Re: Swedish Chinese

Hello,

> >What are they? I only know about [ok].
>
> Rather make that ["ok3\]...
Ah.

> >  Well, unless you count the
> >[u]-or-whatever in [kvIn:ur] as a spelling pronunciation (which it,
> >AFAIU, historically is)
>
> _Att, av, och_ all used to be /o/,
_att_ and _och_ as [o] are surely something I've heard not once.

> _till_ used to be /ti/ or /te/, _vid_ (prep.) /ve/ etc.
Umm, _vid_ is [vI] for us students. Also _bredvid_ [brEv:I].

> <rant> but the worst by far is the _-ade_ verb
> preterite, which historically was only [a].
But _sa_ and _la_ are kosher even in "proper" Swedish, aren't they?

> In fact most final and intervocalic _d g_ were historically [D G]
> and were subsequently lost, so the pronunciation of [d g] in these
> cases is strictly a spelling pronunciation for most lects.
Ah, that was what I was wondering about as well.

> Another thing is the ridicule directed at those who preserve a
> distinct feminine gender.
What is it? Do you mean the *distinction* between masculine and
feminine, as in _den gode riddaren_ vs. _den goda kvinnan_? Or something
else?

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.)?

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@mail.ru

Nid byd, byd heb wybodaeth
                 --Welsh saying

Reply