# Norwegian: Uttalen av "afrikaner" og "afrikansk"



## inter1908

Hei, hva er forskjeller mellom uttalen av "afrikaner" og "afrikansk"? Afrikaans Wiktionary sier at "afrikaner" = /afriˈkaːnər/  i IPA, men "afrikansk" = /ɑfriˈkɑːnsk/. Hvorfor a-ene her er forskjellige? Bør det være én form av uttalen av a-ene i disse to ordene? Takk på forhånd!

 There can be a lot of errors, as I've just started learning Norwegian


----------



## NorwegianNYC

_Afrikaner_ is a four syllable word, roughly _a-fri-ka-ner_, where the first three syllables jointly reads _afrika, _with -_ner_ as a sort of free-standing appendix. This word has the same -a- sound (the 'f*a*ther' -a-) in the end as well as the beginning. _Afrikansk_, on the other hand, is a three syllable word, _a-fri-kansk_, where the second -a- merges with the -n-sound, and is colored by the -n- and takes on a nasal property. English has the same difference in the words in the words *had* and *hang*​, where the latter -a- is colored by the nasal -n-, and is pronounced slightly differently.


----------



## Magb

Both are [ɑː] for me. I'm not sure how much I would trust descriptions of Norwegian pronunciations on the Afrikaans Wiktionary.




NorwegianNYC said:


> _Afrikaner_ is a four syllable word, roughly _a-fri-ka-ner_, where the first three syllables jointly reads _afrika, _with -_ner_ as a sort of free-standing appendix. This word has the same -a- sound (the 'f*a*ther' -a-) in the end as well as the beginning. _Afrikansk_, on the other hand, is a three syllable word, _a-fri-kansk_, where the second -a- merges with the -n-sound, and is colored by the -n- and takes on a nasal property. English has the same difference in the words in the words *had* and *hang*​, where the latter -a- is colored by the nasal -n-, and is pronounced slightly differently.


The /a/ is followed by /n/ in both words though? It might be true that you pronounce the vowels differently, but your description doesn't explain why. I'm not sure why they number of syllables should be relevant, when the syllable in question is in any case stressed in both words.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

You are right, the number of syllables in the word itself is not important, but the number of syllables in the ending is. /a/ is followed by /n/ in both instances, but the interaction between the two is different. In _afrikaner_ the second /a/ is not nasal since the last syllable (_-ner_) contains a vowel which absorbs the /n/-sound. This means that in _afrikaner_, as the stress is on the penultimate syllable, the word is pronounced _afrik*a*-ner,_ since the /n/ does not exercise much influence on the /a/. In _afrikansk_, the stress is still on the second /a/, but since this is the final syllable, it 'merges' with the /n/, into _afrik*ãn*sk_. In other words, since the /n/ cannot "cling" to another vowel (like it does in _afrikaner_​), it colors the vowel of its syllable.


----------



## inter1908

Thanks! But what about the first a's? It's afri vs. afri there, and the main accent falls in the same place in both words, doesn't it mean that no distinction should be made?

And by the way, how was my post in Norwegian? Any mistakes?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi! Both '_afri-_' are unaccented. In many words in Norwegian pertaining to nationality and national adjectives, the stress falls on the last syllable, so the first part of the word is not affected by the stress. The word for Africa (Norw. _Afrika_) has stress on the first syllable (so has _*Po*len,_ but a person from there is called _pol*akk*_), which is also typical for most words in Norwegian.

Your Norwegian is coming along very well!


----------



## inter1908

Thanks! What I meant though are the a's in the pronunciation I've posted, /a/ in *a*frikaner and /ɑ/ in *a*frikansk. Should such a distinction be made? Or is it wrong? Seems you can't trust anything these days, especially *Afrikaans Wiktionary*!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

My mistake - I did not notice. Sorry about that!
Well, what can I tell you - the second /a/ is definitely pronounced differently in the two, but the first? I have to think about that one. The first two syllables should be the same regardless!


----------



## Magb

NorwegianNYC said:


> You are right, the number of syllables in the word itself is not important, but the number of syllables in the ending is. /a/ is followed by /n/ in both instances, but the interaction between the two is different. In _afrikaner_ the second /a/ is not nasal since the last syllable (_-ner_) contains a vowel which absorbs the /n/-sound. This means that in _afrikaner_, as the stress is on the penultimate syllable, the word is pronounced _afrik*a*-ner,_ since the /n/ does not exercise much influence on the /a/. In _afrikansk_, the stress is still on the second /a/, but since this is the final syllable, it 'merges' with the /n/, into _afrik*ãn*sk_. In other words, since the /n/ cannot "cling" to another vowel (like it does in _afrikaner_​), it colors the vowel of its syllable.


Well, again, I don't think I do this. I nasalize all vowels somewhat when they're followed by a nasal, whether there's another vowel following the nasal or not. I'm going to need some more evidence before I buy this as a general description of Norwegian pronunciation.


----------



## TomTrussel

This seems funny to me also. NorwegianNYC gives a very plausible reason why I should, but sitting here like a tool saying "afrikaner" and "afrikansk" out loud to my monitor, the only difference I notice is not between the 3rd syllables, but rather in my dogs perception of me and what my normal behaviour is like  

TT


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Good one, TT! Perhaps your dog will eventually will be able to tell the difference... (one bark for yes, two for no)

I would still argue that the second /a/ is pronounced differently in the two words (we are not talking major difference here), but it is getting to be a moot point by now...


----------



## inter1908

Well assuming what you said, both first a's are /a/? So afrikansk is rather /afriˈkɑːnsk/ basing on what you said.


----------



## TomTrussel

I'm not familiar with the linguistic symbols, but to me, it seems the difference is not in the last a's. but rather in the following n, if that is at all possible. I should probably also say that when speaking my local dialect, I most always keep pressure on the first syllable in words, not the 2nd, as more neutral Oslo dialect does...

TT


----------



## Magb

inter1908 said:


> Well assuming what you said, both first a's are /a/? So afrikansk is rather /afriˈkɑːnsk/ basing on what you said.


The exact quality of both short and long /a/ in Norwegian varies by dialect. Most of the time the truth is that the vowel is somewhere in the middle between [a] and [ɑ]. But to give you an idea of the variation, people from western Oslo traditionally tend to pronounce it more like [a], while people from eastern Oslo say it more like [ɑ]. In some parts of western Norway (Sogn of Fjordane for instance) both the long and short vowel are typically quite far front, while in other parts (like Bergen) it's much further back. Speakers from Stavanger and nearby areas are easily recognizable by their short /a/ being very far front, and almost indistinguishable from /æ/. When other Norwegians try to imitate people from that part of the country they'll often pronounce the name of the city like it's spelled "Stævængår". In some parts of eastern Norway the long vowel is rounded and very far back, i.e. [ɒ:], while the short vowel is [a] or even [æ], which is similar to how many Swedes pronounce them. Personally I usually have [ɒ:] or [ɑ:] for the long vowel and [ɑ] for the short vowel. Many of the above statements are generalizations that can be completely incorrect when applied to specific speakers.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Of course, you are right, Magb. There are about as many different dialects as there are place names. The sound /a/ is different all over Norway, and since Norway does not have spoken standard, it is impossible to be precise in this area.

And I agree with TT - it is the /n/ sound that makes the difference. And also - I did not take into consideration (nor did Einar Haugen who wrote the book _Pronouncing Norwegian_, from where I get all this) that _afrikaner_ and _afrikansk_​ can be stressed on the first syllable. It makes a huge difference.


----------



## Dan2

inter1908 said:


> Afrikaans Wiktionary sier at "afrikaner" =  /afriˈkaːnər/  i IPA, men "afrikansk" = /ɑfriˈkɑːnsk/.


I keep following this thread hoping for an answer but I see none: Why would you consult an _Afrikaans_ dictionary for the pronunciations of these two _Norwegian_ words? 


Magb said:


> Both are [ɑː] for me.


You use the symbol for a long vowel. Norwegian has a rule (with exceptions) that says that vowels are short before two or more consonants.  Is the -nsk ending here an exception to this rule?

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Dear all (on this thread):
I know I started it, but perhaps we have gotten a little off track (or at least I have). Dan has a point - "Why [...] consult an _Afrikaans_ dictionary for the pronunciations of [...] two _Norwegian_ words?" Which is a most opportune remark! Why indeed? Also, from a technical point of view, *"afrikaner" = /afriˈkaːnər/ i IPA, men "afrikansk" = /ɑfriˈkɑːnsk/* cannot possibly be true, since regardless of the quality of the latter -a-, _afrikansk_ is definitely NOT pronounced "aafrikaansk" (with two long a-sounds [ɑː]).


----------



## inter1908

Well, I've made an assumption that these words regard South Africa, so the pronunciation has to be more or less accurate.  That's the reason, simply being curious. I'm not that familiar with Norwegian pronunciation, in fact I don't know much about it. I've found though a fairly decent site (http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=nbo&dict=nbo-maxi&checked-languages=N), which is capable of providing the pronunciation the way I (used along with "IPA for Swedish and Norwegian" article on Wikipedia) am able to understand. Thanks for everyone.


----------



## Magb

NorwegianNYC said:


> Dear all (on this thread):
> I know I started it, but perhaps we have gotten a little off track (or at least I have). Dan has a point - "Why [...] consult an _Afrikaans_ dictionary for the pronunciations of [...] two _Norwegian_ words?" Which is a most opportune remark! Why indeed? Also, from a technical point of view, *"afrikaner" = /afriˈkaːnər/ i IPA, men "afrikansk" = /ɑfriˈkɑːnsk/* cannot possibly be true, since regardless of the quality of the latter -a-, _afrikansk_ is definitely NOT pronounced "aafrikaansk" (with two long a-sounds [ɑː]).


We're definitely close to getting off topic now, but I should point out that because many Norwegians have something close to [ɑ] both for the short and the long vowel, the short vowel is often referred to as /ɑ/ even in phonemic transcriptions. /ɑ/ doesn't saying anything about the length, so the transcription /ɑfri'kɑ:nsk/ isn't meant to indicate a pronunciation like "aafrikaansk", which, as you say, no Norwegians use. Only the transcription /ɑ:fri'kɑ:nsk/ would indicate that.



Dan2 said:


> You use the symbol for a long vowel. Norwegian has a rule (with exceptions) that says that vowels are short before two or more consonants. Is the -nsk ending here an exception to this rule?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dan


I don't have time to do this question justice right now, but I'll throw out this attempt at an explanation: If there's a long vowel in the stem used for the adjective, then the -sk will leave the vowel long. Examples: _amerikansk_, _italiensk_, _gresk_ ("Greek") etc. with long vowels before the -sk, but _tysk_ ("German"), _svensk_ ("Swedish"), _dansk_ ("Danish") with short vowels.


----------



## Dan2

inter1908 said:


> Well, I've made an assumption that these words  regard South Africa, so the pronunciation has to be more or less  accurate.


I see.  The problem is: Afrikaans in a specific language spoken in the nation of South Africa.  The Norwegian words "afrikaner" and "afrikansk", on the other hand, simply mean "African".


NorwegianNYC said:


> Also, from a technical point of view, *"afrikaner" = /afriˈkaːnər/ i IPA, men "afrikansk" = /ɑfriˈkɑːnsk/* cannot possibly be true, since regardless of the quality of the latter -a-, _afrikansk_ is definitely NOT pronounced "aafrikaansk" (with two long a-sounds [ɑː]).


I don't think anyone was claiming that these words have a sequence of TWO [ɑ] vowels.  Doesn't the colon (two vertical dots) simply mean "long vowel"?


Magb said:


> I don't have time to do this question justice right now, but I'll throw out this attempt at an explanation: If there's a long vowel in the stem used for the adjective, then the -sk will leave the vowel long. Examples: _amerikansk_, _italiensk_, _gresk_ ("Greek") etc. with long vowels before the -sk, but _tysk_ ("German"), _svensk_ ("Swedish"), _dansk_ ("Danish") with short vowels.


You DID do justice to the question. Good clear answer!  Thanks!


----------



## inter1908

Dan2 said:


> I see.  The problem is: Afrikaans in a specific language spoken in the nation of South Africa.  The Norwegian words "afrikaner" and "afrikansk", on the other hand, simply mean "African".



That's right, but you'd expect any edition of Wiktionary to be thrustworthy, right?  I've seen many Dutch pronunciations posted on Afrikaans Wiktionary, and very few were wrong. It doesn't necessarily have to be anything about Afrikaans being a daughter language of Dutch, because their IPA pronunciation is quite distinctive (not totally, but noticeably). Take a look yourself if you're interested. So considering this fact I believed even harder that any pronunciation of a fairly easy European language would be right. That's the whole story.



> I don't have time to do this question justice right now, but I'll throw out this attempt at an explanation: If there's a long vowel in the stem used for the adjective, then the -sk will leave the vowel long. Examples: amerikansk, italiensk, gresk ("Greek") etc. with long vowels before the -sk, but tysk ("German"), svensk ("Swedish"), dansk ("Danish") with short vowels.



I will certainly try to remember this, thanks.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Dan2 said:


> I don't think anyone was claiming that these words have a sequence of TWO [ɑ] vowels.  Doesn't the colon (two vertical dots) simply mean "long vowel"?



It does. My mistake. I believe what I meant to say was:  "aafrikaansk" (with two *back* a-sounds [ɑː]). It has been a long time since I "spoke" IPA, but doesn't it go: a - ä -  ɑ (front - mid - back in the open series)


----------

