Re: OT-ish:Conlang Census

Quoting Aleksander Helgaker <madlovik@...>:

> On 28-01-04 19:40, "Joe" <joe@...> wrote:
>
> > Pavel Iosad wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> In Swedish, the transliteration most commonly used is
> >>> 'Chrustjov', which is odd, since the "shch" thing is
> >>> otherwise normally 'sjtj'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> And phonetically? [x] vs. [xC]? Or is it [xS]? I'd expect some kind of
> >> bloody assimilation, anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > From my (limited) knowledge of Norwegian, I'd guess that 'tj' is [tS]
> > and 'sj' is [S].
> >
>
> Me being a Norwegian I would say that's pretty accurate.
That's also the values you'd expect in transcribed Furn in Swedish texts. But
in real Swedish words they're normally, in my 'lect, [S] and [x], and
most 'lects has something along those lines - [tS] and [S] would only be found
in some really deviant variant.

Thanks to the half-assed way we assimilate the spellings of loans, Swedish
probably deserves some sort of prize for atrocious ways of spelling [x]. Let's
see, we have 'sj', 'sk', 'skj', 'stj', 'ch', 'sch', 'sh', 'g', 'j'. That's
nine already, and I'm quite possibly forgetting one or three.

Then there's the word _östgöte_ "man/person from Östergötland" with
derivatives, which standardly is /2stj2:tE/, but by locals is rather
rendered /2'S2tE/, where /S/ is, of course, [x]. That's right - [x]
corresponds to written 'stg'! (And yes, that's three light syllables in a row,
one of them stressed.)

                                               Andreas