Why [ɧ] is NOT REAL
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2024
- Couple things!
1. This is my first video essay, so I know the audio sucks. It'll get better.
2. I have more videos in mind! They'll hopefully sound and look better, so we'll see where this goes :)
Swedish speakers sources
1. • Easy Swedish 1 - Typic...
2. • Easy Swedish 2 - What ...
3. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sjuk
Music
My own random synth stuff
Thanks for watching!
Let me know if you have any topics you'd like me to make a video on in the comments section down below!
* Correction (thanks @dux2508 !): 0:51 The second sk in sjuksköterSKor is not an sj-sound. - Розваги
Hello, Good morning
Make a video about how the macron should be deleted from languages such as Mayori, Hawaii, Ancient Language, and Latin
why don't you like macrons?
Which ancient language?
What is "ancient language"?
@@kacperwoch4368 Ancient Language
pin of shame
“ɧ” means “a linguist somewhere gave up while studying Swedish”
I'm convinced the Swedish government pays linguists to keep it in the the IPA
Relatable
'why [ɧ] is not real'
>look at title
>[ɧ]
>not to mention
>mentions it
[Pepe the frog looking at your soul]
stole my video. no, i didn't finish the script yet, but you must have come back from the future and stolen it.
seriously, good video.
but also seriously, now i have to rethink my next upload.
HAHA NOO definitely still upload it!! Tag me and i'll watch it :)
I'd still watch it
Rip
^ agreed. any extra content on [ɧ] helps, and other perspectives are always super important
You should still do it! More attention on this as well as a native Swedish speaker's perspective would be good!
It sounds like xʷ to me
1:14
This has annoyed me for over a decade, and since I now live in Eastern Norway and hear Swedish all the time, I literally think of this every time I hear /xʷ/.
It's only pronounced that way in the lower regions, mainly Skåne. Elsewhere it's pronounced with a very specific tongue shape.
@@Berniebud - I'm not convinced... I rarely hear anything different... Both on TV and in real life. Unless you mean 'anything South of Stockholm' by 'lower regions'
I don't know which strange dialect you have listened to where sh makes a hw sound, but in most dialects it makes a ɧ sound.
@@Tasorius the first 3 examples given at 1:30 all have xw like sounds, only the last one sounds like sh.
@@jimmychan. I guess this is like talking to a Japanese person about the difference between r and l, except the difference here is even greater... You just don't know what you are talking about.
FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT
LOL
@@SundrobroccXD
was about to comment the same thing, no way we're all still pretending this bs phone is a thing
Proposition: We just force the Swedish to pronouns sk and sj as /sk/ and /sj/
We Swedes respectfully decline this proposal because we are neutral in this dilemma and thus can’t be held accountable.
We will also like North Korea to pay us back pls
Only if all English speakers are forced to make their spelling and pronunciation consistent.
@@Tasorius yesss!! yo'r seiyin it, ai'm seiyin it, meni pipl hav bin seiyin it for quait a long taim!! laik, get on uid it olredi, yu self-centerd faks
@@felipeopazo8375 while harder to type out i'd much more appreciate if the pronounciation was changed instead to meet a minimal set of rigid rules for how each letter is pronounced. No more "tough thoughts though" but "toff thoffts thoff"
@@felipeopazo8375 This proves that consistency is the worst...
That letter looks like it would kill me while I sleep.
Santa Claus is more real than [ɧ]
Well both must be real then, Swedish, Kölnisch, Wutun and Bahing (last two are in the Himalayas) all use it, although Swedish is the most notable one
Oh yeah, and I saw Santa at the mall last December
As a native Swedish speakers and linguist I whole heartedly agree. It's only [x] or [xʷ] in most dialects outside of Norrland and Finland. Including my own dialect (Stockholm)
Nice argument. One small issue: around half of my conlangs spoken in my conworld have that sound, so, no, transcribing Swedish is not that symbol's only function anymore ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
LOL that's cool af, what does it represent phonetically?
Hah! I was about to say "So you're saying there's a symbol that can be free-to-assign? ::laughs in conlang::"
@@Sundrobrocc you mean the letter? Mostly f̣, but in Tengu it's fh, but my languages also have their own scripts
I just gotta say you did the tongue twister so well!
took me like 26 tries lmao
Unexpectedly low views and whatnot, this is a very solid video!
thank you so much!! i have more on the way :) this seriously means so much
Interestingly, most Swedish sources that I have seen (e.g. Swedish Wikipedia or "Sje-ljudet är det svenskaste ljudet" by Språket) seem to say that [ɧ] represents the "dark" (mörka) or "back" (bakre) sj-sound, whereas the "light" (ljusa) or "front" (främre) sj-sound is written as [ʂ]. In phonemic transcription I usually see the phoneme written as /ɧ/, even though the phoneme can be realised as [ʂ], but picking one realisation as the symbol for a phoneme is pretty normal (I think). Now, I'm not quite sure if the "dark/back sj-sound" actually refers to one single realisation or if it encompasses several similar realisations, but I don't think it encompasses [ʂ] or [ɕ], as those would be a "light/front" realisation of the phoneme /ɧ/. (Although [ɕ] is usually the tj-sound, which is a different phoneme.) In any case, most if not all realisations of /ɧ/ can be written using other IPA symbols, so it is a bit weird that this is kept as an IPA symbol.
Isn't [ɕ] a variant of the tj-sound, though? Anyway, I believe I would use [ʂ] in both 'sju' and 'usch'.
I think one thing you missed is how the different allophones of the sounds are used in different dialects. There's too main types of allophones: back (something like [xʷ]) and front (something like [ʂ]). In most dialects (I think anyway), the back version is used syllable-initially and the front version uses elsewhere. In some other dialects, mainly southern ones, only the back version is used, while in some of the eastern dialects only the front version is used. I think this is the root of the problem of using either of these symbols to represent the phoneme. And yeah, it's not the case that /ɧ/ is [ʃ] and [x] simultaneously, but rather something like those sounds in complementary distrubution.
Also, in the tonguetwister you pronounced Shanghai wrong. It's supposed to be /²ɕaŋhaj/. I actually ended up pronouncing it the same way when I read it. Presumably it was written by someone with only the front version of /ɧ/ whivh may very well phonetically be [ɕ].
Anyway, yeah, shit symbol. I think we should just use /x/ instead or something like that.
I pronounce it /¹ɧaŋˈhaj/ (in my case [xʷ-]), and frequently hear others do so as well. I'd dare say that 'sj-' is the traditional native Swedish pronunciation, while 'tj-' is a more recent (anglicised) one-cf the spelling 'Sjanghaj' in some older sources. Same thing as the older /ɧoː, ɧɔv/ for 'show' versus the modern, virtually English-sounding pronunciation, or how some say 'Beijing' instead of 'Peking'.
That pronunciation of Shanghai is simply a somewhat old-timey one
@@felix6 Oh, interesting. I just had never heard anyone use that pronunciation before. Turns out I'm wrong there.
this is nice you should do more linguistics vids
tysm:) it means so much-i'm working on my next vid rn which i'll release sooner or later (once finals end prolly lol) that's gonna talk about vowels and demonstrative stuff
thanks so much again for the comment!
This is a great video, thanks! It does seem like the IPA should take a look at this one.
glad you enjoyed it :)
and i agree-i tried getting in contact with some of their staff but it seems to be very difficult to be noticed unless you have some sort of academic connection. maybe one day!
I love the very silent music in the bacground! Pepole often have it too loud but this was perfect!
thanks so much! people either love it or hate it lol so i'm gonna experiment with different types of music/maybe no music in the future :)
[ɧ] as a symbol is a little redundant when it's in use by simply one language. The problem stems from us simply not having an accurate idea of it's actual articulation. The co-articulation explanation has been known to be false for a while, yet it's clear that there's a difference in articulation for speakers of certain Swedish dialects who also speak German, so [x]/[xw] isn't very satisfactory either.
I think the only real argument for having a distinction is due to the close contact and relationship between Swedish and German it's helpful not to transcribe two different sounds with too similar letters. If more Germanic languages had a similar articulation it would make sense to use [x] for transcription and simply note a deviating articulation for the languages in question.
Huh? Swedish knowledge of German isn't dependent on the dialect.
1:58 slight nitpick. is not the only example of a co-articulated consonant having it's own unique symbol, [w] for example is another, if you want us to use , then I'd argue for consistency's sake we should also use in place of , Which I'd argue would be somewhat impractical due to the commonality of [w]. Also [t͡ʃ] is an Affricate, But it isn't co-articulated; both sounds occurring in it are at the same place of articulation, but with different manners, and in a clear order. In the case of [w] however, or [ɧ] as a postalveolar-velar fricative, Both sounds are pronounced simultaneously, rather than one before the other, resulting in an audibly distinct sound.
I will note that there _are_ co-articulated sounds written as just a combination of the two sounds with a tie bar over them, for example the [ɡ͡b] found in the name of Igbo, for example, but having a unique symbol for them is also not without precedent, it could in my opinion be compared to how some sounds in the IPA, such as [c], have their own unique symbols, whereas others have symbols derived from others, such as [ɲ], which is simply an with the addition of a palatal hook.
This is why I love reading comments. I would've pinned this if it wasn't for the one I already had pinned, that was an awesome read. Thank you so much :)
Here's what I think:
• Yes, consistency would argue that we should also use ‹β͡ɰ›instead of [w], but I think an exception can be made here because of how common [w] is cross-linguistically like you mentioned
• Indeed, [t͡ʃ] is an affricate, not necessarily both sounds happening at the same time. That was my bad, though my point still stands since [ɡ͡b] IMO doesn't need its own symbol since it's effectively represented with what we currently have in the IPA, just like all realizations of sj-ljudet
• I think the symbol derivation you talked about with [c] and [ɲ] is just something that came from accessibility. At that point, [c] hadn't been used for anything else, and deriving a hooked ‹k› would introduce yet another symbol that could potentially be hard to type in many cases. I think using [c] was an okay decision when it comes to just being able to produce IPA more efficiently, but I see what you mean.
Thanks again for ur amazing comment!!
@@Sundrobrocc You make a valid argument. Personally I feel it could actually be practical to have a distinct symbol for [ɡ͡b], as the current one seems to imply (to me at least) that one sound occurs before the other, and it could theoretically also be written ; there's no practical reason, to my knowledge, that the 'g' should be before the 'b' (Although it does look a bit better, imo.), and it seems a bit impractical to have two ways of transcribing the same sound, although at the same time it's not a big problem, it's an uncommon sound, and easily differentiated from [gb] by the presence of a tie bar, And ʃ͡x] is even less common, if it occurs at all, So it certainly doesn't need its own symbol.
(Unrelated, but I hate how I can no longer delete what a combining character (such as the tie bars) is combined in my browser with without deleting the combining character anymore, It used to work but at some point they changed it, Now in order to add it to a new character I need to paste the one combined with a placeholder like ◌͡ into a .txt file, then copy just the combining character from there, then paste it into the place I actually want it.)
I'm not sure a new symbol that's hard to type would be a terribly big problem, though, a significant amount of IPA characters, not to mention all the diacritics, don't appear on a standard keyboard, so you basically need to make a custom keyboard or copy-paste anyway. Or we could theoretically use X-SAMPA, which is specifically designed to encode the IPA into ASCII characters, although that is in my opinion less easily-readable than the IPA proper.
1. I think writing the [g] first is just convention. The bar in this case serves the purpose of indicating coarticulation AKA 2 sounds at the same time, so it would not matter if we wrote [b͡g]. Thing is, the coarticulation bar's meaning can change based on what it ties together like in the case of [t͡ʃ] (not a coarticulation but rather an affricate) and in cases like [a͡i] (which is a way some people write diphthongs). That's why I don't think its own symbol is necessary, though perhaps this shows we should shift our attention to the "coarticulation" bar
2. About the weird .txt stuff, have you tried using this website: schwa.dk/filer/ipacharpick/?font=Times%20New%20Roman&sc= ? Has worked wonders for me
Fair, I think I agree with that
ɧæt
eat
See original (Translated by Google)
we gardena in gear dagum
Intressant! Jag undervisar svenska i usa och det här ljudet är det svåraste för mina studenter att uttala. De uttalar det ofta mer som det engelska "sh" ljudet och det gör vissa svenska dialekter men jag föredrar att de försöker uttala som rikssvenska.
Jaa det kan vara ganska svårt!
Have you tried comparing it to how some old Americans would say words like "where" and "white" with the [hw]-like sound? That sound is super close to sj-ljudet and most Americans would know how to replicate it (since it's pretty common in old movies + /hw/ is not a terribly difficult sequence to pronounce).
Look at the first audio pronunciation in this page -> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/when#Alternative_forms (the one in accents without the wine-whine merger)
@@Sundrobrocc I haven't, but that's brilliant! I will definitely use that comparison going forward, thank you!
@@jackrogalla1076 Jag har hjälp flera (med Engelska som modersmål) genom att dra referensen till Family Guys skämt när Stewie uttalar "Cool Whip", med ett uttal av just "whip" med nästintill ett sje-ljud. Nu vet jag att två av dem sätter uttalet mycket bra. Vet inte om det hjälper alla, men tycker att referensen borde flyga ganska bra i USA i alla fall.
I worked on my pronunciation a lot by listening to a Swedish for Beginners Audio CD set that I got several years prior.
before I saw written Swedish I was listening to the people on the CD say "åka skidor" and "Jag skulle vilja ha ett cigarettfodral av läder" and also "sju". hearing the sounds and repeating them over and over again before seeing them written as "sk-" or "sj-" "lj-" makes it MUCH easier as an English speaker. We Anglos tend to work within the confines of our own alphabet, so hearing the foreign noises first and then seeing how the foreign people write said noises is easier than reading and mispronouncing the foreign words and then hearing people pronounce them correctly later. it is easier to learn it right the first time.
deprive the neophytes of written materials for the first two weeks and just make them repeat after you:
"Jag skulle vilja skicka ett telegram till new york city"
"tesked, soppsked, matsked"
they needn't see how those words are spelled at first. Swedish orthography is what it is, your students' linguistic intuitions are another thing entirely. just coach them so that they can pronounce the words better each day and go over the alphabet over and over and then you can start writing and showing them written Swedish after maybe two or three weeks.
another thing i want for the ipa is more dedicated dental sounds outside of just the non-sibilant fricatives. they’re contrastive in plenty of languages (pretty much all aboriginal australian languages to name a few)
t d ŧ đ?
i thought you had a lot more subscribers, which says a lot because you have a really good future ahead. keep it up!
i randomly got recomended this, and clicked on it thinking it was going to be an exciting physics video about plancks constant, i was dissapointed
Great video! I'd love to more linguistics videos from you.
so i'm not fluent in swedish by any means but i do speak it and i can't say i agree with this, there is a very specific tongue shape we make when pronouncing sj
it can come out sounding like /xʷ/, but it's... not quite there?
like, you make the tongue shape of /ʃ/ but you actually pronounce /x/, or vice versa depending on the dialect
either way, good video and this is just my (possibly flawed) view on it as someone who understands swedish a bit more than they understand ipa lol
Very good video and interesting video! Looking forward to see more essays :). During my 6 months in Sweden (in Göteborg but a lot of people at school were from Stockholm), the sj-sound did sound unique. I know there's dialectal variation but to my ears, the "main one" (the one meant by this unique IPA symbol) is nowhere close to /ʃ/ nor /x/. I think (or wrongly presume maybe?) that I'm able to pronounce it, and if anything, it would be a kind of "compressed", "stronger" or "more channeled" /ʍ/ if that makes sense.
FINALLY SOMEOME TALKS ABOUT THIS
you just earned a sub
Talks about why a sound in a language he is bad at pronouncing doesn't exist...
@@Tasorius *talks about why this symbol should not be used as if it represented a specific sound, because it does not
@@junovzla Just because you can't pronounce the sound or even hear it apparently, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Since I actually speak the language, and don't use one of those other weird dialectal versions of it, I can tell that it does exist.
There might be another way to write it in IPA, but the "hw" sound he gave in the video is certainly not correct.
@@Tasorius I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything but I'm just wondering: what manner and place of articulation would you assign to the sj-sound if not something like [xʷ] or [ʂ]? It can't simply be nebulous and inexplainable, y'know?
@@Tasorius you are misunderstanding the point
the symbol should not be used for a sound because it doesn't represent any specific sound, it just represents a phoneme specific to swedish that has a variety of different dialectal realisations
note that in actual linguistics phonemes and sounds are two different concepts, a sound is what you actually produce when you speak, a phoneme is a language-specific concept linguists use to talk about a group of sounds that in a given language behave as a single element despite being physically distinct; the symbol in question represents the latter, a group of distinct sounds that all are considered equivalent of each other but only in swedish, and therefore doesn't apply to literally any other language that exists on planet earth
the symbol should not be used as if it represented one singular sound because it represents a variety of different sounds that phonetically have nothing to do with each other even if they are considered equivalent *in swedish only*, and it was conceived for the sole purpose of making it easier to talk about these specific *swedish* sounds and not sounds in any other language, because if they used an actual phonetic symbol they would have to set one of the various realisations as the default and that's generally not good practice in linguistics (all the "weird dialectal variants" as you say are equally as valid as the standard, which probably didn't even exist at the time the symbol was created)
don't try to argue if you don't even know what you're talking about
Nejjjj! Jag älskar ɧ! 😄 But even though the hooktop heng is my favorite IPA symbol, and I love the sound it makes, you have a good argument that it should just be transcribed [xʷ] rather than getting its own sign. My knowledge of Swedish is limited, though, so I'll hold out hope that there is some genuine-if-subtle distinction that makes the sound unique, or that someone turns up proof of this mythical simultaneous [ʃ] and [x]... 😉
Interesting subject, but since I cannot parse some of the mumbling parts, I have no idea if I agree with you or not. Well, ɧ is a fascinating sound that is hard to describe. Since I am Västgöte |väɧöte| it is close to my heart.🙂
I saw the name of this video and wasn't sure if it was linguistics or quantum mechanics.
Maybe one day! LOL
Yeah, that Thumbnail really looked like h bar at first
great vid, looking forward to future linguistics videos
Really awesome breakdown, i hope the ipa notices and responds
make a video where you speedrun every possible click
maybe 👀
such a nice explanation and such nice editing!!! 10000% make more cant wait!!!
AWW TY BANE:)
this vid is so underrated, kudos 🙏
I'm glad UA-cam recommended this. Really interesting.
No I don't want to play chess thank you.
I have been saying this for such a long time:
I shall give some context for the non-Swedes:
The sj-sjound developed out of a historic [ʃ] sound. This pronunciation is still kept in some dialects such as most spoken in Finland. In most dialects the sound however has shifted. It has shifted in three different ways in different dialects.
In southern dialects it's become [x] (sometimes even uvular) in all positions.
In central dialects it's backed in onset positions but still fronted in the coda position. The back version not backed all the way to [x] but is somewhat more between velar and palatal. It's often pronounced with rounded lips and fairly weak friction.
In northern dialects and in upper-class speech (Swedish RP), it's still fronted in all positions but is instead a retroflex [ʂ].
This dialectal variation and historically quite recent shifting is what has given rise to a symbol specifically for the sj-sound. It's very useful for Swedish pronunciation dictionaries and such, because all dialects are accounted for.
I agree though that it has no place in phonetic transcription.
/ɧ/ = good
[ɧ] = bad, meaningless
Fair argument and really cool points. I'll keep it in mind
Me american non-phonologist hear "hwa"
0:48 what I hear is like "huj huj huj..." 💀
This is very interesting. I hear what you say in the examples you had in the video, but I definitely do not pronounce the sj sound like /xʷ/, I make a pretty big distinction between variations of /x/ and [ʃ] and the sj sound. But I also grew up mostly around a dialect that mostly uses [ʃ] and didn't learn the sj sound until I was around 8 or 9, and thus maybe I learnt a more 'textbook' version of it? The one that's closer to /x/ tends to have a very distinct southern (as in, south of Stockholm) sound to it though to my ears as well, but that might just be because I'm more used to hearing it in that context, not sure.
Interesting! Like I said, [xʷ] is only one of the many realizations of sj-ljudet, which is what makes it so fascinating
you've convinced me
great video topic! In the future please use a declicker! a de-esser might be good too. I am not saying this to be picky, but because I am very sensitive to these sounds in audio and I am not alone.
thanks for letting me know! i'll look into it :)
As a native swede I fully agree with you - [ɧ] has always bugged me every since I got into linguistics; the IPA is fully breaking their own conventions.
Great video!
Exactly!
Finally someone said it. I’ve been waiting for a video on this to appear for years lmao
me too! thats why i decided to make it lol
Excellent info, and I agree! About sound: I think the audio quality itself is good, but your voice is unclear. It sounds like you are hurrying and trying to keep very quiet to avoid waking someone. You could read more slowly and pronounce every syllable, as if you’re speaking to a large roomful of people. Best wishes!
lmao that's actually exactly the conditions i recorded the video in, but i recently got my own room so hopefully that won't happen again
thanks :)
I appreciate your video. This oddball of swedish phonological system did not frustate me once I start learning the language, as often occurs to many. But I soon realized that the sh-sound (as in ship) would be more conservative instead, since I'm only interested in the written language. However, the swedish U makes me tremble yet. Could you speak about this vowel in a future video, pls? I suggest to turn back to life what Henry Sweet had written on the matter. Thanks, bro!
Glad you liked it!
What I *really* would love to talk about is the funny Swedish /i:/ actually-I'm sure you know what I'm talking about
@@Sundrobrocc @Sundrobrocc Indeed I know it. The famous Viby-i or Lidingö-i. I'd read a very enlightening article on this topic: "Heavens, what a sound! The acoustics and articulation of Swedish Viby-i" by Fabienne Elina Westerberg of the University of Glasgow. She has bring the status quæstionis to a new level (it is in public domain).
@@Sundrobrocc By the way, there is a stir around the subject. Many Swedish teachers advise against imitating this sound because it is seen by the more liberal public as an affectation of an upper middle class that has long dominated the Swedish intelligentsia. Which is in fact a preciousness of anti-nationalist liberals, given that it is a typical sound of the language and not a mere idiosyncrasy of a wealthy class.
in the western Finnish province of Ostrobothnia, which has a higher concentration of Swedish people compared to most of Finland, they teach it to us as just the "sh sound" :)
Interesting!
I LOVE FINLAND
To me it's the the "wh" in English "whip" exaggerated (like how Stewie in Family Guy says it) with a velar "x" constriction. My vote is "w̥x".
Fun fact, /t͡ʃ/ does have its own symbol, which is /ʧ/, its just basically never used
I believe the affricate ligatures are no longer official.
gr8 video! totally agree
never heard of any of this but cool video and argumentation bro
thanks! your music stuff is really cool :O
@@Sundrobrocc thank youu :DD
Hi there, good morning
can you make a video about how Latin, Sanskrit, Ancient Language, and Swahili need to remove the Y vowel
LMFAO
Apparently in addition to Swedish and the Kölsch dialect, there is an approximant phoneme used in Wutian, a creole language spoken in Tibet, which is generally transcribed using this symbol to indicate its peculiar dorso-palatal/velar articulation. That said, it is a little odd that this symbol exists primarily just to indicate the ambiguity of the articulation of a particular phoneme in one language spoken by a relatively small number of people. Granted, it's a *weird* phoneme with a wide breadth of pronunciations, some of which are very unusual (a velarised labiodental fricative with rounding, seriously?), but like, it's pretty Eurocentric and ignores the fact that there are similarly bizarre and ambiguous sounds with wide realisations in much bigger languages (cf. the Mandarin and American English r phonemes).
I actually have heard of ɧ being used for Wutian and agree with what you're saying about eurocentricity. Great points!
IPA should've been made featural from the beginning. I get that it would've been difficult in the age of movable type, but still.
Just commenting to help out the algorithm, amazing video :)
aww thanks so much dude :)
well said ❗️ awesome video ❗️
lol i expected this to be a maths video about a weird number notated with ɧ. linguistics is just as fun tho!!!
three things: I loved this video and was surprised at how few subscribers you have. You've gained one more :D Many people are saying you can speak louder and clearer, and i agree, but i still found this rather relaxing personally
every time i hear an exclusive recording of this sound, i can't help but hear it as [xʷ], but i feel like in the dialects with do use [ɧ], i feel it'd be better to represent it as co-articulated [ʃ͡x], as you mentioned
coincidentally, continuing the trend of nordic languages having unique sounds, i'd love to see a video of the danish soft D someday (as a danish speaker myself). i think it's simultaneously the coolest and the worst sound to exist in language, and ironically would benefit more with ITS own ipa symbol and not swedish
awwwww dude this was such a nice comment :)) thank u so much it really means a lot
and yeah i've also always heard it as [xʷ] too, though I've never heard anything that sounds like the IPA's proposed coarticulation. do u have some kinda link to a recording of that realization?
and maybe i'll make a soft d video! (off topic but someone's comment got flagged earlier because of the mention of "soft d" which was pretty funny lol) i'd be glad to look into it!
@@Sundrobrocc sadly, i can't find a recording :( it seems rare and everyone just represents it with [ɧ] and uses the [xʷ] sound as the default. It's hard to tell if they even use [ʃ] in its full form at all, because it seems to be approximated and articulated with or without [x], which is... weird, when you're trying to represent it. Maybe im not swedish enough to hear it clearly, who knows :p i'll try to keep you updated if i find anything!
as for danish, i could perhaps help if you want (although idk how we'd even talk lol). The sound is very weird both phonetically and historically. I've always wanted to make linguistics videos, but i've never been able to since the algorithm only favors what my channel is known for - GD
i'll have to look into that stuff then! bc that does sound cool
and dude if you want you could totally send me an email (on my channel page) and we could get in contact!
@@Sundrobrocc sent :)
neat video
Since when did languages have intergrils? 1:59
I don't think an affricate like [t͡ʃ] is the same thing as coarticulation. I think a better example would be [k͡p], which is not as common, but still occurs in several languages, with Yoruba alone having roughly 4 times as many speakers as Swedish.
Yeah you're right-someone else brought that up and we talked about it for a bit in a different thread. Try looking for "affricate" in the comments
In my studies, the Swedish "sj-sound" is pronounced more like [x͡f] than [xʷ].
Interesting. The labialization part of it might sound vaguely like [f] since both sounds are articulated near the lips, but I haven't personally heard any frication to the extent of [f] when pronouncing sj-ljudet.
@@Sundrobrocc There isn't so much as friction, the tie bar was merely my best attempt to indicate "labiodentalization", as I believe the labialized portion of the pronunciation to be specifically labiodental. Ideally, this would be a superscript .
Oh, interesting! I'll look into it
Could this sound have historically been more distinct, or could it be necessary in a regional dialect somewhere?
What do you mean by distinct/necessary? I'd have to look into that!
You note how it is realised in several different ways in modern speech. Could its sound have been more specific in prior generations? Sweden has numerous regional dialects and a few minority languages. Might any of those have a need for this symbol as distinct from the others you displayed?
Not sure about previous generations, I'll have to look into it.
About the last question, I've been able to transcribe every instance of sj-ljudet from the samples I've personally heard, and perhaps that'll change one day, though I doubt it.
Thank god. honestly it’s annoying, especially for newer learners of Swedish who overthink it and end up over enunciating it
FINALLY THANK YOU 🥲
Crazy idea: use /6/ as the new symbol for the /ɧ/ phoneme and remove [ɧ] from the main table
that goes hard
Real what
So Stewe from family guy is saying cɧool wip.
Why do I feel like Arabic might have this kind of sound? Honestly, Idk why i feel like that there are sounds in Arabic that no European language can describe, like okay its full of that French "r" [gh] like, but sometimes I hear all kinds of h's, hard, grindy, all kinds. Idk, I'm not educated in phonetics at all.
Also, hot take, but my mother language - latvian - I think has the simplest accurate sound representation between letters and the phonetics. An A in English is actually "ei" and the use of vowls is inconsistent. Latvian doesn't have this problem, appart from "o" which varies between o oo ua depending on the word. But apart from that latvian can definitely pronounce any vowl sound from any language with all 5 letters. Basic but flexible and accurate.
Maybe you're talking about the pharyngeal sounds, probably the voiceless one [ħ] (represented by ‹ح›). This sound is pretty much an [h] but a little higher and with a lot of pressure (articulated in the pharynx-look that word up for diagrams), which is pretty distinct from sj-ljudet but I can see why you'd hear it a certain way.
Btw the "French r sound" in Arabic is represented with ‹غ› and can be transcribed as [ʀ] :)
And Latvian definitely is pretty consistent. I'd say a close runner-up is Finnish, definitely look into how its orthography works!
i remember when i first started to get into phonology and phonetics, when i came across this magical swedish sound and the special 'slit t' of certain english accents, i knew academia was more garbage than i already thought. we literally have the IPA but no lets make a special symbol or nonsense combinations. its such bullshit and makes the IPA meaningless. we might as well go back to EYE-PEE-AY spelling
the IPA is definitely a great tool, but it does have many flaws. possible upcoming video 👀
are we sure it's not simply some guy on the board of the IPA org is a swede ?
To me it's sound like [ʂ͜xʷʲ]
I expeted this to be some math proof about why this number cannot be part of the real numbers...
LMAO maybe math videos will come one day 👀
Saga Norén in “Bron/Broen” series clearly pronounces it as a mixture of [x] and [ɸ]
Interesting, could you provide a clip?
@@Sundrobrocc ua-cam.com/video/cLGKRK_LVLk/v-deo.htmlsi=e23MXWDmI8nHjfq7
4:50
So does the TTS lady in Duolingo
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkx5jGD8gJ3qfAJWAvaZomwFKqGhtQruomE?si=DJayMbW91GYuhK1-
Just took a look at it, I think you're just hearing the effects of labializing a fricative. It might sound like [ɸ] is pronounced at the same time, but I still think it's [xʷ]. In any case though, she's exactly that-a TTS lady-and I don't know if we can make fair judgements based on the pronunciation of a computer.
Just curious, what do you mean by "symbols shouldn't be used to provide phonemic definitions in a phonetic alphabet"? Kinda confused lol
They should provide phonetic definitions, not phonemic.
Do you know the difference between phonemic/phonetic?
Phonemic sounds are ones that are contrasted in a language. For example, we know that /r/ and /l/ are phonemes in English because in the words "cram" and "clam", all the sounds are the same except for /r/ and /l/. The choice of /r/ and /l/ makes different words, and therefore creates a contrast. Additionally, what appears in // are unique representations of their source languages.
Phonetic sounds are the precise descriptions of the sounds. Both "cram" and "cram" start with [kʰ], pretty much a K-sound with a puff of air after it. However, when writing the words phonemically, you would only write /k/, since there is no word in the English language where the inclusion of [ʰ] or not makes a different word. It does not make contrasts, and is therefore not a phoneme. What appears in [] does not depend on the language, since we're just talking about precise sounds.
The IPA, which is a phonetic alphabet, should not make symbols that only apply to specific languages.
Lmk if that makes sense or if you have other questions :)
@@Sundrobrocc thanks! just got into linguistics, and I'm looking forward to see more videos with niche topics like this from you
Edit: also, I didn't know phonetic is used to refer to phones instead of phonemes, I thought it could refer to both and those words can be used interchangeably. Turns out it's different.
It's phoneme=phonemic
and phone=phonetic
Similar to your example, if you pronounce pot, it produces /pʰ/, and spot produces /p/ which is unaspirated, the aspiration doesn't make a different meaning.
Not a phoneme, but an allophone.
Now, in Korean, when you make the those sounds in words like 풀 /pʰul/ (meaning 'grass') and 불 /pul/ (meaning 'fire'), they change the meaning of word respectively.
Now it's different phonemes.
Now I really get your point ☺️
@@tiffanyorchard6489 So glad it helped, and keep having fun with linguistics!
you have an asmr voice
My video recommendation :
How diphthongs are described vs. how they should be described
Geoff Lindsay made a whole video on how diphthongs like /aɪ / & /aʊ / should be [aj] & [aw] due to his argument on them being a vowel next to a glide and not 2 adjacent vowels
42424
Interesting! I don't know if I'd make a video on this though just because of how amazingly good Geoff's video is (I watched it too). He said everything pretty much perfectly and I wouldn't honestly know what to add. Thanks for the suggestion though!
I think the main reason it still exists is because the alternatives do not sound "correct" to native swedish speakers.
I'd personally disagree based on the speakers I've talked to, but it's interesting to hear that
Swedish is not the only language that has this sound. There is Colonian (Kölsch) as well and there it exists parallel to alveolopalatal fricatives and palatoalveolar fricatives. So I think Swedish is not the (only) reason why this sound got its own symbol, it was just a confirmation that it can have one.
Interesting! I still stand with removing the symbol but this is a cool new perspective
As someone born in Cologne and living in Sweden I can't really support this. I never noticed ɧ in Kölsch but it immediately jumped out to me as an odd sound in Swedish. Even if the sound occurs in Kölsch it hardly merits its own symbol there because it occurs in a continuum between χ, x, ɕ, ʃ. But many Swedish speakers (not all) pronounce ɧ _very_ distinctively, and IMO it totally deserves it's own symbol there as it doesn't sound like anything else.
Do you have a link to a recording of an example of ɧ being pronounced *very distinctively* as you say? I'm curious!
Interestingly, the symbol kinda looks like long s + j, is there something to that?
Perhaps, but I'm not too sure. Many IPA symbols do follow some sort of graphical derivation (like a rightward bottom hook for the retroflex series) but I don't know if this one follows any specific logic, especially as the direction of the hook varies across many fonts (rightward on the youtube font but leftward in the font I used for the thumbnail)
So, which symbol should be used for Swedish instead?
I generally use /xʷ/ or /ʍ/ because I think they effectively represent sj-ljudet, but I wouldn't prescribe them
I don’t nessecarily think they fully represent the sound, while rounding the lips is common - it isn’t mandatory (in my dialect we don’t), they also sound much harsher than the sj.
@@The_Flexiloquent_Frog Hence why I also included /ʍ/ and also why I wouldn't prescribe them-I'd need more research to know what the true best symbol would be. What do you think would work well?
hur länge har du studerat lingvistik?
Hej! jag har studerat lingvistik i nästan 3 år
Yes. Similarly, ʍ also doesn't exist.
It sounds like the “wh” in “when”.
U didnt say the czech ř quite right lmao but great video
tried my best! czech is wild lol thanks:)
maybe i'm subscribing here o.o
aww
*wh* y does this even have its own letter
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, how do you pronounce that sound?
Just pronounce the "sh" and the /x/ at the same time, basically
@@Shareenear Well I thought he said that it was precisely NOT that
Unlike [ɕ], [ʃʲ] is pronounced using the tip of the tongue.
3:40
Anyway, the Swedish "sj" is not as daunting as the surreal Danish "stød".
As someone who speaks two languages with distinct phonemic ɕ and ʑ sounds (one of them being my native language), I'm pretty sure you pronounced ɕ and ʑ wrong, they are pronounced something like ç and ʝ but sibilant, and I've never seen them written as ʃʲ ʒʲ which imo make a pretty different sound
I see, though what is considered to be /ɕ/ and /ʑ/ can phonetically sound very different across languages. Although your language might contrast them, this doesn't necessarily mean they're realized exactly a certain way.
Here's an example of /ɕ/ in Russian sounding pretty similar to what I pronounced in the video: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%91#Pronunciation
And here's an example of /ɕ/ in Mandarin Chinese, which definitely sounds a little different than the Russian counterpart: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F#Pronunciation
What are the languages you speak that contrast them? I'm curious to learn more ab those sounds :)
@@Sundrobrocc his name is polish so ig its polish and we say them like the chinese one even tho i would consider both of them ɕ not ʃʲ
@@Sundrobrocc I'm not Russian but from what little I've heard I think that using ɕ for Russian, although it is a universal convention, is completely preposterous and ʃʲ ought to be used instead, especially when taking into consideration the other Slavic languages. I think it's just a historical relic like ɧ.
@@Sundrobrocc I'm pretty sure you pronounced /ɕ/ as /ʃ/ with almost no palatalization and it did not sound like that Russian or Chinese example at all. As a native Polish speaker, I have a distinction between /s̠/ (usually broadly transcribed as /ʂ/) and /ɕ/, and like for most Polish speakers, /ʃ/ sounds for my brain more like /s̠/ than /ɕ/. And so did all your attempts at /ɕ/.
@@enricobianchi4499 That's really interesting. This is why I love reading comments lol I'll definitely look into that!
Except you aren't using it, you are using [x] like me, most people of Göta dialect use [x], most people of the Svea accents use [ʃ]. It exists, although it is rare, I have heard it twice in Östergötland by people speaking hybrids of Svea and Göta dialects. UPDATE: I have never heard sj pronounced [ɕ]. Not ever.
I completely disagree. In some regions of Sweden the sound is pronounced /xʷ/ (mainly Skåne) and in the north it becomes a /∫/ but in most of Sweden it's pronounced as the combined approximant fricative of /x/ and /∫/, and it produces a unique sound.
Could you link an example?
Hello, Good Morning
Make a video in which you connect Basque to Afrikaans the and Na-va-ho
LMAO I SWEAR