From: keth@...
Message: 720
Date: 2001-02-09
>Keth, are you sure you got this right? I'm hoping Haukur and Oskar willYes, it was a typo. See the marks below.
>comment on this, but you seem to be saying that in Norwegian a vowel is
>pronounced short if it's before a double consonant (not vowel, I assume
>that was a typo). This is not the impression of reconstructed Old Norse
>that I got from Haukur/Oskar's message. I thought they were telling us
>that a vowel can be long or short whether or not the consonant after it is
>double or single.
>Haukur, I think Oskar was trying to explain to me once that pre-aspirationErratum: ^^^^^^ write "consonants" here.
>(/t:/ as /ht/) is the modern way of doing long consonants - is that
>right? My impression of long consonants like [t:] from Japanese is that
>we're supposed to keep our tongue in the stopped position for longer, not
>make two stops. But maybe that's not how it works in Old Norse, because I
>have trouble seeing how one could hear that the tongue was staying in the
>"t" position for longer, unless the stop was always released in Old Norse ... ?
>
>E-Ching
>
>
>At 11:32 PM 2/9/2001 +0200, Keth wrote:
>>Heill Haukur!
>>
>>In Norway too, the length of the vowel is determined by
>>the number of vowels following. I didn't know
>>it was that way in MI too.
>>
>>Example:
>>
>>brønn - the ø is short, because of the double n following it.
>>brun - the u is long because it is not followed by a double consonant.
>>bratt - short a
>>prat - long a.
>>kratt - short a
>>krater - lonng a.
>>
>>What strikes me when I hear Norwegians singing Norwegian songs,
>>is that 1) I can understand the words - as clearly as if it was read
>>from a book. 2) What I hear isn't distorted in any way.
>>The words always match the music. After all, they were made for each other :)
>>
>>However, if American singers (example: soprano) sing Norwegian
>>songs (e.g. Grieg), I often just hear a beautiful song, but it
>>isn't clear what story the words are telling.
>>
>>
>> >The length of vowels and consonants
>> >is important and should not be ignored.
>> >I will illustrate with an example.
>> >
>> >In modern Icelandic we distinguish between
>> >a and á in the following manner. The first is
>> >always pronounced [a] or [a:] and the second is
>> >always pronounced [au] or [au:]. The : denotes a
>> >lengthening of the sound - in MI a vowel is
>> >long if there is only one consonant following
>> >it, otherwise it is short.
>>
>>So the language has compensated for the loss of the significance
>>of length. It wanted to keep the number of phonemes unchanged,
>>and had to make some of the vowels into diphtongs for that reason.
>>
>>
>> >In the theoretical reconstructed pronunciation
>> >of ON the difference between a and á is not in
>> >quality (type of sound) but in quantity (length
>> >of sound). Thus a is always pronounced [a]
>> >(never [a:]) and á is always pronounced [a:]
>> >(never [a]). The length of the vowel does not
>> >depend on the number of following consonants.
>> >
>> >Below I have listed four different words with
>> >four different meanings. They should all be
>> >clearly distinguished in pronunciation, whether
>> >modern or reconstructed.
>> >
>> >Word RP MI Meaning
>> >
>> >satt [sat:] [saht] true
>> >sátt [sa:t:] [sauht] content
>> >sat [sat] [sa:t] sat
>> >sát [sa:t] [sau:t] sitting
>> >
>> >Can you do it?
>>
>>Well, I have difficulties with the double consonants
>>because I have a tendency to pronounce them twice.
>>If "t" is pronounced "teh", then "tt" becomes pronounced
>>a little bit like "teh-teh".
>>For me the "t" is always short, because it is a little
>>like spitting - not exactly in sound, but in the abruptness
>>of the tongues motion.
>>
>>But maybe the double t should be more like the hissing of
>>a ballon or a car tyre running out???
>>Með kveðju,
>>Ketill