zompist bboard

I recently applied for a PhD job in Stockholm, and though my chances are slim I will have the job since I have been told that there are a hundred other applicants, I am now reading about Stockholm and Sweden, and as a linguist, I am also reading about Swedish, though to be honest I have mostly been reading Wikipedia pages. I do have a few questions about Swedish though, and probably some of them could be answered if I would go to the university library and read more specific books, but I am first trying if I can get the answer here, especially since I can have first hand knowledge from native speakers here. They are one historical question and four synchronic questions.
1) Around the time that I was starting with my linguistics courses more than 10 years ago one of the languages I was most interested in was Icelandic. Now that I have read about Swedish I can sort of see where the different declensions come from, comparing it with Icelandic. The exception is the neuter plural marker -n, as in hjärta-n. Where does that come from? The only thing I can think of is that it comes from the dative plural -um.
2) The Wikipedia article mentions that some loanwords of Greek and Latin have their own plurals, for instance faktum, pl fakta. What is the form with the definite article of those words? Please give examples of both the neuter and the common gender.
3) I have read on a few pages other than Wikipedia that at least in the spoken languages there are some plurals of words from English that have their plural in -s (one example is fan pl fans), but that speakers are unsure what the definite form is for those plurals. What happens if you want to say "the fans"?
4) It is mentioned in the number section of the Wikipedia page that numbers have some unexpected pronunciations. Is that also true for the noun declension? Specifically, does the difference in spelling of -ar, -or and -er reflect a difference in pronunciation.
5) what happens with the article if an adjective is used independently, as in the big one? Is it "den stora", "den storan" or "storan"?
Thank you for answering these questions.

3) Definitely "fansen". Singular definite is less obvious, but usually I hear "fanet".
4) -ar, -or and -er are all pronounced differently. (-er and -or merge in my dialect but that is pretty irrelevant)
5) "Den stora".

1) Around the time that I was starting with my linguistics courses more than 10 years ago one of the languages I was most interested in was Icelandic. Now that I have read about Swedish I can sort of see where the different declensions come from, comparing it with Icelandic. The exception is the neuter plural marker -en. Where does that come from? The only thing I can think of is that it comes from the dative plural -um.
It's -in in Icelandic. Swedish husen ('the houses'), Icelandic húsin.

2) The Wikipedia article mentions that some loanwords of Greek and Latin have their own plurals, for instance faktum, pl fakta. What is the form with the definite article of those words? Please give examples of both the neuter and the common gender.
That would be faktan, if I'm not mistaken. I can't think of any common gender loanwords with non-native plurals at the moment.

3) I have read on a few pages other than Wikipedia that at least in the spoken languages there are some plurals of words from English that have their plural in -s (one example is fan pl fans), but that speakers are unsure what the definite form is for those plurals. What happens if you want to say "the fans"?
Don't.

4) It is mentioned in the number section of the Wikipedia page that numbers have some unexpected pronunciations. Is that also true for the noun declension? Specifically, does the difference in spelling of -ar, -or and -er reflect a difference in pronunciation.
Some people pronounce all of these -er. Some pronounce both -or and -er as -er. The standard practice is to pronounce them all differently, though. I do, for instance.

5) what happens with the article if an adjective is used independently, as in the big one? Is it "den stora", "den storan" or "storan"?
Thank you for answering these questions.
[den] stora. It's rare to omit the article.

Skomakar'n wrote:1) Around the time that I was starting with my linguistics courses more than 10 years ago one of the languages I was most interested in was Icelandic. Now that I have read about Swedish I can sort of see where the different declensions come from, comparing it with Icelandic. The exception is the neuter plural marker -en. Where does that come from? The only thing I can think of is that it comes from the dative plural -um.
It's -in in Icelandic. Swedish husen ('the houses'), Icelandic húsin.

I made a mistake in my original post, so that was not what I meant (I will edit my original post) I mean plural -n as in hjärtan.

Thank you both for answering my questions.

merijn wrote:

Skomakar'n wrote:1) Around the time that I was starting with my linguistics courses more than 10 years ago one of the languages I was most interested in was Icelandic. Now that I have read about Swedish I can sort of see where the different declensions come from, comparing it with Icelandic. The exception is the neuter plural marker -en. Where does that come from? The only thing I can think of is that it comes from the dative plural -um.
It's -in in Icelandic. Swedish husen ('the houses'), Icelandic húsin.

I made a mistake in my original post, so that was not what I meant (I will edit my original post) I mean plural -n as in hjärtan.

Thank you both for answering my questions.

I don't know, and I don't have this myself. I guess it's some kind of analogy.

merijn wrote:3) I have read on a few pages other than Wikipedia that at least in the spoken languages there are some plurals of words from English that have their plural in -s (one example is fan pl fans), but that speakers are unsure what the definite form is for those plurals. What happens if you want to say "the fans"?

Some words are easier to decline than others. Fan is pretty universally ett fan, det fanet, flera fans, de fansen, although the definite singular isn't commonly used I think. Some words get complicated, like avokado, which could be something like en avokado, den avokadon, flera avokados(ar), de avokadosarna. There's in general a lot of variation.

4) It is mentioned in the number section of the Wikipedia page that numbers have some unexpected pronunciations. Is that also true for the noun declension? Specifically, does the difference in spelling of -ar, -or and -er reflect a difference in pronunciation.

Most dialects don't traditionally have a distinction between -er and -or, both being -er, but it's common to hear the spelling pronunciation /Ur/ for -or. In the dialect that do traditionally have the distinction, -or is /Or/. -ar is always different.

1) If my memory doesn't fail me, the plural -n for neuter words ending in a vowel is the definite form that has been reanalyzed into a plural marker.

2) As for greek and latin plurals, most people would colloquially not use them, and even reanalyze them as different words. E.g. faktum and fakta would probably be seen as different words, and people will say things like ett centra, and so on. Often it's more usual not to use these plural forms and just use the Swedish -Ø one (centrum/centrumet/centrum/centrumen). Most common gender loans of this kind tend to use native plurals, I'd believe. In any case I can't think of any counterexample.

4) Except for peripheral and more northern dialects, the traditional pronunciation of -er and -or is identical, even in educated speech. In the south they're both -år, otherwise both are -er. Otherwise it's quite commonplace for frequent words to have a different pronunciation than their spelling, e.g. med /mE:(d)/, att /O/ (as infinitive marker), det /dE/, de /di/(less common nowadays) or /dOm/, nio /ni:E/, etc etc

2) It's important to note that many of these words are usually treated like mass nouns. That includes "fakta" as well as "media" and "data". The singular forms are rare. Isn't that how it works in English too, for that matter?

3) About "fan", I agree with UM.
There are a bunch of words which don't have any obvious plural. If I understand it right, it's any common gender word that ends in an unstressed vowel other than /a/ or /e/. Another typical example is "taxi". The official solution is to say "taxibilar", "taxi cars". Quite commonly we treat it as if there was an extra -s, so that the plural becomes -sar, as UM said. That sounds very colloquial, tho, even childish. Also not unheard of is leaving it as it is - the plural the same as the singular.

4) "Standard" Swedish does distinguish between all of them - it may be that it's actually a spelling pronunciation, but none the less.

5) Actually "Storan" is used on very rare occasions, as a sort of nickname. But I shouldn't be telling you about that sort of exceptions...

EDIT: Aszev is probably right about 4, tho.

4) "Standard" Swedish does distinguish between all of them - it may be that it's actually a spelling pronunciation, but none the less.

It's probably spelling pronunciation, but I think I distinguish between them. For instance, I'd pronounce bönor (beans) as [bøːnʊr] rather than [bøːnɛr] (which to me is böner, i.e prayers). But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

4) Except for peripheral and more northern dialects, the traditional pronunciation of -er and -or is identical, even in educated speech. In the south they're both -år, otherwise both are -er. Otherwise it's quite commonplace for frequent words to have a different pronunciation than their spelling, e.g. med /mE:(d)/, att /O/ (as infinitive marker), det /dE/, de /di/(less common nowadays) or /dOm/, nio /ni:E/, etc etc

I pronounce med, att, det, de and nio as [meː], [ɔ] (most of the time), [deː], [dɔm] and [nijʊ].

*Ceresz wrote:I pronounce att as [ɔ] (most of the time).

What?! :O
Du borde berätta mig!

Ossicone wrote:

*Ceresz wrote:I pronounce att as [ɔ] (most of the time).

What?! :O
Du borde berätta mig!

probably from what orthographically is written <och> - it's replaced att in many contexts.

Do you pronounce the subjunction "att" that way as well - is "hur visste du att ..." pronounced with [ɔ] ? If so, k, then you're right, otherwise, I bet it's a grammatical change more than a sound change.

Miekko wrote:

Ossicone wrote:

*Ceresz wrote:I pronounce att as [ɔ] (most of the time).

What?! :O
Du borde (ha) berättat det för mig!

probably from what orthographically is written <och> - it's replaced att in many contexts.

Do you pronounce the subjunction "att" that way as well - is "hur visste du att ..." pronounced with [ɔ] ? If so, k, then you're right, otherwise, I bet it's a grammatical change more than a sound change.

No, that's why I said "most of the time", since I couldn't be bothered to think of any examples where it's [ɔ] and where it isn't .

Jag tycker inte att du är en bra lärare nu. :p
(Och tack.)

*Ceresz wrote:But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

No, it doesn't. Unless you have a very strange dialect, both are grave accent.

Chuma wrote:4) "Standard" Swedish does distinguish between all of them - it may be that it's actually a spelling pronunciation, but none the less.

My understanding is that the spelling is based on dialects which do distinguish -er and -or as /Er/ and /Or/ - although the modern pronunciation where -or becomes /Ur/ is certainly a spelling pronunciation. FWIW, (standard) Finland Swedish, which in some ways tends to be more conservative than rikssvenska, does pretty consistently use the /Er/ vs. /Or/ (or /er/ vs. /or/, since only three vowel heights are distinguished on this side of the gulf) distinction.

2. Not that any of these matter, but... I didn't even know faktum* is the singular form of fakta. In my idiolect, fakta is the same in singular and plural. The definite form would probably be faktan, but I have never had the need to use that word in definite form, that I can remember. Can you give some more examples of Greek and Latin loanwords?
*In my idiolect, that word is only used in the phrase "Faktum är att..." (the truth is that...)

3. For "fans" it would be "fansen". But that word is kind of a special case. There really isn't any good way to form the definite form of e.g. "swimmingpools". I for one would just say swimmingpooler - swimmingpoolerna.

5. Den stora.

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:

*Ceresz wrote:But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

No, it doesn't. Unless you have a very strange dialect, both are grave accent.

I probably should have written "Since tonal accent could distinguish them". I don't even pronounce bönor as [bøːnɛr]. But if I did, I certainly could make them distinguishable using pitch, but maybe that's just me . I'm not saying I would, but I could if context wasn't enough .

*Ceresz wrote:

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:

*Ceresz wrote:But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

No, it doesn't. Unless you have a very strange dialect, both are grave accent.

I probably should have written "Since tonal accent could distinguish them". I don't even pronounce bönor as [bøːnɛr]. But if I did, I certainly could make them distinguishable using pitch, but maybe that's just me . I'm not saying I would, but I could if context wasn't enough .

How, exactly? Would you pronounce one of them with the same tonal accent as bilen? That just sounds wrong to me.

*Ceresz wrote:

4) "Standard" Swedish does distinguish between all of them - it may be that it's actually a spelling pronunciation, but none the less.

It's probably spelling pronunciation, but I think I distinguish between them. For instance, I'd pronounce bönor (beans) as [bøːnʊr] rather than [bøːnɛr] (which to me is böner, i.e prayers). But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

Are you sure? I have the same tone for both of these (but I too pronounce the suffixes differently).

*Ceresz wrote:

4) Except for peripheral and more northern dialects, the traditional pronunciation of -er and -or is identical, even in educated speech. In the south they're both -år, otherwise both are -er. Otherwise it's quite commonplace for frequent words to have a different pronunciation than their spelling, e.g. med /mE:(d)/, att /O/ (as infinitive marker), det /dE/, de /di/(less common nowadays) or /dOm/, nio /ni:E/, etc etc

I pronounce med, att, det, de and nio as [meː], [ɔ] (most of the time), [deː], [dɔm] and [nijʊ].

[mɛː], [ɔː], [dɛː]~[daː], [diː]~[ˈdɛɪ], [ˈniːjʏ], or something like that, for me.

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:

*Ceresz wrote:But then again, [bøːnɛr] (bönor) and [bøːnɛr] (böner) both work since the tonal accent distinguishes them.

No, it doesn't. Unless you have a very strange dialect, both are grave accent.

Maybe he's from Dalarna?

Ulrike Meinhof wrote: How, exactly? Would you pronounce one of them with the same tonal accent as bilen? That just sounds wrong to me.

Again, I wouldn't do that, since the suffix already tells them apart .
I might just be over thinking things.

I'm from Uppsala.

*Ceresz wrote:

Ulrike Meinhof wrote: How, exactly? Would you pronounce one of them with the same tonal accent as bilen? That just sounds wrong to me.

Again, I wouldn't do that, since the suffix already tells them apart .
I might just be over thinking things.

I'm from Uppsala.

I'm not sure what you guys sound like over there, but I do definitely know of dialects (like that of Dalarna?) of which the speakers seem to use only the tone of 'bilen'.

It's pretty standard.

To use a classic example, anden and anden have different accents.

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:de avokadosarna.

Not really related to Swedish, but this is an interesting phenomenon-- tacking on the plural ending both of the source language and target language in borrowed words. I've also seen it done (online at least) with Xhosa: the word "ivideo" pluralized as "iivideos", with both the Xhosa plural prefix and English plural suffix. Maybe it's just me that finds it interesting, though, I dunno.

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:de avokadosarna.

I have never heard this. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've really heard this in plural at all, though. It can easily be collective, like fisk, I guess.

My personal intuition would tell me avokadoerna, though.

Skomakar'n wrote:

Ulrike Meinhof wrote:de avokadosarna.

I have never heard this. Now that I think of it, I don't think I've really heard this in plural at all, though. It can easily be collective, like fisk, I guess.

My personal intuition would tell me avokadoerna, though.

I say avokadorna, but I've heard avokadosarna.

Wiktionary lists avokadorna and avokadoerna (I can't imagine someone pronouncing the latter though...).