zompist bboard

WE ARE MOVING - see Ephemera
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 372 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:39 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
The last posts in the Scandinavian topic inspired me to create this one.
I suppose not all of us speak our native tounges the way they are spoken according to the standard.

It would be interesting to see what kind of orthography you would find appealing to use for the dialect that you speak, and to see how your dialects differ from the standard language.

For example, I am from Sweden, and I speak a pretty strange idiolect, if you would compare it to the standard Swedish dialect (rikssvenska), and I really hate the Swedish orthography, so whenever I transcribe my dialect, I use an orthography that's either more like the Norwegian one, or the Faroese one. I also try to stick to etymology, since I don't like when languages have phonetical orthographies. Especially not Scandinavian ones, since we have a long tradition.

So, say you're French, but speak an idiolect that differs a bit. You might not like the French orthography, and you might feel better about applying an orthography more similar to, say, Spanish, when transcribing your dialect, and might prefer spelling the name of French as fransés, rather than français.

Shortly put, show how your idiolect would differ from the standard language, and come up with a little orthography for it, that doesn't throw etymology away and just goes for the phonetical approach. Just try to be descriptive, since everyone obviously does not speak your native tounge or knows of its grammar.

----------------------------------

So, I obviously will have to go first, since it's convenient to do so right away, in the first post.

Like I said, I speak a Swedish (or simply Scandinavian, since I really consider Danish, Norwegian and Swedish dialects varieties of a single language) variety, so I'll compare it to Swedish and other Northern Languages.

I'll start of with a little bit about the grammar. Standard Swedish and Danish have two genders; neuter and common. The common gender is a gender that contains all of the words that used to be masculine or feminine, merged into a single gender. Norwegian Bokmål allows a distinction of three genders, Norwegian Nynorsk forces it, and Icelandic and Faroese have retained all three genders as well. So has my the dialect on which my idiolect is based (and a lot of other dialects).

Here are some examples, in standard Swedish/Danish:

Neuter: hus (house), hår (hair), hjärta/hjerte (heart)
Common: bil (car), arm, hamn/havn (haven/harbour), tunga/tunge (tounge)

The neuter ones are neuter in all of the languages (hus/hús, hår/hár, hjärta/hjerte/hjarta), while only bil/bíll and arm/armur are masculine and only hamn/havn/höfn and tunga/tunge are feminine in the languages that have the larger distinction, including my dialect.

So, in Standard Swedish, Danish and optionally in Norwegian Bokmål, bil and bok (book, femine/common) would be treated the same, while in the languages and dialects with the larger distinction, they would be inflected differently, since they are of different genders in those. In Danish, though, words that were originally masculine usually get the plural ending -e, while words that were originally feminine, usually get the plural ending -er.

I'll stick to the Norwegian-based orthography for my idiolect at the moment, and bil and bok would be spelled the same as in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian (although bok is bog in Danish). Here are some examples:

English: car, the car, cars, the cars
Swedish: bil, bilen, bilar, bilarna
Bokmål: bil, bilen, biler, bilene
Nynorsk: bil, bilen, bilar, bilane
Danish: bil, bilen, biler, bilerne
My idiolect: bil, bilen, bilar, bilarne

So, they are all very similar, but they all have some difference. For this word, the only difference occurs in the plural form (and the definite plural form is different in all of the varieties).

Then we have bok:

English: book, the book, books, the books
Swedish: bok, boken, böcker, böckerna
Bokmål: bok, boken/boka, bøker, bøkene
Nynorsk: bok, boka, bøker, bøkene
Danish: bog, bogen, bøger, bøgerne
My idiolect: bok, boka, bøker, bøkerna

Let's also compare the neuter word hus:

English: house, the house, houses, the houses
Swedish: hus, huset, hus, husen
Bokmål: hus, huset, hus, husene/husa
Nynorsk: hus, huset, hus, husa/husi
Danish: hus, huset, hus, husene
My idiolect: hus, huset, hus, husa

Then, of course, my dialect has preserved the case distinction better than the Standard Scandinavian Languages. I'll stick to comparing to Swedish at the moment. Here are two inflection tables for hus, in Standard Swedish, and my idiolect:

Swedish:
Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | hus        | huset      | hus        | husen      |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | hus        | husets     | hus        | husens     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


My dialect
Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | hus        | huset      | hus        | husa       |
+------+            |            |            |            |
| acc. |            |            |            |            |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| dat. | huse       | husene     | huse       | husene     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | huss       | husens     | huss       | husas      |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


The -t and the -n- in the singular definite forms are all silent, though. This spelling is for etymology; the nominative, accusative and dative singular definite forms are all pronounced "huse", and the genitive one is pronounces "huses". The plural, definite dative form may also be pronounced with the n silent ("huse"/"husa").

Accusative and nominative are usually pretty much alike, but here is an example of the masculine noun bil, where the plural forms are slightly different in the accusative:

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | bil        | bilen      | bilar      | bilarne    |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| acc. | bil        | bilen      | bila       | bilana     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| dat. | bile       | bilene     | bile       | bilene     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | bils       | bilens     | bilas      | bilannas   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


The orthography doesn't fully represent the pronunciation here either; bilen is pronounced biln, and bilarne is pronounced bilare.

Compared to the Standard Swedish:

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | bil        | bilen      | bilar      | bilarna    |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | bils       | bilens     | bilars     | bilarnas   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


Then, finally, we have the feminine noun bok:

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | bok        | boka       | bøker      | bøkerna    |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| acc. | bok        | boka       | bøker      | bøkerna    |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| dat. | bok        | boka       | bøke       | bøkene     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | boks       | bokas      | bøkes      | bøkannas   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


Same thing here; bøkerna is pronounced bøkera.

Standard Swedish:

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | bok        | boken      | böcker     | böckerna   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | boks       | bokens     | böckers    | böckernas  |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


Some endings are treated differently. Masculine noun måne (moon):

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | måne       | månen      | månar      | månarne    |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| acc. | måna       | månan      | måna       | månana     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| dat. | måna       | månane     | måne       | månene     |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | måna       | månans     | månas      | månannas   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


Feminine noun gjenta (girl):

Code:
+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|      | singular                | plural                  |
|      +------------+------------+------------+------------+
|      | indefinite | definite   | indefinite | definite   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| nom. | gjenta     | gjenta     | gjentur    | gjenturna  |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| acc. | gjente     | gjenta     | gjentur    | gjenturna  |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| dat. | gjente     | gjenta     | gjente     | gjentene   |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| gen. | gjente     | gjentas    | gjentas    | gjentannas |
+------+------------+------------+------------+------------+


Unlike in Standard Swedish, I inflect verbs for person and number.
Here is an example with the regular verb hoppa (to jump):

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | hoppa   | hoppade   |
+----------+---------+           |
| 2p sing. | hoppar  |           |
+----------+         |           |
| 3p sing. |         |           |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| plur.    | hoppa   | hoppadu   |
+----------+---------+-----------+


The final -de and -du are silent, but -adu tends to be pronounced -au (separate), while -ade is always -a.

Another common pattern, with the word frjusa (Standard Swedish frysa; to freeze) as example:

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | frys    | fraus     |
+----------+---------+           |
| 2p sing. | frys/   |           |
+----------+ fryser  |           |
| 3p sing. |         |           |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| plur.    | frjusa  | frusu     |
+----------+---------+-----------+


A third example with irregular liggja (Standard Swedish ligga; to lie [on a bed, for example]):

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | ligg    | lå        |
+----------+---------+           |
| 2p sing. | ligg/   |           |
+----------+ ligger  |           |
| 3p sing. |         |           |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| plur.    | liggja  | lågu      |
+----------+---------+-----------+


And then a word with a more interesting different from Standard Swedish, is taka (Standard Swedish taga/ta; to take):

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | tek     | tok       |
+----------+---------+           |
| 2p sing. | tek/    |           |
+----------+ teker   |           |
| 3p sing. |         |           |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| plur.    | taku    | toku      |
+----------+---------+-----------+


Compared to Standard Swedish:

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | ta(ge)r | tog       |
+----------+---------+-----------+


The verb hava (Standard Swedish hava or ha; to have) is similar in the present tense:

Code:
+----------+---------+-----------+
|          | present | preterite |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| 1p sing. | hev     | havde     |
+----------+---------+           |
| 2p sing. | hev/    |           |
+----------+ hever   |           |
| 3p sing. |         |           |
+----------+---------+-----------+
| plur.    | havu    | havdu     |
+----------+---------+-----------+


The spelling of the preterite forms are very much there for consistency and etymology; they're both pronounced /hɔ/.

I'm to lazy to continue at the moment, but I'll do so later. Let me see examples of differences in your own idiolects, compared to the standard and languages close to yours, or older forms.


Last edited by Skomakar'n on Tue May 04, 2010 11:19 am, edited 9 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:44 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sweden
Where are you from?

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:48 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Where are you from?

From the same city as you. <:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:50 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sweden
You live here too, or somewhere else?

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:51 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
rickardspaghetti wrote:
You live here too, or somewhere else?

I've always lived here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:58 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sweden
Me too. My speech differs alot from yours though.
I'd say something like bok, boken, böcker, böckerna/böckera.
I think that'd be something like this in IPA, bu:k, 'bu:kɛn, 'bœk:ɛr, 'bœk:ɛɳa/'bœk:ɛɽ̃a.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:14 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Me too. My speech differs alot from yours though.
I'd say something like bok, boken, böcker, böckerna/böckera.
I think that'd be something like this in IPA, bu:k, 'bu:kɛn, 'bœk:ɛr, 'bœk:ɛɳa/'bœk:ɛɽ̃a.

I don't pronounce the n in the definite plural, either, just like you.

My pronunciation would be something like this:
/bu:k/, /'bu:kɔ/, /'bø:kɛr/ and /'bø:kɛrɔ/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:15 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 880
Location: Llundain
My accent varies by word - a lot of my vowel sounds are oddly Cornish, but some words and, I think, my stress placement is quite Scouse. Also, some words, like 'school', are often quite stereotypically Welsh. I apparently mimic people I'm speaking to - with strong Welsh-accented speakers, I become more Welsh. Most people, though, think I have a very faint Cornish accent.

In terms of syntax, I vary word order quite a lot for stress, which is a typical Welsh feature:

Eating, I was.

Lexically, it's pretty much local vocabulary - there isn't very much of it, mind you. I also have a tendency to use a large number of irregular past participles in free phonological variation depending on the following sound and which sounds better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:15 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
My dialect of Swedish has lost pitch accent. It retains loads of old diphthongs, but has also innovated a bunch (stein, röjk, heim) . There's a rather consistent /o/ > /u/ switch (båt = /bu:t/, våg = /vu:g/, råd = /ru:d/, två = /tvu:/...), and some standard-swe <u> correspond to /Y})/ and some to /u/. Lots of other vowel shifts all over the place (note, the standard Swedish forms here aren't the historical roots, they're cognates, most of them), e.g. hyvel > hivel, kjol > tSoul`, varit > vörI, mer > meir, lada > /lIdu/, vecka > /vIku/, kyrka > /tSörts`u/, snöa > /snI:/, rum > /rY:m/, stuga > /stögu/, kvarnen > /kv{n`{n/
yxa > /öx/, björk > /bj{rk/, rönn > /reu)n/ eller /röu)n/ tegel > /tig{l`/


final -a's fallen away from all infinitives

sjunga sjöng sjungit > SuN sa:N su:ndji
(lots of stuff like that in the strong verbs)

the fricatives follow the retroflex version of the F-Swedish fricative system, that is
f v s S tS s` (ts`) h

The non-diphthongs are
/I Y u
E 2 o
{ A/ or something to that effect; yes, <i> and <y> are *never* very fronty, but almost always somewhat retracted.

The three-gender system is retained; plural imperatives ending in -en are still used by lots of people down to about 20 years of age.

There's softening of final velars before the definite endings. (skogen > /skoujIn/, träsket > /tr{stS{/.

retroflexes pop up where they usually do in retroflex dialects. I'll use single l for retroflex l and double for non-retroflex; there's some length effect on the preceding vowel as well as on the laterals themselves involved in the distinction so that kinda fits normal Swedish orthography.

the definite is used as a sort of partitive thing as well - e.g. the definite can be used when standard swedish would use articleless indefinite forms; but my dialect also permits it in some sorta quirky positions, such as
'ko:m ä na snön i häl`jen?'
'nä vi har int havi na snön po leng.'

'lyutfiskan smakar illt'
= 'lutfisk smakar illa' (lye fish tastes bad, IMD 'the lyefishes taste bad')

/pt/ > /ft/ but not entirely consistently, e.g. köpte > /tSö:ft/

pretty consistent loss of final vowels except in masculines ending in standard Swe on -e, which have been replaced by the accusative form, so e.g. swe. på:se = påsa

syllable weight rules of Swedish don't hold (e.g. in påsa, both vowels are short)

g in /gn/# doesn't turn into N, so /r{gn/, not /r{Nn/

Some a: didn't turn into /o/, so we have la:N instead of lång, tra:N instead of trång, ga: instead of gå., ma:N instead of många

some intransitives tend to lose the present tense marker -Vr, e.g. väx, frys, ...

lots of words have a homorganic stop that swedish has assimilated:
la:mb (lamm), ka:mb (kamm), rinder (rinner), vinder (vinner); the two last examples probably are innovations IMD.

initial kn and gn where earlier in free variation in some words, e.g. gnaga (knag), gnida (kni:d)

the definite endings have somewhat merged in the plural, so you don't get this agglutinating thingy with first a plural ending (also encoding the gender the noun has in the sg) then a definite plural ending (also indicating that gender), but rather either -en for neuters or -an or -na

stSouruna = skatorna
hyusen = husen
bilan = bilarna
tatSen = taken
lian = liarna
traktoran = traktorerna

damn, had to introspect through that to get it all out - I bet e.g. Aszev might even know some stuff I've forgotten since we've talked about this dialect on occasion and to great detail.
There's some syntactic differences, and some fairly interesting differences in vocab.
Also, there's a dative pronoun left, but it's sort of fading away: hennar. (oh, right, 'on' has replaced the female accusative pronoun, which makes one of Lindström's claims about Swedish dialects wrong, otoh this dialect (and a whole bunch of related ones that made the same change) is only spoken in Finland so maybe he just ignored it))

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Last edited by Miekko on Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:19 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sweden
You're not from mainland Sweden are you? :roll:

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:26 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Where do you live, Miekko?

I have those diphtongs you mention initially, too, so I also say stein, röjk and heim (and I would spell them stein, røyk and heim).

I conjugate "illa" as well, so my first (masculine, singular, indefinite) form would be iller.

For me, masculine -e hasn't switched to accusative -a; instead I retain both, so I say påse (spelled pose and pronounced pøse) in nominative, and påsa in accusative and dative.

I have no present tense marker for some words either (usually when it's correct etymologically, but not always; I say "eg heit" (jag heter) instead of "eg heite", which would be correct etymologically). I say "eg frys", which is correct etymologically, but sometimes also "han frys", which isn't, and should be "han fryser" to be correct according to etymology.

Lamb and kamb are etymological, but rinda isn't. I say renna. I say lamm, and kam, but I would still write them lamb and kamb for the sake of etymology.

If I were to write using your dialect, I would probably spell /tatSen/ as takjen, because that would still keep etymology intact, while still representing the pronunciation in a logical way.


Last edited by Skomakar'n on Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:26 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
rickardspaghetti wrote:
You're not from mainland Sweden are you? :roll:

some mainland dialects in the north resemble scarily much - even to the point of having a reduced pitch accent system, but yeah, my home village is like 20 km from the Swedish maritime border.

(btw, I did an edit on some parts of that post, there's a fair bit of additions made)

I'm from Björkö, 15 km north of Replot and 50ish km south of Holmön (south of Umeå). Nowadays I live in Åbo/Turku though.

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:31 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:32 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:47 am
Posts: 105
I speak a language whose "standard" (if it can be called such) isn't spoken by anyone anymore. Nonetheless, here goes. (I won't try and construct a "phonetic" spelling, because that's a good way to get the bigger linguists to beat me up and take my lunch money.)

I don't drop Hs (I hate misconstructions like *<an hotel> [ən 'əʊtɛɫ] - it can only be <a hotel> [ə 'həʊtɛɫ]).
I don't front TH - it is <something> ['sʌmθɪŋ], never ['sʌɱfɪŋ].
I do diphthongise BEAT and BOOT - from what I can tell, they're [bɪit] and [bʊut]. I also distinguish <wholly> [hɒʊɫi] from <holy> [həʊɫi] (but <whole> and <hole> are indistinguishable as [hɒʊɫ]).
I do not diphthongise BORE - it is pronounced [bo:], such that BOARD and BORED have the same vowel. POOR, POUR and PORE all have the same vowel [o], while PURE is [pjʉ]. (Liaison applies - <poor elephant> [poɹ 'ɛlɪ̞fn̩t], <pour out> [poɹ æʊt], <pore opener> [poɹ 'əʊpənə], <pure element> [pjʉɹ 'ɛlɪ̞mn̩t].).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:34 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


no extra /j/s into those positions no.

we don't have any ankor, really, at all where I am from, it's just e:ndren; if anyone had domestic ones, I don't know what I'd call them; I think spörja/spyrja is a more westly thing, Björkö is pretty much a middle form of the ostrobothnian dialect continuum, which is a part of östsvenska, which is pretty close to sveamål and a bit less close to norrländska.
We tend to do more eastly things most of the time, altho' some affinities even with stuff going on in Trøndelag and northern Norway sometimes can be spotted in the Ostrobothnian area.

What makes my dialect funky though is the isolation on an island let us run somewhat wild with some vowel changes. /In blu:mu:l`a plu:tbu:t gup:ar pu vu:gu:na/
(== en blåmålad plåtbåt guppar på vågorna)

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:53 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Miekko wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


no extra /j/s into those positions no.

we don't have any ankor, really, at all where I am from, it's just e:ndren; if anyone had domestic ones, I don't know what I'd call them; I think spörja/spyrja is a more westly thing, Björkö is pretty much a middle form of the ostrobothnian dialect continuum, which is a part of östsvenska, which is pretty close to sveamål and a bit less close to norrländska.
We tend to do more eastly things most of the time, altho' some affinities even with stuff going on in Trøndelag and northern Norway sometimes can be spotted in the Ostrobothnian area.

What makes my dialect funky though is the isolation on an island let us run somewhat wild with some vowel changes. /In blu:mu:l`a plu:tbu:t gup:ar pu vu:gu:na/
(== en blåmålad plåtbåt guppar på vågorna)

Trøndersk and Bergensk are the best dialects ever.

I think I pronounce that something along the lines of this:
/æjn 'bɭo:mo:ɭɔr 'pɭo:tbo:t 'gʏp:ɔr o: 'vo:gʏne/

I'd probably prefer spelling it this way:

Ein blåmålader plåtbåt guppar å vågene.

I'd be pretty interested in seeing normalized orthographies of your dialects, and not just IPA or X-SAMPA pronunciations. :D

I usually pronounce vad (spelled hvad) as /ka:/, but when I just ask people "vad?" as in "va'?", when I could hear them or something like that, it's usually /ha/ (spelled ha). Do any of you do that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:01 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
"to" [tʰ]
"tomorrow" [tʰmɑʁ˞əʊ̯]
"today" [tʰɾɛɪ̯]
etc.

"you have" [jæːv]
"do you have" [djæːv]
etc.

also subject dropping, retention of "have" instead of "got" in most cases, and everything I said in the other thread. I also use the past to refer to things that were referred to in the past, while everyone else up here in this damn nonsense state has this really annoying tendency to use the present and confuse the hell out of me

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:04 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sweden
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

_________________
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:11 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

It is pretty crappy to use a Finnish loanword when speakers of every other Germanic language (except for English) use their cognate of the Swedish and. They manage fine without different words for different types of ducks, and so should we (I know I do! :D).

I do consider them the same language. >:
I mean, there are many Swedish dialects that differ more from Standard Swedish than certain Norwegian Dialects and Oslo Norwegian do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:26 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
Skomakar'n wrote:
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

It is pretty crappy to use a Finnish loanword when speakers of every other Germanic language (except for English) use their cognate of the Swedish and. They manage fine without different words for different types of ducks, and so should we (I know I do! :D).

I do consider them the same language. >:
I mean, there are many Swedish dialects that differ more from Standard Swedish than certain Norwegian Dialects and Oslo Norwegian do.

I do use tons of Finnish words though. For one, I can't call the place where you hang your jackets and whatever at a pub or restaurant a 'garderob' - it's quite clearly en narikka.

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:28 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Miekko wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

It is pretty crappy to use a Finnish loanword when speakers of every other Germanic language (except for English) use their cognate of the Swedish and. They manage fine without different words for different types of ducks, and so should we (I know I do! :D).

I do consider them the same language. >:
I mean, there are many Swedish dialects that differ more from Standard Swedish than certain Norwegian Dialects and Oslo Norwegian do.

I do use tons of Finnish words though. For one, I can't call the place where you hang your jackets and whatever at a pub or restaurant a 'garderob' - it's quite clearly en narikka.

Klädskåp! We have a language of our own to create words from too. >:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:42 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
Posts: 364
Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
Skomakar'n wrote:
Miekko wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

It is pretty crappy to use a Finnish loanword when speakers of every other Germanic language (except for English) use their cognate of the Swedish and. They manage fine without different words for different types of ducks, and so should we (I know I do! :D).

I do consider them the same language. >:
I mean, there are many Swedish dialects that differ more from Standard Swedish than certain Norwegian Dialects and Oslo Norwegian do.

I do use tons of Finnish words though. For one, I can't call the place where you hang your jackets and whatever at a pub or restaurant a 'garderob' - it's quite clearly en narikka.

Klädskåp! We have a language of our own to create words from too. >:

puritanism är löjligt och rätt ... ineffektivt. (E.g. det finns flera sätt att nybilda ett ord för att tala om ett koncept, medan med lånord är det mer sannolikt att alla som känner till konceptet lyckas tolka ordet rätt genast, emedan nybildade ord ibland kan vara mycket mera mångtydiga)
klädskåp är det man har hemma; garderob i bemärkelsen 'ställe vid restaurang/bar/etc där man mot en liten betalning får lämna sin jacka och väskor etc'. det kan jag inte kalla garderob under några omständigheter, det bara känns fel (finns ett antal andra saker också som jag har jättesvårt att acceptera den normala svenska benämningen för)

_________________
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:56 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
Miekko wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
Miekko wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
rickardspaghetti wrote:
Skomakar'n wrote:
What about sticking /j/ into words that don't have it in Standard Swedish? I say snjø and smjør instead of snö and smör.

I also prefer words like spörja (spelled spyrja) over fråga, and I never say anka (always and).


Ugh! J does not belong there. Leave that to the small dialects. If people would speak like that around me, I'd look at them strange. They are either from the "less than one person/km²" part of Sweden, or they are just mentally retarded. I hope you are neither. :roll:

I always say "fråga"("spörja" is for the Norwegians) and I use both "anka" and "and". We are Swedes after all. We need some diversity from the Norwegians and Danes. We have not the same languages. They are just closely related. Now Aszev can argue against me. :mrgreen:

I know. I have prejudice. I'm a human being, not a saint. I don't treat people bad because of it. Prejudice is no problem as long as it doesn't evolve into rasism or xenophobia.

It is pretty crappy to use a Finnish loanword when speakers of every other Germanic language (except for English) use their cognate of the Swedish and. They manage fine without different words for different types of ducks, and so should we (I know I do! :D).

I do consider them the same language. >:
I mean, there are many Swedish dialects that differ more from Standard Swedish than certain Norwegian Dialects and Oslo Norwegian do.

I do use tons of Finnish words though. For one, I can't call the place where you hang your jackets and whatever at a pub or restaurant a 'garderob' - it's quite clearly en narikka.

Klädskåp! We have a language of our own to create words from too. >:

puritanism är löjligt och rätt ... ineffektivt. (E.g. det finns flera sätt att nybilda ett ord för att tala om ett koncept, medan med lånord är det mer sannolikt att alla som känner till konceptet lyckas tolka ordet rätt genast, emedan nybildade ord ibland kan vara mycket mera mångtydiga)
klädskåp är det man har hemma; garderob i bemärkelsen 'ställe vid restaurang/bar/etc där man mot en liten betalning får lämna sin jacka och väskor etc'. det kan jag inte kalla garderob under några omständigheter, det bara känns fel (finns ett antal andra saker också som jag har jättesvårt att acceptera den normala svenska benämningen för)

How could anyone misunderstand "klädskåp", and why would you need a different word for restaurants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:17 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Posts: 1273
YngNghymru wrote:
My accent varies by word - a lot of my vowel sounds are oddly Cornish, but some words and, I think, my stress placement is quite Scouse. Also, some words, like 'school', are often quite stereotypically Welsh. I apparently mimic people I'm speaking to - with strong Welsh-accented speakers, I become more Welsh. Most people, though, think I have a very faint Cornish accent.

In terms of syntax, I vary word order quite a lot for stress, which is a typical Welsh feature:

Eating, I was.

Lexically, it's pretty much local vocabulary - there isn't very much of it, mind you. I also have a tendency to use a large number of irregular past participles in free phonological variation depending on the following sound and which sounds better.

You don't consider Welsh your native tounge?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:32 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 2373
Location: Santiago de Chile
I tend to voice /s/ intervocally, while Standard Chilean actually lenites them all the way to [h]. I've even been known to pronounce both /n/ and /s/ when V_V as [z~] when I'm tired.

I also voice obstruents rather frequently. while some people have [b] and [d] for intial /b/ and /d/, I always, without exeption, even initially and before a nasal, say [B] and [D].

other than that... I dunno, I speak standard chilean.

english I speak with a very heavy accent. again, [D] for /d/ and [B] for /b/, don't make the / i-I / distinction, say [tS] for /dZ/ and other typical chicano habits, like hating that rhotic aproximant and trilling most <r>s, unless I'm carefull.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 372 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group