Slightly older Swedish

[Chuma]

I'm in a reactionary mood today, and have decided to start speaking Swedish the way they did in the good old days. I'm not talking about any sort of viking age Swedish, just a few choice reversions a couple of centuries back. The problem is of course that I have no idea what that actually sounded like.

1. I would like to reinstate the short ä/e distinction. Question is, how do I know which one to use in a given word? I've heard that the distinction still exists in some dialects, so it shouldn't be impossible.

2. I know many coda plosives were traditionally silent, such as in bröd /brö:/ ("bread"). But which ones? All of them?

3. A minor thing perhaps, I would like to restore the distinction between de /di:/ ("they") and dem /dom/ ("them"). This is still found in Skåne, among older speakers. Problem here: Would that give the same pronunciation for de and dig ("you", object form)? Homophones are evil.

[Echobeats]

I'm in a reactionary mood today, and have decided to start speaking Swedish the way they did in the good old days. I'm not talking about any sort of viking age Swedish, just a few choice reversions a couple of centuries back. The problem is of course that I have no idea what that actually sounded like.

1. I would like to reinstate the short ä/e distinction. Question is, how do I know which one to use in a given word? I've heard that the distinction still exists in some dialects, so it shouldn't be impossible.

2. I know many coda plosives were traditionally silent, such as in bröd /brö:/ ("bread"). But which ones? All of them?

3. A minor thing perhaps, I would like to restore the distinction between de /di:/ ("they") and dem /dom/ ("them"). This is still found in Skåne, among older speakers. Problem here: Would that give the same pronunciation for de and dig ("you", object form)? Homophones are evil.

For 2 og 3, flytt til Norge. Der sier alle /brø:/, /di:/ og /dem/. Og det finnes sikkert en dialekt som skjelner kort {æ} fra {e}.

Er ikke <dig> /dej/ eller /dæj/?

[Chuma]

Okay, I don't expect there are a lot of non-scandinavian speakers in this thread, but I'll stick to English anyway...

Move to Norway, that's an idea... I'm all for restoring the Nordic union, and creating a common official language, if you guys are up for it. But for now I think I'll stick around here.

Er ikke <dig> /dej/ eller /dæj/?

Yes, in official Swedish. My guess is that the g became /j/, as it is in may other words, making it /dij/, and then the diphthong shifted slightly, since /ij/ is kind of hard to say. It's just a guess, I'm no expert.

But I feel like restoring it to /dij/ or /di/. My proof that it used to be pronounced that way is simply old song lyrics. Random example:

"och då ropar hon till mig
ja på blommande stig
se här är den sköna sommaren som jag har lovat dig"

I conclude that they were all pronounced /-i(j)/. Unless the writer (and many others) were simply fooled by the spelling, and the words never rhymed. Or, I suppose, it could be that "stig" used to be /stej/. Maybe in some dialects that would work, but it's not my first guess.

[Aszev]

Ohai!

1. Den här är nog den jobbigaste eftersom skriftspråket har totalförstört distinktionen, dvs man kan inte alls lita på det som stavas med e respektive ä. Enda säkra sättet som jag egentligen vet är att gå tillbaka till varenda ords ursprung og kolla vad för vokal den hade i fornsvenskan. Kort sagt blev kort /i/ till /e/ og kort /e E/ till /E/. I ordpar som beck(<bik)/bäck(<bekkr) är detta tydligt, men i ord som vän(<vinr) blir man snarare lurad.

2. Egentligen mest d og g, i de allra flesta ord. Jag kan tänka mig att precis som i dagens standardtalspråk bevarades de mer i lärda ord, om än i mindre mån. I många dialekter föll de här två även medialt (i viss utsträckning), så att t.ex. fjäder uttalades fjär.

3. dig uttalades inte med /i/ så det är inget problem alls; /di:g/ är ett ganska grovt läsuttal. Den traditionella nordliga formen är däg og den sydliga är däj - i båda fallen reduceras det vanligtvis bara till dä i obetonad ställning.

[Åge Kruger]

For 2 og 3, flytt til Norge. Der sier alle /brø:/, /di:/ og /dem/.

Ikke alle. Kjæresten min sir /br2d dei dei/. Jeg tror litt videre inland sir de /br2D/.

[Echobeats]

For 2 og 3, flytt til Norge. Der sier alle /brø:/, /di:/ og /dem/.

Ikke alle. Kjæresten min sir /br2d dei dei/. Jeg tror litt videre inland sir de /br2D/.

Jeg burde si, "Der er det normalt å si..."

[Åge Kruger]

For 2 og 3, flytt til Norge. Der sier alle /brø:/, /di:/ og /dem/.

Ikke alle. Kjæresten min sir /br2d dei dei/. Jeg tror litt videre inland sir de /br2D/.

Jeg burde si, "Der er det normalt å si..."

Nei, det burde du vel ikke. Det kjæresten min sir er ikke unormalt; det er ganske normalt. Det finnes tusenvis mennesker som snakker sånn (kanskje mer). De fleste dialekter i norge har hverken /di:/ eller /dem/. At noe sies i Oslo betyr ikke at det er normalt. At noe sies utenfor Oslo betyr ikke heller at det er unormalt.

[Magb]

Modern-day Norwegian has:
- some d > Ø / _# that's obligatory and indicated in writing, like li, from ON hlíð (maybe some people retain a /d/ there, but that must be very rare);
- some d > Ø / _# that's optional and/or dialectally variable, and typically not indicated in writing, such as the aforementioned brød; and,
- some final /d/'s that can't be deleted, e.g. in bad "bath" (but note ba(d), the past tense of be(de)).

For 2 og 3, flytt til Norge. Der sier alle /brø:/, /di:/ og /dem/. Og det finnes sikkert en dialekt som skjelner kort {æ} fra {e}.

"Alle" is an unfortunate choice of words here. Myself, I say "di" for both, as do many other people from the southeast. Furthermore, many people from Oslo use "dem" for both. "Dæm", "dom", "døm" and of course "dei" can be heard in various parts of the country.

As for short /æ/ and /e/, yeah, they can appear as distinct phonemes for many Norwegians, but in most dialects /æ/ is traditionally limited in what environments it can appear in. I think southeastern Norwegian basically lost /æ/ as a distinct phoneme, with both short and long [æ] being confined to appearing before /r/ and the retroflexes. It was, and still is, almost in complementary distribution with [E]. ([æ:] has always contrasted with [e:] in pairs like ser/sær.) Only recently is /æ/ returning as a distinct phoneme on account of spelling pronunciations and loanwords, primarily English ones. My reason for thinking this is that if you look English loanwords from just a century ago, they usually map English /æ/ to /E/, e.g. back /bek:/ "back (in sports)", and racket /rek:et/ "(tennis) racket". In more recent loanwords like hacke /hæk:e/ and lagge /læg:e/ you always get /æ/ for English /æ/. /æ(:)/ does appear in some other environments in a few native words IMD, such as hælvete, trædve and sæd. All of those have /e/ in standard South East Norwegian though.

The situation with /æ/ gets very complicated when you look at different Norwegian dialects. For instance, in the north of the country and in the Trøndelag area there's been a big e > æ sound change that I don't know the details of. And at the same time, in many western dialects, short /e/ is phonetically lowered to the point where it's more like [æ] than [E]. But I believe those are two separate events. It's all very confusing.

[Echobeats]

OK, so my knowledge of Norwegian dialects sucks. I guess I should stop hanging out with such prescriptivist Norwegians...

[Åge Kruger]

OK, so my knowledge of Norwegian dialects sucks. I guess I should stop hanging out with such prescriptivist Norwegians...

Would I be right to say that they're from eastern Norway?

[Skomakar'n]

1. I would like to reinstate the short ä/e distinction. Question is, how do I know which one to use in a given word? I've heard that the distinction still exists in some dialects, so it shouldn't be impossible.

<ä> tends to come from <e>, while <e> tends to come from <ei> or <i>.

2. I know many coda plosives were traditionally silent, such as in bröd /brö:/ ("bread"). But which ones? All of them?

They still are in so many, very common dialects and regional pronunciations. All of them.

3. A minor thing perhaps, I would like to restore the distinction between de /di:/ ("they") and dem /dom/ ("them"). This is still found in Skåne, among older speakers. Problem here: Would that give the same pronunciation for de and dig ("you", object form)? Homophones are evil.

This is still the way it is, among young speakers as well, in Västgötska, for example. I think <de> and <det> are more likely to merge together than <de> and <dig>. They're all separate in Västgötska (and <ni> is "I", like in older Swedish, and modern Danish).

3. dig uttalades inte med /i/ så det är inget problem alls; /di:g/ är ett ganska grovt läsuttal. Den traditionella nordliga formen är däg og den sydliga är däj - i båda fallen reduceras det vanligtvis bara till dä i obetonad ställning.

Don't forget Västgötska "dek" or "dik".

[Echobeats]

(and <ni> is "I", like in older Swedish, and modern Danish).

At first I thought you meant that ni was the 1S.NOM pronoun in Västgötska. Very confusing use of angle brackets and quotation marks there.

Would I be right to say that they're from eastern Norway?

The people I had in mind are from Molde on the west coast, so not really. To be fair, it's probably wrong of me to call them "prescriptivists" – they're highly educated and language-aware, and very keen on using prescriptively correct English, but (as I believe most Norwegians are) very au fait with and proud of their country's multidialectalism.

I suppose what I ought to have said in the first place is that the written standard (or rather, the one used by most people, since there are two) is as Chuma described older Swedish. Which is not to say that the majority actually speak that way. But you wouldn't be stigmatised if you did, right?

[Skomakar'n]

(and <ni> is "I", like in older Swedish, and modern Danish).

At first I thought you meant that ni was the 1S.NOM pronoun in Västgötska. Very confusing use of angle brackets and quotation marks there.

Ah. Perhaps.
To clarify for anybody else; 2PP (plural "you"; "ye") is "ni" in most of Sweden, but is "I" in Västgötska (just like in Danish, and older Swedish). Not talking about the English word "I" here.

[Åge Kruger]

Would I be right to say that they're from eastern Norway?

The people I had in mind are from Molde on the west coast, so not really. To be fair, it's probably wrong of me to call them "prescriptivists" – they're highly educated and language-aware, and very keen on using prescriptively correct English, but (as I believe most Norwegians are) very au fait with and proud of their country's multidialectalism.

Very odd indeed. If I remember correctly, both <de> and <dem> are pronounced [d{] in "country" Romsdal, and [dEm:] in Molde. I would be surprised if they make a distinction between nominative and accusative at all, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

I suppose what I ought to have said in the first place is that the written standard (or rather, the one used by most people, since there are two) is as Chuma described older Swedish. Which is not to say that the majority actually speak that way. But you wouldn't be stigmatised if you did, right?

I think it might have been best se the phrase some Norwegian dialects, and just avoid the whole issue of standards. I don't think I can think of one thing in the Norwegian language which I could say without any doubt at all is true for all speakers.

[Echobeats]

Very odd indeed. If I remember correctly, both <de> and <dem> are pronounced [d{] in "country" Romsdal, and [dEm:] in Molde. I would be surprised if they make a distinction between nominative and accusative at all, is I guess what I'm trying to say.

I don't actually know what they say for 3P.NOM and 3P.ACC. I can ask if you're interested.

I think it might have been best se the phrase some Norwegian dialects, and just avoid the whole issue of standards. I don't think I can think of one thing in the Norwegian language which I could say without any doubt at all is true for all speakers.

Well, since what I said is true of the written standard, it probably would have been best to make it clear that that was what I meant to say, so that I couldn't be misunderstood to be claiming (wrongly) that it was also true of most speakers' dialects.

[Åge Kruger]

Well, since what I said is true of the written standard, it probably would have been best to make it clear that that was what I meant to say, so that I couldn't be misunderstood to be claiming (wrongly) that it was also true of most speakers' dialects.

The written standards don't have a pronunciation.

Yes, please do ask your friends from Romsdal. In fact, don't ask them, elicit the information in a normal conversation.

[Magb]

Yes, please do ask your friends from Romsdal. In fact, don't ask them, elicit the information in a normal conversation.

I would also stress this part. Most people have no idea how they speak, and can not be trusted to report it accurately. You have to trick them into revealing it.

I suppose what I ought to have said in the first place is that the written standard (or rather, the one used by most people, since there are two) is as Chuma described older Swedish. Which is not to say that the majority actually speak that way. But you wouldn't be stigmatised if you did, right?

Where I'm from you'd run the risk of being regarded as, for lack of a better term, somewhat "posh" by distinguishing de and dem, but certainly not "stigmatized", no. The distinction can be described as optional in Urban East Norwegian, much like use of the feminine gender and -et/-a for the preterite tense. Using /di:/ for both is probably getting more common, and is pretty widely accepted now. Using /dem/ for both (in the context of a south-eastern dialect), however, is associated with working class Oslo speech. I'm not sure how well said usage actually aligns with social class in reality; I suspect it's more regionally conditioned nowadays.

[Chuma]

Hello Aszev! I was hoping you'd turn up.

1. Okay, so I guess I'll have to start carrying around an etymological dictionary so I can check... Or maybe I could make some sort of compilation of the interesting words.

2. Sounds right, yeah. Altho varit /'va:ri/? But maybe that's not the same phenomenon.

3. If we can reduce it to /dä/, then it might instead risk merging with det. Or would that be /de/? Confusing.

I found a recording of Evert himself on Youtube, and he pronounces it /di(g)/; it's a little hard to hear exactly. Now, he might well be affected by the spelling, but if I'm not mistaken the same thing happens in lots of old tunes, such as church hymns. Isn't that quite strange if it wasn't pronounced like that?

And we're left with that old big question: If the word was never pronounced like that, why is it spelled like that?

They still are in so many, very common dialects and regional pronunciations. All of them.

Yeah, I guess it's also one of those things you hear more often among older speakers. Altho, all of the coda plosives? Do you know anyone who would not distinguish between, say, ratt ("steering wheel"), rack ("racquet"), ragg ("pickup attempt"), and rapp ("quick")?

Don't forget Västgötska "dek" or "dik".

Indeed, it's all made more complicated by the fact that slightly older Swedish has quite an array of different pronunciations.
So how would they pronounce de and det?

[Skomakar'n]

Don't forget Västgötska "dek" or "dik".

Indeed, it's all made more complicated by the fact that slightly older Swedish has quite an array of different pronunciations.
So how would they pronounce de and det?

Personally, I say <det> as [dE:]... I'm not sure this is the true pronunciation of Västgötska, but I'm fairly sure that it is either that or [d{:], or maybe even [de_o:]. <de> is generally [di:].

[Magb]

2. I know many coda plosives were traditionally silent, such as in bröd /brö:/ ("bread"). But which ones? All of them?

They still are in so many, very common dialects and regional pronunciations. All of them.

Really, all final /d/? Even in words like bad, ljud, grad?

[Skomakar'n]

2. I know many coda plosives were traditionally silent, such as in bröd /brö:/ ("bread"). But which ones? All of them?

They still are in so many, very common dialects and regional pronunciations. All of them.

Really, all final /d/? Even in words like bad, ljud, grad?

All final /d/ that stem from a native /D/. <grad> is a loanword, but for <bad> and <ljud>, yes. They might also be a thick ell or some other sound derived from /D/ (other than the Standard /d/, I mean). It differs between dialects, and it can differ between words in the same dialect, and /rD/ or other clusters may be different from intervocalic (or final, preceded by a vowel), historical /D/, such as <ord>, which tends to be realised with a thick ell in many dialects that would render, for example, <bröd> with no sound at all.

[Aszev]

- Nej, alla klusiler faller inte finalt, bara /d g/ (< [D G]). Jag gissar att Skomakar'n misstolkade det som att du enbart syftade på /d/ pga ditt exempel. Märk att de här även försvinner medialt i flera dialekter, som jag nämnde förut.
Som sagt gäller detta inte lånord, samt många lågfrekventa ord. Dialektvariation finns även här förstås, på håll försvinner de inte alls, men det är sällsyntare.

- 2pp.nom är ni i hela Sverige om man ser till riksspråket. Det är I i större delen av landet sett till traditionella dialekter. Skomakar'n: det finns variation även utanför Västergötland ;p

- Västgötskans däk (med variation) är snarare undantag än regel.

- Participformerna är som du misstänker ett skilt fenomen från bortfall av /d g/. Det går en isogloss ungefär mellan dagens Svealand og Götaland där nordsidan tappat participkonsonanten og sydsidan behåller den. vari är förresten en sveaform, götaformen är vart.

- <de> uttalas traditionellt [di:] (di), <det> uttalas [dE:] (dä). Att uttala <det> med [e:] eller [t] är läsuttal. I oblik form får man väl här ett sammanfall mellan dig og det i nordligare områden (dä eller 'rä), men ska jag vara ärligt tror jag inte det ligger nån större risk för sammanblandning alls, det finns tillräckligt med former för att undvika sammanblandning överhuvudtaget. I sydligare områden är det lättare, eftersom formen 'rä motsvaras av 't (ta're lugnt vs ta't lugnt).

- dig har uttalats som det stavats, iaf mer eller mindre. Fornnordiska hade þik, og på fornsvenska kan man stöta på "þik (thik), tik, t(h)ich, t(h)ek, t(h)egh" enligt SAOB. Hursomhelst var den vanligaste stavningen på senare tid tigh eller digh, varpå man senare plockade bort h:et. Dagens stavning är egentligen nån slags hybridform mellan fornsvenska og 1500-talsformer. Just [di:g] har man nog aldrig sagt, däremot kan jag tänka mig att man någon gång sa [di:G], även om det säkert var ett par 700 år sedan.

[Skomakar'n]

- 2pp.nom är ni i hela Sverige om man ser till riksspråket. Det är I i större delen av landet sett till traditionella dialekter. Skomakar'n: det finns variation även utanför Västergötland ;p

Yeah. Don't worry. I didn't mean that we were the only ones who do this, but I know we do, and I though I'd point it out. Which other dialects do this?

- Västgötskans däk (med variation) är snarare undantag än regel.

Probably, but I just wanted to make sure that nobody missed the fact that this pronunciation is present as well.

<de> uttalas traditionellt [di:] (di), <det> uttalas [dE:] (dä).

So my first assumption was correct, then. Neat.