Re: Swedish Chinese

Hello,

> > _att_ and _och_ as [o] are surely something I've heard not once.
>
> Really? That rather surprises me, act'ly, esply the later.
Oops. I meant, I really have heard them, and pretty frequently at that.

> Or did you mean [bre:vI]?
No, it's definitely short.

> > But _sa_ and _la_ are kosher even in "proper" Swedish, aren't they?
>
> They would be avoided in "serious" writing, if your speaking
> of the spelling.
But even SI:s _Svenska utifrån_ book for learners has them. It's pretty
liberal though, they even write å for att in the later stages.

> > BTW, is it true that some lects have [stu:g] for _stod_
> because no other
> > preterite ends in [d], but plenty of them are in [g] (drog,
> log etc.)?
>
> Can confirm the fact, but not the explanation. Another
> preterite in /-d/ would be _skred_ "strode".
Ah yes. Also _vred_? Probably the teacher meant that no other preterite
*adds* _d_.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@mail.ru

Nid byd, byd heb wybodaeth
                 --Welsh saying

Replies