences in articulation (production) is the largest possible (for fricatives), i.e. between uvular and bilabial. Also the auditive difference (perception) is considerable, although not the largest possible, between sibilants close to [s], i.e. [ɕ], and the sje-sound you get when you blow air between your two lips (whatever you decide to call it).
How non-native speakers (that for instance constitute some 12% of Sweden's population) struggle with your mother tongue ought to be of the greatest relevance for an article on Swedish in the English language Wikipedia. I don't know if you are unaware of Sweden's increasing popularity among exchange students, or the fact that all of Finland's population born after 1960 have studied Swedish.
The idea that native Swedish speakers should understand eachother's different allophonic representations for the tje- and sje-sounds is a position that does not at all fit with my experience. Quite the contrary, I would say.
Peter, I think you better re-read what's written above and re-consider your statements, if you wish to be taken seriously.
/Tuomas 12:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you support the claim that native speakers of Swedish have problems telling two quite distinct phonemes apart?

You got the reference to Leinonen (2004) already. /Tuomas 10:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you seem to be implying when refering to the 12% figure (which as far as I know has nothing to do with non-native speakers, but rather is the figure of people in Sweden with a non-Swedish background, technically even I belong among those)

No, that is the figure of immigrants to Sweden. The number if including people with immigrant parents is much larger, of course. Some of the immigrants happends to be Finland-Swedes, and hence their mother tongue is Swedish, but they are surely outnumbered by the number of Sweden-born who have another mother tongue than Swedish. /Tuomas 10:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is that we should write a pronunciation guide for non-native speakers in this phonology. Have I interpreted you correctly? Peter Isotalo 01:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly, but an English language Wikipedia article can not disregard the aspects and points of views that are relevant to non-native speakers. The phonetical differences between different realizations of the /sje/-sound is a prominent example of this. It is the more important as many Swedes in their brains seem to have internalized the many allophones, maybe particularly in Central Sweden, and are in pain to make out the issue when asked about it. /Tuomas 10:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories of Swedish

Tuomas, where does this subdivision of Swedish come from? Are these linguistically accepted categories?

Also, why did you remove my notice about Standard Swedish first from rikssvenska and now here. Please motivate the changes. Peter Isotalo 23:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Skärp dig! Jag tog inte bort någon referens till någon artikle, utan satte tillbaka en korrekt referens till motsättningen högsvenska-rikssvenska, som du ersatt med en dublering av det följande alternativet - och i denna artiklen en länk till standard language som ersättning för den röda och inte särskilt relevanta länken till Standard Swedish. -- Vad hade du tänkt att det skulle stå där? Att inga dialekter har några standardiserade ortografier, och att dialektala lexikon huvudsakligen har kuriosavärde och relevans som dokumentation av ord som kommit ur bruk?
Vad gäller indelning så har du ju själv adderat Engstrand (2004).
Du får gärna vara kritisk, men börja nu använda skallen också! /Tuomas 23:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tuomas, this is an English-language wikipedia. All debates should be in English so that everyone can follow them. Please translate the above post so I can answer it properly. Peter Isotalo 00:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, both comments above reflects poorly on you, guys. I propose you delete them, take a deep breath, and start trying to understand what the other of you intend at. Meanwhile, Thomas maybe could read up on Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Peter could explain more in detail which point or points in Tuomas' proposal that is put in question, and present authoritative quotes supporting the critique.
--Johan Magnus 06:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've presented plenty of authoritative quotes, Johan. Exactlty what is it you find unclear? Why not just cite authoritive quotes of your own? If you insist on this "rikssvenska"-"högsvenska" definition should be the most valid one, then surely there must be better support for it than vague dictionary definitions and claims from NE saying it's outdated. Peter Isotalo 10:13, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
I find a certain degree of lack of focus making many or most of your changes and talk-page comments hard to interpret. If you'd taken things in some kind of order, tried to focus on one point at each time, (time understood as week or whatever more extended period it takes until a matter is cleared), preferably things you find fundamental first (as definitions of for instance dialect or standard language), then maybe the chief impression one gets of you wouldn't be that of a young angry man eager to pick fights with each and everyone.
I find it unclear what you consider important.
Tuomas made in one edit changes[4] to this article's introduction, that I intended to improve with some refinements[5] Your reaction was a rewrite[6] where several aspects were changed, including a reversal of done wikipedia:wikification. There's a host of substantial changes that could have been brought up for discussion, as for instance your insistence to link "the /r/-phoneme" [in Swedish] with alveolar trill, that as you most probably must know is not realized as an alveolar trill in all relevant (high prestige) varieties. But not, no, you comment visibly critical and ask if a list that is supported by sources you already have referred to (Sweden's National Encyclopedia), and hence ought to be acquainted with, is "linguistically accepted categories" instead of listing the changes you made. What was really your point? To make someone already irritated a little bit more irritated, or...?
The impression left is that you are more concerned about owning the text and chasing other contributors away than with reading, learning, and quoting. I'm not sure this is intentional. But I'm sure there is a pattern in your appeareance that tend to make exchanges with you somewhat confused.
--Johan Magnus 17:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would like to remind you please not to assume bad faith. It doesn't add any constructive element to this discussion and neither does the addition of rather condenscending "angry young man"-comments. That I don't bring up every single edit I make for discussion is not a valid reason to assume that my motives are either territorial or hostile. There's absolutely nothing preventing you or anyone else from asking me to motivate the changes I've made on the talk page or just correcting errors yourself. I have in fact explicitly encourages this on several occasions. That's what a wiki is all about, and I doubt your experience has taught you otherwise.
Now, even though the /r/-phoneme indeed has several allophones in almost all regional varieties it still is the IPA-symbol for an alveolar trill and is as far a I know perceived by most people as an alveolar trill, even when allophones are used. I don't see any problem with linking the /r/ to alveolar trill myself, but you're welcome to de-link it if you feel that it's not appropriate.
No, you do not have to bring every minor issue to the talk page. Neither do you have to believe that I assume bad faith. And my point was most certainly not to discuss the alveolar-trill issue, but to use it as an example of how and why discussions with you may seem confusing both to yourself and to others, specifically because often one doesn't know what's important for you. You asked: "Exactly what is it that you find unclear." And I did my best to answer. My young angry man wording wasn't intended to be condenscending, but to transmit my impression of what alternatively may be expressed as your "energetic" and unusually bold edits in combination with your appearance on talk pages. I could also have used the metaphore of attack being the best defense. ...and one wonders what you feel such a need to defend. All in all, I do my best to understand you and your motives and what your ultimate aims might be, but find it more problematic than with many other wikipedians. --Johan Magnus 07:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made the rest of the changes you mentioned above because I thought them to be both accurate and adhering to NPOV. I also tried to include all the information that I didn't actually consider factually inaccurate or overly vague or confusing in my rewrite. Unfortunately you lost me after "But not, no you comment visibly critical...". Is it the categorization of regional varieties you're not satisfied with? If so, please specify your objections a bit more. Peter Isotalo 03:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to write a new introduction that includes the references to both "högsvenska" as well as allowing for the notice about Standard Swedish to fit the rest of the text. Peter Isotalo 12:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

And Tuomas continued to work on your version, which I think was good not because your was necessarily better, but because revert-wars are bad. --Johan Magnus 07:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Veritable confusion

Guys, guys, this is the worst I've seen around Swedish and Scandinavian matters at Wikipedia. Particularly this talk page! One gets totally confused trying to figure out what you argue and on which points you disagree. Do you know yourselves? I think you better try to clear out that, first of all, and then, maybe, you could tidy up the mess in the article! You don't have to be a linguist to recognize that this is a fairly poor and confused example of Wikipedia at its worst! (unsigned)

We appreciate your input on the matter. Do you think could be more precise as to what you feel is confusing or messy in the article? It is easier to improve an article if criticism directed at its content is clearly defined. Peter Isotalo 03:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

wikified

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)

Proposal for improved intro

I propose the following (regardless of if in this article or if moved back to Swedish language#Phonology. I admit that I have not vacuumed the edit-history for wordings that have been changed although actually being good and worthy to survive. My apologies to any contributor whos forgotten additions ought to have been appreciated!

Swedish is known for its melodic accent, a trait shared with few other Indo-European languages, but not by all Swedish dialects. Swedish is also notable for having a large vowel inventory, with 17 different phonemes considered to be monophthongs by the Swedes, although they in fact often may be realized as diphthongs. One of the Swedish /u/ sounds is sometimes argued to be unique for Swedish and Norwegian. On the other hand, Swedish pronunciation of consonants is similar to that of most other Germanic languages, including English, as is most of the basic phonological patterns.

A major problem for students of Swedish is what can be perceived as a lack of standardisation of pronunciation:

  • The pronunciation of vowels, and of some consonant sounds (particularly sibilants), demonstrates marked differences in spoken prestige dialects.
  • Many varieties of Swedish, also common in national broadcasts, assimilate the /r/-sound producing retroflex consonants.
  • In addition, the melodic accent of South-Sweden is strikingly different from that of the capital-region (including Åland), which in turn differs clearly from provincial dialects of Dalecarlia and Gotlandia. In Finland-Swedish, melodic accent isn't used at all, as is also typical for those parts of northernmost Sweden, where Finnish dominated less than a century ago.

Contrary to the situation with German, Danish, or Finnish there can't be said to exist any nation-wide spoken Standard Swedish. Instead there are (at least) three "regional standard varieties" (acrolects or prestige dialects), i.e. the most intelligible or prestigious forms of spoken Swedish, each within their area. No commonly accepted terms exist, not even in Swedish, but in this article they will be designated as (in order of significance):

  • Central Swedish Standard
  • South Swedish Standard
  • Finland Swedish Standard

These may in turn be further divided.

The differences in the phonology of these various forms of Standard Swedish can be quite considerable. They include major differences in:

The differences may be compared with those between General American, Australian English, and the British Received Pronunciation.

In Swedish, the Central Swedish Standard may go under the name of rikssvenska, that however also is a term comprising all Swedish spoken in Sweden contrary to the Swedish spoken in Finland (or formerly elsewhere). Similarly, the Finland Swedish Standard may go under the name of högsvenska that however has become a controversial and emotionally loaded term that also has changed meaning in the course of the 20th century.

Some Swedes, particularly in the capital region, may consider all other varieties of Swedish than the Central Swedish Standard as "dialects". On the other extreme, some, not the least dialectologists, may reserve the term dialect for what they consider genuine rural dialects uncompromised by influence from the standard language.

/Tuomas 20:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't almost all of this proposal for a new intro exactly what the mediation at Talk:Standard Swedish is all about? Shouldn't we discuss it there? Peter Isotalo 20:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Be my guest. It's fine to discuss it there. The proposal, however, might be good to have at the talk page where it belongs. /Tuomas 20:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've nothing to discuss. :-) But the proposal looks fine to me. Not perfect, maybe, but good enough to replace the current introduction and then be improved incrementally. For instance, I am not quite sure it's only Swedes in the Stockholm-region that have the habit to think that their own idiolect is (or ought to be) the standard for all Swedes, and in particular for all "New-Swedes".
 ;->
--Ruhrjung 08:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Agree! --Johan Magnus 07:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was in an earlier version of the lead paragraph:

...the existence of at least three prestige dialects, in the meaning that the speakers of their respective speech communities do not usually consider other varieties of spoken Swedish to be more prestigious.

which could be compared with:

... i.e. the most intelligible or prestigious forms of spoken Swedish, each within their area.

Having thought back and forth on this issue, I do (this day) support the shorter, later version. --Johan Magnus 08:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a brief summary of the changes besides moving most of my edit:
  • Update of the tables and removal of allophones and combinations of actual phonemes like [ʈ] and [ɖ]. The tables are based on the phonologies of Engstrand and Garlén (see the reference section).
  • New recordings that makes minimal pair-comparisons easier to make.
  • Removal of the Grapheme-section. I just don't see why we should keep it. We can't possibly list all the spellings for /ɧ/, for example, and the article is about phonology, not orthography.
I tried to make the dialect/regional variety-difference explanation as concise as possible. You're welcome to fill in, but I think we should try to elaborate on the matter in Standard Swedish, rather than here. I've also inserted some comments into the text as well as hiding some passages I'm not quite sure about. Please read the comments before editing or posting here.
So what do you think? Peter Isotalo 16:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
That the wikificationi of the initial paragraph could be returned. I have wikified it once, Tuomas once, and there are good reasons for Wikipedia articles to follow some basic layout. It looks better in the meaning more credible and your insistence on exceptions is hard to understand. I feel as before, that you, Peter, is a little bit too eager to play the role of a leader with more influence than others. I thought we were supposed to discuss before we made changes. This is more a question of methods and shown respect (or disrespect) for other contributors, and not a way to say that it's all bad.
--Johan Magnus 07:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what sort of wikification you mean. Could you elaborate on your suggestion?
It wasn't of my own incentive; I just followed Inter's advice (we talked briefly #wikipedia) to make an edit to get the discussion moving. I mentioned it in Talk:Standard Swedish, but I guess I should've included it in the post here too. Sorry if I made it seem rash. Peter Isotalo 14:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
See the first paragraph in this edit. The crucial wikification is that terms that are re-directed to a page, and of course also the title of the page, are to appear bolded the first time they are mentioned. Particularly, this is relevant for the title of an article that (sometimes slightly modified) is expected to be bolded on the first line, or at least in the first sentence.
Since this is a change Tuomas made twice, you might have guessed that it had a meaning. However, don't take his edit-summary-notes here too seriously. They appear totally confused. :-) --Ruhrjung 16:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've no time to dig up the relevant Wikipedia policy documents right now, but this is how it is.
I've also no time to dig up any Wikipedia policy that explicitely state that there is reason to promote a proposal that has been made at the talkpage and remained unopposed, but I believe this is common Wikipedia custom if not policy, which is why I re-insert the wordings above proposed for the intro. Further proposals for changes can then be made and discussed in the usual proper order.
--Ruhrjung 16:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The (today) added table is good in principle. I can't judge its correctness in the center - are all of these sje-realization really correct to consider high-prestigeous? - but it fits with what I've understood so far.

But, Tuomas, maybe the addition in the current tense situation could have been made in the same way as the other proposal? Here first, and moved to the article if not meeting too much opposition?

But, who am I to complain? Basically, you've bought my old idea and improved it!
--Ruhrjung 13:08, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the /rn/-assimilation lacking? :-) Must be a typo?
Soon time to return to the old issue of what a fricative articulated in front of the labio-dental [f] can be called, is it? ;-)))
--Johan Magnus 06:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alveolar trill, trill consonant, and the /r/-phoneme

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)

/sje/-sound

Since there has been a history here around of rather radical edits, I take this chance to quote Peter's proposal, that I consider quite good (with exception for certain details):

The Swedish fricatives /ɕ/ and /ɧ/ are often considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of Swedish pronunciation for foreign students. The combination of two such similar and fairly unique sounds as well as the large variety of allophones often presents difficulties for non-natives in telling the two apart. The existance of a third sibilant in the form of /s/ tends to confuse matters even more, and in some cases realizations like [ 12 px ] that are labiodental can also be confused with /f/.
/ɕ/ is in most dialects realized as [ɕ] and occasionally [ç], in this case almost identical to the German "ich"-sound. The exception is Finland-Swedish, where the phoneme is affricated into [t͡ɕ] or [t͡ʃ].
The fricative /ɧ/, also known as the sje-sound which is unique to Swedish, has a wide variety of realizations in Standard Swedish. The most common realization is what is most often called a voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative, though this term is somewhat disputed. The nature of the realizations can be divided into three main groups according to how they are used:
  • "Dark sounds" - [ɧ], and [x], most commonly used in the Souther Standard varieties.
  • "Light sounds" - [ʂ], used in the northern varities and [ʃ], and [ɕ] (or something in between) in Finland-Swedish.
  • Combination of "light" and "dark" - darker sounds are used as morpheme initials preceding stressed vowels (sjuk, station), while the lighter sounds are used before unstressed vowels and at the end of morphemes (bagage, dusch).

As far as I can see, this is by and large in agreement with Elert, that has been recently referred to.

I intend to come back to the details later, however the idea of the sje-sound being unique is not at all to my "liking" - it's some of the realzations that are pretty unique.
--Johan Magnus 06:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most common realization [ɧ] is actually unique as far as I know. Having a phoneme with such a wide variety of other realizations seems rather remarkable to me, but I'll concede if anyone objects. The above text was taken almost straight out of Garlén's Svensk fonologi, though. Peter Isotalo 08:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I guessed so. There is, however, a significant difference wikipediawise between stating that something is unique, and stating that some/many/a specific source thinks so. :-)
Yes, you're absolutely right. Opinions without factual support can be quite a nuisance. It's a good thing we have proper sources available to base objections on. Peter Isotalo 14:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the tables (according to Elert, 2000) made by Tuomas and I removed the following passage and sound sample:

/ ɧ / and [ ɧ ] are often used by Swedish linguists to designate the Swedish / ʃ /-sound, in Swedish known as the /"sje"/-sound. The phonetic symbol [ ɧ ] can be used to cover the whole range of labialised realizations [ ʃʷ ~ xʷ ~ χʷ, fʷ ], to contrast against [ ʂ ] in Sweden and [ ɕ ] in Finland-Swedish. Although academic works appear to be inconclusive, it seems highly likely that the most prestigious realization of this phoneme in the capital region of Stockholm is changing from [ ʂ ~ ʃʷ ] towards the more contrasting [ xʷ ]. In northern Sweden [ ʂ ] dominates. Similarly, the precise nature of the different articulations of this sound in South Swedish Standard and dialects seems scantily researched.
Listen to a sample of the "sje-sound".ⓘ

This is pure speculation. All of the following phonologies or books containing phonological information use the symbol /ɧ/ to describe the phoneme as well as the most common realizations:

  • 'Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (1999)
  • Elert, Allmän och svensk fonetik (2000)
  • Garlén, Svenskans fonologi (1988)
  • Engstrand, Fonetikens grunder (2004)
  • Lundström-Holmberg, af Trampe, Elementär fonetik (1987)
  • Robert McAllister Talkommunikation (1998)

Elert is somewhat vague as to what phonemic symbol to use. He says that /ʃ/ is okay to use, but considering that he applies [ç] to describe what really is actually in almost all cases (Finland-Swedish too) a voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative, which is used in all of other sources, it seems a somewhat odd recommendation. [ʃ] is mentioned as an allophone of /ɧ/ only breifly by Garlén, but it is not specified in which varieties or contexts, and should probably be considered to be worthy of mention, but quite rare.

The comments about how the amount of research and allaged disagreement do not seem merited or supported by any of these sources. That Southern Standard Swedish "seems scantily researched" seems to be merely an opinion. The entire paragraph is really just the same as the one mentioned under Fricatives, so I don't see any reason for having twice in the same article; not even without the tentative claims.

I also removed comments about supposed ambiguity of what Standard Swedish is compared to the "genuine" dialects, as described by both Elert and Engstrand. I'm becoming more and more convinced that this article should only mention layman terminology as a comment to the linguistic definitions, since most Swedes are not aware of the difference between regional varieties and the genuine dialects.

There is very good support for this theory in a poll that was recently conducted by Swedish Call Centre Federation and HUI where 800 people were asked what dialects they prefered to hear form telephone salesmen. The interesting thing is that people did not distinguish terms like "skånska", "norrländska" or even "stockholmska" from "rikssvenska" eventhough they clearly all meant what linguists define as regional or dialectal varieties. I will present the results of this poll as soon as I receive it from HUI, and I will use it as a reference here and especially in Standard Swedish when I've studied it more closely.

Peter Isotalo 12:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign speaker section?

I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but what if we made a section of the article to specifically elaborate on the difficulties that foreign students of Swedish tend to have? How about:

Swedish among non-native speakers

It would be so much easier if the information on realizations could be divided in native and non-native speakers. It would make the article a lot easier to read and avoid very long paragraphs on the inidivudal phonemes. We could also try to elaborate on how Swedish is spoken among the largest immigrant groups in this section, though we would of course include the second-generation immigrants n the native speaker section. Peter Isotalo 13:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think (like already proposed by Ruhrjung?) an English-language article ought to have non-natives in focus. There is no use writing sections and articles here that better belong in the Swedish language Wikipedia. /Tuomas 08:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The focus of a phonological article on a specific langauge is how it is spoken by native speakers. This is the same no matter the language it is written in. An English phonology, for example, is mainly concerned with how speakers of English in the US, UK, Australia and other countries where it is the first language speak it. It is not intended to describe specifically how various non-native groups like, for example, Swedes, Dutch or Germans speak it. Same thing applies to a Swedish phonology. That's on of the reasons for having the common international standard of phonetics that is IPA, by the way. So that phonetic transcriptions can be made and understood by anyone in any langauge, even if the sounds described are not native to that specific language. Peter Isotalo 11:42, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
No-one contests that the language as spoken by natives is the scope for the article Swedish language and sub-articles. I think a foreign accents-article could be interesting - in the Swedish language Wikipedia. Here not.
However, an English language introduction to Swedish phonology necessarily must make some presumptions on the readers' pre-knowledge of the matter, and these presumptions must include, not exclude, non-native speakers of Swedish aswell as readers who don't speak Swedish at all.
Ruhrjung 16:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Advanced close central frontal vowel

Doing away with diacrtics for the phonemic descriptions seems reasonable, but the Swedish and Norweigan vowels seem to be a lot more advance than the cardinal vowel it's been linked to. The sound sample is a pretty good indicator of how different they're actually realized. The sound is also quite clearly described in the tables.

Engstrand includes the advanced-diacritic in the Swedish example section of the IPA handbook, though. Peter Isotalo 23:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a phonological opposition between barred and unbarred /u/-phonemes? If not, why not use the /u/-symbol for the phoneme?
If yes, is this phoneme really unique to the Scandinavian languages, or are there other languages with the same opposition? Could maybe a link to the (approximate) phonetic realization be of any value?
--Johan Magnus 13:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The opposition is more an illusion of the IPA-orthography than phonetics, I think. One is a an advanced central vowel while the other is a back vowel. Both are closed and rounded, though. /uː/ and /ʉː/ are seperate phonemes and quite seperate sounds as well. Here's a few minimal pair excercises:
/ruːt/ (rot; "root") - /rʉːt/ (Rut; female first name)
/muːta/ (mota; "fend off") - /mʉːta/ (muta; "bribe")
/muːr/ (mor; "mother") - /mʉːr/ (mur; "stone wall")
The uniqueness as I've understood it has to do with the very advanced (as in forward) pronunciation which makes it quite distinct. That's why the diacritic is used for the phonetical transcription [ʉ̟ː] but not the phonemical, since the IPA recommends that phonemes are described without diacritics, but there are no really strict rules about that. It could very well be argued that even the phonemical transcription should be /ʉ̟ː/.
We already have pronunciation files in the vowel tables, though. Did you have anything else in mind? Peter Isotalo 19:31, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I seee that there still seems to be some misunderstanding of what a "/u/-sound" is. The phoneme that uses the character IPA character /u/ is not the one being mentioned as unique. /u/ is in fact one of the most common vowels in the world's langauges. The phoneme that the introduction alludes to is the one that is spelled with the Latin letter "u", though. This a matter of orthography and has nothing to do with phonetics.
I don't understand the objection in Tuomas' edit summary either. The /ʉː/ is used in all the Swedish phonologies available (except for those who used the older IPA character). There's nothing to say that realizations and the finer points of pronunciation can't be mentioned in a phonology. As long as phonemes and realizations are kept seperated I see no problem with it. Peter Isotalo 16:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Err. I just noticed I fibbed in my latest edit summary. The statement "brackets are to be used for seperate phonemes" should be "slashes are to be used for seperate phonemes". Peter Isotalo 16:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to use a higher degree of distinction than phonologically necessary. Since there is no opposition between a /u/-phoneme and a /barred-u/-phoneme in Swedish, there is no reason to complicate things. Similarly, you don't speak of a /aspirated-p/-phoneme, although the aspirated-p is the most important and common allophone. Isotalo's Rot–Rut-example is not instructive. The phonemes are /o/ and /u/. Their phonetic realizations are phonemically not particularly relevant. /Tuomas 08:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, the phoneme /o/ is the one used in words like "rådjur" /ro:jʉ:r/, "kål" /ko:l/ and "måne" /mo:nə/. The /u/ is usually spelled "o" and the /ʉː/ is always spelled "u". They are completely different sounds and the excercise proves it beyond any doubt. Unless, of course, you want to claim that Swedish doesn't make a difference between the words mor and mur.
I can quote four books on phonetics that use /ʉ/ as a separate phoneme from /u/ and /o/, including the IPA Handbook. The sounds I'm talking is clearly described in the tables with sound files and all. I know you speak Swedish, so you have to be aware of the sounds I'm talking about. If anything, just listen to the sound files and you'll know what I mean. Peter Isotalo 10:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
And why not use /å/ (or possibly /å:/) as the symbol for the actual phoneme in rådjur?
It seems to me as if Peter relies far too much on phonetics.
Ruhrjung 16:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Phonology/phonetics

You mentioned "phonology not Swedish phonetics" in your edit summary. I see no problem in being fairly specific in a phonology (the description of sounds in particular language) as long as the IPA recommendations about writing phonemes wiht slashes (/a/) while anything more specific than a phoneme is written with brackets ([a]) are followed. The u-issue was simply about using the wrong symbol for the sound that was being described.

I've been wanting to discuss the table you've made. It's a pretty good idea to get a summary glance at some general differences in realizations in different varieties of Swedish, but there's a problem with only having two Sweden-Swedish varities in the table. The northern varities belong to Central Swedish and this makes any attempt at, for example, explaining the "sje"-realizations being way too general.

Also, I can't find any support for the IPA you use to describe a lot of the realizations. Elert, Engstrand and Garlén all use [ɧʷ] and [ɧ] for Central Swedish and [ɧʷ], [ɧx] (or just [ɧ]) for Southern Swedish. You've assigned the characters [χʷ], [ʃʷ] and [fʷ] for the same sounds.

[χʷ] is a labialized (!) voiceless uvular fricative which as far as I know doesn't occur in any form of Swedish. The voiced counterpart is, however, mentioned by Elert as an allophone of /r/ in Southern Swedish (along with the uvular trill).
[ʃʷ] would be the fricative found in German, French and English, except labialized. I don't know if this is actually possible to labialze, but just the [ʃ] is rarely used in any variety of Swedish except for maybe when code switching to English. But even the I would guess that the pronunciation is more likely to be [ɕ].
[fʷ] is a plain f, except labialized. I have no idea if an [f] could even be non-labial and I have never read or heard of any regional variety or even dialect that realizes "sj" as an "f".

So which source (or sources) are you basing you table on?

Peter Isotalo 17:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

On the sum of the Swedish education I've received in Finland and in Sweden. Additionally, I've picked up one or another grain from for instance Lindblad (1980), Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), Malmberg (1967), and Engstrand (2004). You are perfectly right that the academic works in this area seem to lack both coherency and more, and I realize that you are convinced that certain sounds do not "exist" in Swedish. Your credibility is however rather deeply dented, and I prefer to rely on experienced teachers, my own ear, and other immigrants' experience rather than on your convictions. The most important aspect is the wideness of the different articulatory realizations of the /sje/-sound, the exact boundaries are in this respect somewhat secondary, but I think your position is pretty weak. Clarity and correctness is not won by arguing over inclusion or exclusions in the ends of the spectrum.
Similarly, I'm convinced that you are mistaken when you belive that an English language summary on encyclopedic level should prefer lesser known symbols for the better known. /Tuomas 08:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you keep refusing to cite your sources properly I don't see why I should take your argumentation seriously. You're either not reading the sources or just not ignoring the facts that contradict your statements. This is not a matter of opinion, since phonetics really isn't that subjective and if you're trying to hold your own opinions over the authority of sources, then you're simply not being encyclopedic. Language policy can always include a lot of different points of view, but phonetic transcription can not. The incoherence you perceive from the sources I've quoted is well within the boundaries of the acceptable, which your choice of symbols is not, since it actually mixes in non-native sounds (or at least very rare ones) when perfectly viable alternatives exist. The [ɧ]) has been in the IPA inventory for a long time and it has survived at least on revision. If the confusion about it is so great, then why is it used in all modern general Swedish phonologies? As a phoneme symbol, no less.
Now, the point of Wikipedia is indeed to simplify as much as possible, but not to the extent of actually distorting facts. What you're advocating by the use of your own choice of characters, rather than that of renowned scholars is a simplification beyond reason. I call that distorting facts. Peter Isotalo 11:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
If you keep on refusing using common sense and Wikipedia:Civilty you will not be taken seriously. Ruhrjung 16:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
As may be noted, I have not at all refused to cite my sources.
My point above is that Isotalo's convictions are not particularly convincing to me. Sources are quite another thing, but it might be noted that "You're either not reading the sources or just not ignoring the facts that contradict your statements." is precisely what I would be tempted to say about Isotalo's reading. /Tuomas 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Peter could be adviced to compare with Ladefoged. I don't have the work available, but I think I recognize the choice of symbols. (BTW: Labialization is typically regarded as a key feature of many realizations of the sje-sound.) --Johan Magnus 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

This seems to flare back up. Could both of you guys make a list of 5-10 points wherein you describe exactly what you wish the phonetics to look like and how they should be written (in the article). Then we can compare the two lists and discuss. Inter\Echo 19:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I think following these criteria should be enough to get the article straight:
    • All IPA used should follow consensus among printed and published phonologies on Swedish. Non-standard or non-existant IPA should not be used, and only sources that actually specifically concern phonetics (not pronunciation guides) should be applied. IPA is an international standard and should be treated on its own merits, not if its more recognizable to speakers of any specific languages.
    • All information should follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Verifiability. That includes material used from the material taken from Swedish language, no matter how old the edits are.
    • The article should primarily describe the sounds of Standard Swedish as spoken by native speakers, which is the objective of any phonology. It should not be a pronunciation guide and it should not be a general repository of complaints over how hard Swedish is for foreigners.
    • Everyone needs to respect Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The consensus of the current phonologies of Swedish should be taken more seriously and the objections of individual editors should be held as more relevant than what sources say. "In my experience" or "according to what I've understood" simply isn't verifiable. Neither is saying "I haven't read this source, but I'm convinced that it agrees with me (so you should check it out for me)".
Peter Isotalo 11:24, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's very important for us to remember that this is a wiki, and that the sole judge of the content is the readership. Authoritative sources in English are to prefer, not sources in Swedish, since the former can be read by more readers and hence are more convincing to the readership as a whole. The purpose of quotations and attributions is to produce a convincing, credible and stable text. Trying to suppress points of views doesn't work too well; it's much more efficient to present them beside eachother (with exeption of lunatic ideas, of course); and attempting to bias the text under ostensible claim to make the text congruent with a particular scholar or school of thoughts is a hopeless aim. It's much better to include attrubutions and quotes when they are known. That creates (in the ideal case, at least) a pressure to produce more attributions and quotes. However, disputes over meta-issues, as for instance the choice of symbols, can not be delt with npov-wise. See Talk:Swedish phonology#Phonemic symbols.
--Johan Magnus 16:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think any disagreements on contents are important here at all, although a certain degree of confusion between phonetics and phonology may interfer. No-one here has contested the usage of IPA for phonetics, although other transcriptions may be more popular with English speakers.
    • The problem is the uncooperative mood that has dominated the pages where I've seen Isotalo contribute.
    • I'm not quite convinced, although almost, that most if not all controversies can be explained as signs of Isotalo's relative unexperience of Wikipedia (and possibly also of the topic in question). I have, personally, definitely a more laid back attitude.
      • Like Johan mentions above, it's important to remember what a wiki is and how it works. To strive for articles that appear perfect in one's own view can't easily be combined with npov-coverage of the topic. It's much better to strive for acceptability: The best text is that that gets accepted by the most readers.
      • Wikipedia is no discussion club, and appearing as "winner of discussions" is of quite limited value. What counts is if one's contributions in articles and on talk pages result in better articles. Isotalo's record is not too bad. A pity that he appears so condescending of immigrants and Finns ...and Scanians?
      • The idea that all material should be verifable is a nice ideal — but not particularly realistic, and not followed by anyone. But of course attributions, quotations and references in principle is a good thing (I've today reinserted one[7] that was removed by someone (Isotalo?)).
      • Isotalo has not yet quite mastered to persuade and contribute in the consensus decision-making. Significant of this is his appearant inability to discuss on other terms than his own, i.e. to contribute to the seeking for compromises. This have seemingly led to the creation of a little mob, flock, or pack that by now is rather suspicious of anything that originates from Isotalo. This is sad!
    • I am distressed by the combination of
    • I disagree with some of Isotalo's wordings above — or what they may imply:
      • The article shall not primarily describe the sounds of (spoken Standard) Swedish, but the phonology of Swedish as this is its scope according to its title
      • "It should not be a pronunciation guide and it should not be a general repository of complaints over how hard Swedish is for foreigners." No, of course not, but peculiarities and difficulties belong to the scope of the article like comparisons with kindred languages. A phonology without (phonetic) pronunciation examples would be quite abstract!
      • Sweden happends to have over a million immigrants (24% of the inhabitants in Malmö, where I live, are born in some other country). We can not act as if they and their expeirences do not exist.
      • Similarly, we can not make up a reality of our own where the Finland-Swedes or the Finnish students of Swedish do not exist.
      • "The consensus of the current phonologies of Swedish should be taken more seriously and the objections of individual editors should be held as more relevant than what sources say." — The concept of "consensus" between phonologies of Swedish seems outlandish to me. Phonologies of other Swedish dialects than (spoken) Standard Swedish do not belong here. And in case there are differences between the phonologies of the spoken varieties of Standard Swedish, then the article can not limit itself to describing a "consensus" that excludes the differences. It's just only impossible. The rest of the sentence is even more incomprehensible.
    • My ambition is to expand the article on in which phonetic contexts different allophones appear, i.e. effects on aspiration, and vocing, and softening of hard consonants.
/Tuomas 10:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have been away on personal matters these past days but am now back. From what I can understand from the points, it is more of a personal problem than a content one. Is this correct? How do you propose we can solve this problem for everyone's satisfaction? Inter\Echo 11:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm making an attempt at keeping the suggestions for mediation out of the more factual discussion here. This talk page is probably getting very confusing for most outsiders by now.
How about we agree to simply stop reverting anything? Edits made by J, R, T and myself should only be made if we're really sure what we're doing. We shouldn't have to back every sentence up with a source citation, but we should not include material that is merely quite distant extrapolation of sources. Preferably the sources should explicitly say that the fact is true rather than simply hinting at it or allegedly confirming this or that notion as true or false. Here's my suggestion for some very basic guidelines:
  • All new edits should be checked for factual accuracy by the editor. Anything that is clearly vague, inherently ambiguous or just doubtful should be suggested at the talkpage instead. This does not mean that all sources should agree down to the minutest detail, because they seldom, if ever, do.
  • No reverts of any kind except for completely false statments, spelling errors or the likes. This means going by the guidelines stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just denouncing it as erroneous by the merit of one's own opinion is obviously not consructive and usually just makes the conflict worse.
  • No further accusations of nationalism, chauvinism or labeling valid, peer-reviewed academic sources as "merely the opinion of individual scholars". Hardly any of this type of criticism is ever constructive or even valid, and when it is, the only valid way of dealing with it is to rewrite it, not to revert it or remove facts.
I'd like to stress the fact that it should not matter in the least if a wikitext is four years or four hours old. If it obviously contradicts outside sources on the matter, it should be corrected. This also applies to any terminology that is vague, non-scholarly or just plain confusing. Confusing in this matter doesn't mean "familiar to Wikipedia editors" but rather to outsiders. Wikipedia is not intended to determine it's own terminology and it should not be used a source for such by the mere grace of tradition. All articles that haven't been peer reviewed or actually picked as FAs should be viewed with healthy skepticism rather than defensive posturing.
If no one has a problem with following these guidelines, I think we could solve our indifferences quite easily. Peter Isotalo 13:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
As always I want opinions on this as I believe Peter wants aswell. Please provide your input guys. Inter\Echo 12:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Peter, translated to plain language, you say for the second time: Dear Ruhrjung, can we please agree that you in the future make your useless contributions somewhere else?
I answer: Dear Peter, it's time for you to consider contributing to articles you are less emotionally involved with.
--Ruhrjung 16:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Inter, I think this clearly shows where we stand right now. Further mediation is obviously pointless. Peter Isotalo 18:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Very well, I am here to try and establish a common ground and get an overview, but it seems hard to do, so if you want other opinions on this case, feel free. I could go hard-ass on you and protect the articles and then continue with a more harder line, but I am not sure if that would really help in this case. Inter\Echo 18:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Protection would be fine with me. Most contributors here seem to be able to discuss. --Ruhrjung 20:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Prosody, lexical accent and word accent versus melodic accent

Peter changed the following wording:

In addition, the melodic accent of South-Sweden is strikingly different from that of the capital-region (including Åland), which in turn differs clearly from provincial dialects of Dalecarlia and Gotlandia. In Finland-Swedish, melodic accent isn't used at all, as is also typical for those parts of northernmost Sweden, where Finnish dominated less than a century ago.

for:

In addition, the prosody and lexical stress of South-Sweden is strikingly different from that of the capital-region (including Åland), which in turn differs clearly from provincial dialects of Dalecarlia and Gotlandia. In Finland-Swedish word accent isn't used at all, as is also typical for those parts of northernmost Sweden, where Finnish dominated less than a century ago.

Since melodic accent already is an introduced concept, and since word accent is a new and unexplained term, I find this pretty much confusing. I expect this to be explained, but until then I think we better stick with the old wording. (This also includes a return to a not so controversial wording on the /u/-phoneme.)

--Ruhrjung 17:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Phonemic symbols

It seems to me as if one of the chief bones of contentions currently is if the chosen symbols for phonemes better should adhere to the written language or better to the phonetic of a particular dialect of Swedish.

In my opinion, there are several reasons to use symbols of the ordinary alphabet as far as possible, and when that is not possible, to stick with symbols that are as wellknown to non-Swedish readers as possible.

I realize that Peter disagrees, arguing that usage in Swedish should be given priority overfor international usage.

The problem is, however, that the debate has had considerable problems to raise above the most subjective level.

I wish with this proposal to propel the debate forward on an issue where an established understanding could constitute a foundation for increased understanding on other contentious areas. Johan Magnus 21:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My chief reason is that the phonemic system, just like the orthography, is (relatively) uniform for all of the language, whereas the spoken language is not. Then, of course, it's less demanding for the reader aswell as for the editor.

To be concrete, this means that I think of vowel phonemes as

/a/, /a:/, /e/, /e:/, /i/, /i:/, /o/, /o:/, /u/, /u:/, /y/, /y:/, /å/, /å:/, /ä/, /ä:/, /ö/, /ö:/.

(I am of course perfectly aware of the phonetic realizations being different.)

A natural consequence is that / ç / is preferred for / ɕ /, and / ʃ / for / ɧ /.

--Johan Magnus 15:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some kind of scholarly support for using / ʃ / as a phonemic symbol can maybe be read into Elert's Allmän och svensk fonetik (1995), page 75:
Vill man bara i största allmänhet referera till sj-ljudet i svenska, så kan man också använda ʃ. För en mer noggrann beteckning av varianterna av sj-ljudet i svenska använder man emellertid specialtecken.
--Johan Magnus 11:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree (as could probably be anticipated by any reader of this talk page).
Occam's Razor is a good principle, and this is a good implementation, I think. It puts the focus on the pairs of long and short vowels that is gramatically relevant (möta–mött) much better than by a series as
/a/, /ɑ:/, /ɛ/, /e:/, /ɪ/, /i:/, ...
[ /a/, /&#593;:/, /&#603;/, /e:/, /&#618;/, /i:/, ... ]
that also carries seeds to much more controversies: Which phonemic symbol should be chosen for a short e, for a long e, for a short ä, for a long ä? No, it's better to stick to the vowels of the (Swedish) alphabet.
Confluence of for instance short e and short ä is easer and more instructive to discuss if the phonomic symbols are not contributing with the bias of any particular dialect.
/Tuomas 12:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A table over vowels could then look something like this:

graphemes phoneme phones examples A. E. equivalent remarks
< a > / a: / [ ɑː ] glas, [ glɑ:s], "glass"

tak, [ tʰɑ:kʰ], "roof"
al, [ ˈɑ:l]ⓘ, "alder"

"a" in "father"
/ a / [ a ] glass, [ glas:], "ice cream"

tack, [ tʰakʰ:], "thank", "Thank you!"
ark, [ ark]ⓘ, "ark"; "sheet of paper"

< e > / e: / [ eː ], [ ɛː ] ek, [ e:kʰ]ⓘ, "oak" "ai" in "pail" 1/
[ æː ] 2/
/ e / [ ɛ ] est, [ɛst]ⓘ, "estonian" "e" in "pet" 3/
[ æ ] 2/
< ä > / ä: / [ æː ], [ ɛː ] läs!, [ lɛ:s]ⓘ, "read!" "ai" in "air" 1/
[ æː ] 2/
/ ä / [ æ ], [ ɛ ] "a" in "pat" 3/
[ æ ] ärt, [ æʈ ]ⓘ, "pea" 2/
< i > / i: / [ iːʲ ] is, [ i:ʲs]ⓘ, "ice" "ee" in "see"
/ i / [ ɪ ] imma, [ ˈɪm:a]ⓘ, "steam on window" "i" in "pit"
< y > / y: / [ yːʲ ] yla, [ ˈˈy:ʲla]ⓘ, "howl"
/ y / [ ʏ ] ylle, [ ˈʏl:ə]ⓘ, "wool" (fabric or yarn)
< ö > / ö: / [ øː ] öl, [ ø:l]ⓘ, "beer" like "i" in "sir"
[ œ̟ː ] öra, [ œ̟:ra]ⓘ, "ear"
/ ö / [ œ ] kött, [ çœt:]ⓘ, "meat" 4/
[ ɶ ], [ ɶ̟ ] dörr, [ dɶ̟r:]ⓘ, "door"
< u > / u: / [ ʉː ], [ ʉ̟ː ] ut, [ ʉ̟:tʰ]ⓘ, "out"
/ u / [ ɵ ] ull, [ ɵl:]ⓘ, "wool" (material) 4/, 5/
< o > / o: / [ u: ] oro, [ ˈu:ru:]ⓘ, "unease", "worry" "oo" in "zoo"
/ o / [ ʊ ] ort, [ ʊʈ]ⓘ, "(geographic) place" 5/
< å > / å: / [ o: ] åka, [ ˈo:ka]ⓘ, "travel", "go" "oo" in "floor"
/ å / [ ɔ ] åtta, [ ˈɔtʰ:a]ⓘ, "eight" "au" in "caught"
remarks
1/ Some Swedish dialects make no distinction between the long vowels /e:/ and /ä:/, notably less prestigeous varieties in Stockholm with surroundings, and for instance meta ("to angle") and mäta ("to measure") appear as homophones
2/ [ e ], [ ɛ ] → [ æ ] in most cases when followed by /r/. This affects both long and short vowels.
3/ Most Swedish-speakers do not distinguish between the short vowels /e/ and /ä/. For instance hetta ("heat") and hätta ("hood") have become homophones, like also sett ("seen") and sätt ("manner").
4/ The short vowels /ö/ [ œ ] and /u/ [ ɵ ] may appear undistinguishable in some varieties.
5/ The short vowels /u/ [ ɵ ] and /o/ [ ʊ ] may appear undistinguishable in some varieties.
adapted after Isitalo :-)

/Tuomas 09:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can still fight over the order in which the phonemes are listed.
:-)
Would it be a good idea to note some specific source or reference for the table?
--Johan Magnus 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does everyone agree on this list? Inter\Echo 11:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree since the table along with all other comments disagree with every single one of my very simple and general suggestions for article contents. The astounding complexity of the new table is reason enough to reject it, I might add. In fact, it's just a slightly more complicated version of the table that was used in Swedish language before I made any edits to it [8]. However, this quote more or less sums up why I don't see any point in suggesting any further compromises:
[By Tuomas on this talkpage] Isotalo has not yet quite mastered to persuade and contribute in the consensus decision-making. Significant of this is his appearant inability to discuss on other terms than his own, i.e. to contribute to the seeking for compromises. This have seemingly led to the creation of a little mob, flock, or pack that by now is rather suspicious of anything that originates from Isotalo. This is sad!
I have tried to compromise, I have tried to be reasonable, I've tried to follow principles of verifiability and I've cited my sources. I've avoided edit warring and I've been civil. I've tried actually adding content that wasn't just mine! I've even tried Tuomas' advice of pursuasion at both his and Ruhrjung's talkpages, but with answers that clearly indicate that pursuasion in this issue simply isn't an option [9], [10]. I've really done all I can except simply giving up. Peter Isotalo 14:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
So to you other guys, do you feel Peter is being unreasonable here in throwing his arms in the air or on the other hand is it you who do the same? I'd like input from you on this comment. Inter\Echo 19:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure a table of the type above needs the examples glas–glass and tak–tack, though they are good examples. Maybe they would do better as an introductory explanation on long and short vowels?
I am disappointed and confused by Peter's words about User talk:Ruhrjung#Phones and phonemes demonstrating that "persuasion is not an option."
I think discussions ought to be allowed to run their course. Any kind of unilateral changes, while a discussion goes on at the talk page, disturbs the decission-making process and harms the mutual respect between participating contributors. An example of this was this reverse turn that aborted the discussion but rather left the contributors confused than enlightened.
Ruhrjung 11:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't really understand, Peter, if you are reacting against my proposition or against Tuomas' usage of this in a table. I fail to see how my proposal can "disagree with every single one of [your] very simple and general suggestions for article contents". And I do not believe Tuomas' table would be less complex, not at all, in case we fail to adopt my proposal.
--Johan Magnus 21:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So what are we gonna do to come up with a table that everybody can agree on? What about editing it to your liking, take a diff, then revert back to what it was, then compare and discuss. Inter\Echo 01:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
To discuss tables is maybe premature before we have come to a conclusion on whether we want 9 pairs of vowel-symbols for phonemic representation, or not?
If we don't, then my proposal automatically has fallen.
Also if we do, there still remains the choice between characters from the ordinary alphabet and characters from the IPA-alphabet (which may appear more telling for people who don't know <å,ä,ö> but know [ɑ, ɛ, ʉ, ɵ, ʊ, ɔ]).
--Johan Magnus 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
The number of vowel phonemes is actually 17. Short <e> and <ä> (rendered as [ɛ] or [æ]) are not differentiated in any variants that I know of. Elert and Garlén say that there are a few dialects (and variants?) that do, but they fail to mention which and the rest of the phonologies seem to stick to the 17-phoneme system. I'm pretty sure that dialectal standards like that of Värmland render words like hätta ("hood") as [hæt:a], but as far as I know this is true also for hetta ("heat"), which otherwise would prove a good minimal pair to prove the difference. In almost all other regional and dialectal variants, it's rendered [hɛt:a]. Johan Magnus speculation about phonemes depicting something other than a certain aspect of phonetics is not entirely untrue, but replacing a long standing international standard with very specific Germanic (yet explicitly non-English) orthography is, like Mustafaa pointed out, a very good way of confusing those who except IPA, which is the only reasonable standard available.
As for my protests, they are pretty clear if you just read the Tuomas' replies to what I think is relevant to the article. The proposed tables, including the very misleading and considerably inconsistent orthography of Swedish, just seem to me as being bad layout. The tables we have now reflect the relevant phonemes and deal with the actual realizations as best as possible in seperate comments. Tables can be very handy to get a quick overview of information, but if they're the size and complexity as the ones above, with the added difficulty of using characters that are completely non-standard, Then they appear to me as being merely impractical and cumbersome. Peter Isotalo 12:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can't comment on the history of this controversy, but I notice a curious tendency among some editors to support phonetically inaccurate transcription simply because they involve "symbols of the ordinary alphabet". The IPA is the international standard for representing sounds precisely because of its ability to make detailed distinctions. For an article on the phonology, this capacity should be utilized to the full; transcribing the lax vowels as /u/, /i/, etc. seriously lowers this article's usefulness, and encourages any reader who can use IPA to mispronounce them. Peter Isotalo's proposals seem eminently sensible. - Mustafaa 23:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why we should prefer phonemic transcriptions that makes the difference between short and long vowels less obvious. As the example "möta" - "mött", it looks to me as unintuitive as to use other symbols than the (German) umlauts to symbolize umlaut in German. To be honest, I miss Peter's comment on Tuomas note above "Which phonemic symbol should be chosen for a short e, for a long e, for a short ä, for a long ä?
As far as I understand, there are only three IPA-symbols to chose between, and adding IPA-diacritics ( ɛ̟ ) and ( ɛ̠ ) seems to be overkill for a phonemic level.
It is also easier to avoid confusion over the different realizations of vowel quantity if phonemics and phonetics is clearly differentiated. As Johan notes above: The phonemic system can like the writing system be characterized as uniform for all of the language, or at least for all of the spoken standard language. The phonetics, however, lacks in standardization, which I can admit that I have a personal incentive to point out as clearly as possible.
Phonemic transcription could, as Mustafaa indicates, seem more intuitive for someone who knows French or IPA but not German, if the symbols /u/, /u̟/, /ɔ/, /æ/, /œ/ were chosen as phonemic transcriptions for the written <o>, < u>, <å>, <ä>, <ö>.
  1. I think the arguments for using 18 phonemic vowel symbols are most convincing.
  2. I think the arguments also are strong for the usage of 9 pairs of symbols that only differ in quantity (i.e. long or short), although I am aware of my own bias with a background as a language student of Swedish.
  3. When we then shall chose which 9 symbols to use for phonemic representation, it seems pretty natural to me to use the 9 vowel characters of the Swedish alphabet, not the least since it is much easier to write "/e/" than "/&#603;/". Other symbols would introduce an extra and, I guess, unnecessary level of complexity.
Ruhrjung 11:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I better state that I agree with your three points above, although in falling degree. I agree strongly about the need for 18 symbols; I agree that 9 pairs is a good choice; and using characters from the Swedish alphabet was my initial proposal, but that is after all of secondary importance.
--Johan Magnus 23:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm somewhat unsure of what Peter's proposal really is. Peter's comment under this heading is not easily interpreted as a proposal. His edits of the content of this article has in this respect been the change[11] of the table heading IPA to phoneme. This is, that's true, a change that isn't quite in agreement with my understanding of what would be ideal. In fact I think "most common allophone" would have been more to the point. But at that time, I didn't understand it as programmatic. I understood it as a slight improvement that could be further refined. And as a further refinement, my proposal is intended.
As long as we transcribe the characters o–u–å correctly in phonetic transcriptions (most commonly: [u:], [ʊ], [ʉ̟:], [ɵ], [o:], [ɔ]), I don't really see how our choice of phonemic symbols could encourage "any reader who can use IPA" to mispronunciations. I believe phonetic transcriptions to be relevant in all cases when pronunciation is intended. Phonemic symbols are, in my view, more for abstract reasonings on for instance grammar, or relationships between languages and dialects, or the relation between orthography and phonetics.
--Johan Magnus 21:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The point of using a standard for making transcriptions of the pronunciation of sounds is to use a recognized standard. Forcing the reader to get used to separate transcriptions for individual articles is making the article less accessible. In this case it excludes everyone that doesn't speak Swedish. A German speaker might get some of it right, but most of it will be lost and everyone else will be confronted with Swedish orthography instead of the phonetics of Swedish.
I think you're taking your assumption a bit too far. There are some disagreements on exactly what phonemes are intended to signify, but they are certainly most relevant to phonetics, rather than any other discipline in the field of linguistics. Again, this is reflected by the recommendations of the IPA and the actual usage of IPA in all acknowledged academic sources. I also think the differences between phonology and phonetics have been taken a bit too literally. Both literature in print as well as our own phonology articles confirm this.
Trying to read what the scholarly community itself has to say about these matters rather than trying to make own's own interpretations is really the best way of going about this. This means tolerating a minimum of deviance rather than assuming that an entire academic community is confused and self-contradicting. Just like conflicting views among wiki-editors, these differences should rather be merged into a reasonable compromise instead of simply ignoring that which doesn't make seem to make sense and instead making own's own very unqualified assumptions. This does not include merging the views of individual wiki-editors and acknowledged experts as equally valid. Peter Isotalo 14:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I reinserted the [ʉ̟:] and the comment about [ɧ]. The vowel symbol is used in all Swedish phonologies including the The Handbook of the IPA and the voiceless dorso-palatal velar fricative just doesn't seem to be found in any other language. At least no one has shown any reference to it. The comments of similarities to other Germanic languages is more or less pointless, because stating that a language is similar really says very little about the actual situation. Swedish could be said to be similar even to unrelated languages by a lot of phonetic criteria. Even phonotactics of Swedish differ quite a bit from West Germanic langauges, and especially English. I also reworded statements of realization claimed to be prestigious, because it seems to be too subjective to actually confirm, though I'm open to suggestions if anyone contests. Peter Isotalo 12:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Retroflex

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 [kʰɑ:ɹ] with an alveolar approximant rather than a retroflex one. I'd say that [ɻ] is used by some people, but that it's far less common than [ɹ]. 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)

Spelling errors

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))

A sentence that I don't understand

In the article on Swedish language, there is the sentence:

Although there are inflection rules to prevent two unemphasized syllables in a row, words may instead have two consecutive stressed syllables.

Maybe some examples should be added? I don't have the slightest idea what is being refered to, even though I have some idea of Swedish and of phonetics/phonology/whatever. I assume "unemphasized" means unstressed, but why not write so, then?

The long "a" in Swedish is controversial

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)

orthography section

I have been trying to find information on the Swedish spelling on wikipedia. Would some of the Swedish people perhaps write a section about the Swedish spelling?

Missing audio files

I can't seem to access any of the audio files that have an ä, ö or å in the file name. Could somebody find them and rename them so the links work? — Ливай 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, they seem to work in Internet Explorer but not in Opera. — Ливай 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You should alert Opera's developers about this issue. A few common umlauts in file names should not be that big of a problem.
Peter Isotalo 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nordanvinden

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)

Västkustskt pronounced "västkust"!?

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))

Swedish has long consonants

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 /mat/ but mat as /mɑːt/ is very inconsistent. If the broad transcription is supposed to be consistent, one should instead write matt /mat/ vs mat /mɑt/, 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 = { /i/; /y/; /ʉ/; /e/, /ɛ/; /ɑ/; /ø/; /u/; /o/ }

and

Vshort = { /ɪ/; /ʏ/; /ɵ/; /e̞/; /a/; /œ/; /ʊ/; /ɔ/ },

respectively. Note here that /e̞/ is the short version of /e/ and /ɛ/ 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))

'sje' sound - found a very good example in music!

To hear the (huge!) difference between regions, the traditional song Ack Värmeland, du sköna is just perfect! Jussi Björling, who is a Swede with a Finnish grandmother, did a historical recording of this back in 1936. And yes, he pronounces sköna with an ʂ, and it even sounds almost identical to the 'sh' in english shoe, i. e. ʃ. Same with Monica Zetterlund's interpretation. But you're waiting for one that is 100% exactly the ɧ sound? No problem. Just 3 years ago, Tommy Körberg recorded it with a textbook sje sound! :)) So it seems the article also needs to mention the pronunciation of the 'sje' sound as ʃ used in english or german 'sch' in 'schauen'. -andy 80.129.126.4 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't mix up ʂ and ʃ, they're roughly similar, but not the same. (After some thinking, I think that I generally pronounce the 'sje' sound as ʂ, myself. Don't know if that's a Stockholm thing, or if the sound just came easier to me...) 惑乱 分からん 02:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "textbook sje sound", because it's so incredibly varied. There are general opinions about the ones pronounced further forward to be more prestigious, but that doesn't mean that they're all the same. Some pronounce fairly similar to the German sound, but there's also a variety that's pronounced by creating breaking up the airstream against barely clenched teeth. My mother tends to pronounce it that way.
Peter Isotalo 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Chart of Germanic Long-Short Pairings Please?

Could we have a chart showing the Germanic long-short pairings in Swedish?

I'm confused for example what the "u with line and underdot" is the short version of.


First row: "LONG VOWELS" - IPA symbols (in aeiou+ order)

Second row: "SHORT VOWELS" - IPA symbols (in aeiou+ order)

Third row: "UNACCENTED VOWELS" - IPA symbols (appearing below the long/short vowels they are reduced from)


Some may consider this to be an inaccurate, old fashioned way to class vowels. I'm only asking for it as an addition to the "triangular" chart.

It is essential information for understanding the spelling systems of Germanic languages.

And actually, at a deep level, the long-short contrast system is structurally fundamental to the Germanic phonemic system itself, and is not well illustrated by the triangular chart approach -- which is really physiological and not "phonemological" (in the deeper, structural-conceptual sense, somewhat disconnected from "sound").

Er whatever.

There are currently the separate "Long" and "Short" charts but -- in addition to being physically separate -- they don't seem to match in order of the vowels listed(??).

Thanks

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.32.15 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

The old-fashioned way of describing Swedish vowels (9 vowels with quantitive contrast) is not really up to date with how Standard Swedish is actually spoken, and describing a vowel system that no longer exists is rather misleading. The older destinction between long and short "e", which can still be found in some dialects, can only be seen in orthography, so there's really no underlying phonological structure to speak of. People simply don't contrast men ("but") from män ("men") except in writing. It has to be done by context. And the vowel chart does specify which vowels are long.
I'm reverting the latest changes even if they are well-meaning. I know Swedish has a relatively large vowel system, but the second largest in the world just isn't true. I checked David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language and found at least one example of a 20-vowel system (Punjabi). If you count the long vowel-diphtongs, Dutch and Norwegian would be tied with Swedish. And then there's Danish, with at least 21 vowel phonemes in a vowel system that is much more complex than any of these examples.
Peter Isotalo 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swedish_phonology/Archive_2&oldid=1057738130"