# schlicht (pronunciation "ch")



## elroy

Discussion split from here. 



			
				Isotta said:
			
		

> Also never taken any German, I would likely pronounce the "sch" like "sh," "li" as in "lit," the "ch" as in "nacht," and the "mann" as "min."
> 
> Z.


 
Well, the correct German pronunciation of "Schlicht" would be the one you describe above, with one tiny difference: the "ch" here is not the same as the one in "Nacht." It is not as guttural; rather, it is a clean, highly aspirated "h." Actually, if you simply pronounce an "h," you come quite close to the High German pronunciation.

"Mann" is pronounced like the first part of "money," - but, of course, "min," a more "American" pronunciation, is more suitable here. 

At any rate, I had been pronouncing "Schlicht" as in German until Neil revealed the answer. Since I read that, it has been "Slickman."


----------



## Isotta

Would the "icht" be like "nyght [with open ye]" in Chaucer's Prologue? Link added in case you'd like to hear. Now that I think about it, that "ch" is lighter than that of "nacht?"

Z.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> Would the "icht" be like "nyght [with open ye]" in Chaucer's Prologue? Link added in case you'd like to hear. Now that I think about it, that "ch" is lighter than that of "nacht?"
> 
> Z.


 
Hm...not quite.  That sounded to me more like a light "k."  The "ch" in "ich" is really very similar to an aspirated "h" - it's like a softer, cleaner version of the "ch" in "Nacht."  I'll see if I can find a web link with a pronunciation you can listen to.


----------



## Isotta

elroy said:
			
		

> Hm...not quite. That sounded to me more like a light "k." The "ch" in "ich" is really very similar to an aspirated "h" - it's like a softer, cleaner version of the "ch" in "Nacht." I'll see if I can find a web link with a pronunciation you can listen to.



It wasn't the best recording; it's not supposed to be a "k," but like an "h" with your mouth formation in _ (English "ee"), if that makes sense. I had not thought about the pronunciation of "ch" in German changing based on the letter preceding it, but it makes sense now that you mention it. 

Then again I have never taken German.

Z._


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> It wasn't the best recording; it's not supposed to be a "k," but like an "h" with your mouth formation in _ (English "ee"), if that makes sense. I had not thought about the pronunciation of "ch" in German changing based on the letter preceding it, but it makes sense now that you mention it.
> 
> Then again I have never taken German.
> 
> Z._


_

I just tried to pronounce an "h" with my mouth formed as you said - and that sounds about right. I think you've got it.  

And yes, the pronunciation of "ch" in German changes based on the preceding vowel.

In "ach," "och," and "uch," it is the guttural "ch" as in "Loch Ness."

In "ech," "ich," "äch", "öch," and "üch," it is the one I have been trying to describe. 

Also: 

If it is followed by an "s" (as in "sechs"), it is pronounced like a "k."_


----------



## MrMagoo

Isotta said:
			
		

> It wasn't the best recording; it's not supposed to be a "k," but like an "h" with your mouth formation in _ (English "ee"), if that makes sense. I had not thought about the pronunciation of "ch" in German changing based on the letter preceding it, but it makes sense now that you mention it.
> 
> Then again I have never taken German.
> 
> Z._


_


Hello Isotta,

try to pronounce the word "human" very clearly, maybe even a bit exaggurated - then separate the very first sound, and pronounce it separately. 
This is what should be close to the German "ch" in "schlicht"._


----------



## Isotta

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Hello Isotta,
> 
> try to pronounce the word "human" very clearly, maybe even a bit exaggurated - then separate the very first sound, and pronounce it separately.
> This is what should be close to the German "ch" in "schlicht".



That's an interesting way to go about it. I feel like the German "ich" is softer still and more in the back of your throat? At least it sounds this way when I hear it?

And thank you, elroy. It's strange to be posting in the German forum after all this time! 

Z.


----------



## I.C.

Isotta said:
			
		

> in the back of your throat?


 Totally the opposite, generated solely in the front section of the mouth. It just flows from your lips, like blowing on a cup of tea that is too hot or like blowing out a candle. Maybe also like you've been running up a flight of stairs in a hurry, you're a bit out of breath, you breath in, then let the air flow out with a quiet _shallow_ hiss. But obviously tongue and lips are formed into a different shape to achieve the proper sound. 
You part your mouth as if to say something hesitantly, both sides of the tongue are touching the molars on their respective side, the tip of the tongue forms a very slight U, the sound is then generated in the front section of the mouth by just letting air flow from your lips.

Clarification: Touching molars set into the upper jaw.


----------



## Isotta

Hmm, interesting description, I make a sort of failed open "f," so I must be going interpreting it wrong. 

I'm off to find a German person.

Many thanks for the coaching!

Z.


----------



## I.C.

Isotta said:
			
		

> I make a sort of failed open "f,"


Try drawing back the corners of your mouth a bit more, similarly to saying "eh".


> I'm off to find a German person.


Best solution.


> Many thanks for the coaching!


No worries.

And direct your hiss a bit downwards. If you bring your face close to a mirror or hold up a mirror close up to your face, your breath should be fogging the approximate area of where you can see the reflection of your chin.


----------



## Isotta

I.C. said:
			
		

> And direct your hiss a bit downwards. If you bring your face close to a mirror or hold up a mirror close up to your face, your breath should be fogging the approximate area of where you can see the reflection of your chin.



That it does. 

I think I just got lost in your albeit pretty description of how to form the sound. In the past Germans have always been a little surprised that I could make the sound without ever having taken German.

I will confirm with a native and will report back.

Z.


----------



## Gabriele

Hi,

yes, the sound is produced in the front part of the mouth.

Maybe you heard it "out of the throat" once, but then you listened to someone from Suisse I suppose , they produce a (for Germans) strange type of "ch".

The sounds also differs a bit all over Germany.

But the "ich" (= I) is really the right way to pronounce a "schlicht".

regards
Gabriele


----------



## I.C.

Isotta said:
			
		

> I think I just got lost


 That's entirely possible, of course.


			
				Gabriele said:
			
		

> Maybe you heard it "out of the throat" once, but then you listened to someone from Suisse I suppose , they produce a (for Germans) strange type of "ch".


 Yep. Think I also heard Alemannen do that.

If we are talking about the Deutsche Hochlautung - which certainly is the pronunciation I'm trying to convey - it just shouldn't sound as if someone has slime stuck in her throat and is trying to work it up. 
Regardless of how well I can communicate this matter via the net - there is absolutely no doubt that that in order to do justice to the Deutsche Hochlautung (which is commonly also called "Hochdeutsch", though that is actually the written standard) the sound has to be produced in the front of the mouth.

P.S. a little warning: Not even everbody who lectures German at university can pronounce it properly. The "ch"-sound of many Anglo-Saxons is too throaty.


----------



## Isotta

Now wait a minute--who has slime in _her _throat?! 

No, it's even shy of the French "r," which is not as gutteral as people often guess. 

The sound/hiss just seems to concentrate on the hard palatte.  To me. Oh, and I've never head anyone from Switzerland do it.*

Z.

*Nothing against the Swiss--I were to take German I would be tempted to take this form, as I've heard it lacks the genitive. One less thing to think about.


----------



## I.C.

Isotta said:
			
		

> Now wait a minute--who has slime in _her _throat?!


 Whoaa, the flames...I'm blind now. Against female fury, no man can defend.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think there's an old tradition in English of using "she" in a way such that the sex is not determined (there is no way in hell I'm using "gender").
But proactively I have sought refuge in my hidden underground fortress nevertheless, of course.


> *Nothing against the Swiss--I were to take German I would be tempted to take this form, as I've heard it lacks the genitive. One less thing to think about.


 Swiss accent can sound charming. _Can_. Doesn't sound very sophisticated, though. In my opinion.
The proper use of the genetive is a dying art anywhere in Germany...


----------



## elroy

Yet another split!

The discussion about the "gender-less _she_" can be accessed here.


----------



## Isotta

Reporting back: I saw a German friend today who said I was pronouncing the "ich" right and noted that he was impressed to hear an Anglophone do it. If he is right, it is the same sound as the "nycht" in Chaucer's "Prologue." Many thanks to you all for the coaching.

Twist: said German friend also mentioned that the "ch" in "nacht" would be the same as the "ch" in "ich." He said he could not detect any difference between the two sounds, which was interesting in light of above thread. Maybe this is the sort of thing a German person would not notice normally. Analogous to the way we in English have three "p" sounds and don't know it. Hmm.

Z.


----------



## DaleC

Miscellaneous responses to many people. 

In my linguistics hobby, phonetics is my strongest area. Not to say that my accents fool native speakers, but I have all the anatomical descriptions down. After ten days in Germany, Germans were impressed with my accent, and a cosmopolitan retired Dutch engineer thought I was German until I couldn't find the words I needed. Switching instantly to English, he said, "Wait . . . you're . . . Mummy, he's an American!" (calling out to his wife). 

In my experience, I master foreign sounds by attending to muscle feel in the tongue as much as I attend to the geometric descriptions (this part of tongue respective to that part of teeth, etc.). For the ich-laut, the back part of the middle of the tongue is higher. (By "back of tongue", I mean the part that touches above to produce a 'k'.) In that same zone of the tongue, along a line from the left side of the tongue to the right, one should feel a backwards pull. 

By the way, the Romance 'k' sound (spelled 'c') is farther forward than the Germanic 'k' sound, but still not as forward as the ich-laut. This would be relevant for an English speaking French-Canadian. 

The distinction between ach-laut (ach sound) and ich-laut is a prescribed feature for standard German. It is also a natural feature in many of the dialects. But it's possible to speak an ach-laut after a front vowel ([i, e, ä, ö, ü)]. The Slavs do so in their languages. Isn't that also the accent in the southern parts of the German speaking lands? 

We can't know for certain whether Chaucerian pronunciation of nyght was ach-laut or ich-laut. But the throat _fricative, _whether it be ach-laut or ich-laut, survives in _Lowland _Scottish English. 

The French 'r' is uvular in "point of articulation". That makes it throatier, farther back from the lips, than the German ach-laut, which is right where German and English 'k' are. I want to emphasize one other person's comment that English speakers make the German 'r' too throaty. They do indeed: they make it uvular or even farther down the oral tract. Thus they also mispronounce Welsh, Gaelic, and Slavic.


----------



## I.C.

Isotta said:
			
		

> said German friend also mentioned that the "ch" in "nacht" would be the same as the "ch" in "ich." He said he could not detect any difference between the two sounds


Don't have much time right now, but a quick reply:
He's just wrong. 
At least as far as the prestigious standard pronunciation is concerned.
The "ch" in "Nacht is generated further in the back of the mouth, which also has to be opened wider - and so on. The two sounds are generated quite differently and sound distinctively different. 
Don't take speech lessons from him.


----------



## DaleC

Posted by I.C. 





> Originally Posted by *Isotta*
> _
> 
> 
> 
> said German friend also mentioned that the "ch" in "nacht" would be the same as the "ch" in "ich." He said he could not detect any difference between the two sounds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> Don't have much time right now, but a quick reply:
> He's just wrong.
> At least as far as the prestigious standard pronunciation is concerned.
> The "ch" in "Nacht is generated further in the back of the mouth, which also has to be opened wider - and so on. The two sounds are generated quite differently and sound distinctively different.
> Don't take speech lessons from him.


 
There are two possible explanations for Isotta's friend's assertion. First, it's absolutely true in his dialect. (I'm not saying there is such a dialect of German, but that if there is, he would tell her what he told her). 

Second, native speakers tend to be oblivious to certain pronunciation differences in their own language. A "single sound" (say 'k', or 'a' as in 'father') may really be a group of sounds. A sound often adapts slightly to its neighboring sounds. (So adjacent sounds shift their articulations, mutually adapting). How much shifting depends on which sound in which language. The variations are termed "allophones". But sometimes two allophones are quite different anatomically, but the native speaker can't tell because the structure of the language says they're the same. In German and English, the 'p' after 's' (spin, span, spun) is physically (phonetically) not at all the same as 'p' to start a syllable (pin, pan, repair). But to native speakers, they're *psychologically *the same, "they're all 'p' ". The same goes for 't', 'k' as for 'p'.


----------



## Isotta

I.C. said:
			
		

> He's just wrong.
> At least as far as the prestigious standard pronunciation is concerned.
> The "ch" in "Nacht is generated further in the back of the mouth, which also has to be opened wider - and so on. The two sounds are generated quite differently and sound distinctively different.
> Don't take speech lessons from him.



Gotcha. He does have a sort of vacuous look about him. 

When he pronounced "nicht" and "nacht," the pair sounded different to me, I suppose because my ear expected it from this thread. This led me to believe that it would be a difference that Germans would have locked in their linguistic biogram. 

Would a normal German person notice it?

Thus my mentioning the "p" thing which DaleC kindly fleshed out in the last post. There is also third "p," which you hear in "skip." We don't notice it. Interestingly, those different "p"'s are phonemic in Thai. 

I'll seek a second opinion on my "ich." Could take a while. Will keep you abreast. All this talk has engendered a sudden urge to learn (Swiss) German.

Z.


----------



## I.C.

It's one thing for a native speaker to have never thought about these two different "ch"-sounds – that’s normal. 
It's quite another to not notice the big difference once the issue is presented .
I would expect any speaker who is asked about this to immediately and instinctively pronounce both sounds at least silently.
They _feel_ completely different.
A German who does not notice that "Nachtsicht" contains two distinctively different "ch"-sounds in standard German at least when someone points him at it would have to have a rather poor knowledge of the language. For whatever reasons. He might know lots about some *special* varieties of pot plants, though. 

Pronouncing "ch" after "i" the same as "ch" after "a":
There are Swiss who do so. OK, everyone including themselves knows their accents differ significantly from standard German. Hell, plenty of their dialects (sic!) are nearly incomprehensible to many Germans. On TV they often get subtitled. 
I also know of people in Southern Baden (Germany) who do this. In my experience those who do will not have received a great deal of education. Their accents would be categorised as hochalemannisch, I think. 


			
				Isotta said:
			
		

> All this talk has engendered a sudden urge to learn (Swiss) German.


 You won't need an odd accent to buy Swiss chocolate, just point at it.


----------



## DaleC

I.C. wrote: 


> A German who does not notice that "Nachtsicht" contains two distinctively different "ch"-sounds in standard German at least when someone points him at it would have to have a rather poor knowledge of the language. For whatever reasons. He might know lots about some *special* varieties of pot plants, though.


Yes, it's pretty surprising, because with all the dialect variety, and with people immersed in TV and radio broadcasts, I would all Germans to have heard bits of widely different accents. Which way to say 'ich' should be one of the most noticeable differences. Just like Austrians and Bavarians say "Schloch" instead of "Schlauch" -- very noticeable.


----------



## elroy

Brioche said:
			
		

> I wonder how many speakers of English are aware that the digraph 'th' has two sounds, one voiced as in *then* and one unvoiced as in *thin*?
> That is the same difference as between p and b or k and g.
> 
> BE has two different *L* sounds: contrast where the tongue is for the *l* in long and for the *l* in school.


 
I think everyone _*subconsciously*_ knows the difference between the two "th" sounds.


----------



## I.C.

The differences between the two "ch"-sounds are really quite big, particularly concerning generation. In that regard the differences between "p" and "b" or even "c" and "d" are much smaller.

A native speaker would have to be pretty vague to not figure out the difference rather quickly. Or have lived in the backwoods for all his life, never have left it and have no TV. He’d need to be unaware that his pronunciation differs from the standard. Of course, people like that exist.
Also, having a traceable local accent and rhythm is different to not being able to figure out what the standard pronunciation at least roughly sounds like. We’re talking about a _basic_ difference.


----------



## MrMagoo

elroy said:
			
		

> I think everyone _*subconsciously*_ knows the difference between the two "th" sounds.


Yes, as every German *subconsciously* knows the difference between ch [c] and ch [x].

I don't think that every German is aware of the two different sounds of "ch", neither is every English speaking person aware that there are two different "th" - why not?! Because people work a lot with written texts and have the symbol "th" in mind rather than the two variants (one voiced and the other one unvoiced).
This is exactly the same with the two "s"-sounds, as in English _house_ and _houses_:
The "s" in _hou*s*e_ is unvoiced while both "s" in _hou*s*e*s*_ are unvoiced.

I doubt that _every_body _really_ "knows" these are two different sounds. Subconsciously, yes - but not consciously.

All the best
-MrMagoo


P.S.:
One important aspect is that the difference between voiced/unvoiced "s" or "th" in English as well as in German can be a distinctive one, while the difference between ch[c] and ch[x] is "_just_" a phonetical one:

The [c]-sound occurs after "high" vowels such as e, i, ä, ö, and ü while the [x]-sound follows dark vowels (a, o, u).
The particular sound of ch, either [c] or [x] therefore is an assimilation towards its preceeding vowel;  [c] and [x] can not occur as a sound-opposition.


----------



## Nasobem

Brioche said:
			
		

> A typo I think!
> 
> .... both "s" in hou*s*e*s* are *voiced*.


Thanks, Brioche, the two unvoiced "s" in houses were bewildering me.
 Instead of houses I looked up Nacht now in my dictionary, and it's true.
 There are two kinds of "ch" as in Nacht, [naxt], and Nächte [nɛçtǝ]. As a native German speaker I never noticed that. But of course, you can feel (and hear) it.


----------



## MrMagoo

Brioche said:
			
		

> A typo I think!
> 
> .... both "s" in hou*s*e*s* are *voiced*.


 
Oh, yes of course - I'm sorry!! *stupid typos* 
Thanks for correcting this! 

All the best
-MrMagoo


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> I don't think that every German is aware of the two different sounds of "ch", neither is every English speaking person aware that there are two different "th" - why not?! Because people work a lot with written texts and have the symbol "th" in mind rather than the two variants (one voiced and the other one unvoiced).


I would say that English speakers and German speakers pronounce these sounds correctly without thinking about it, and if they do not teach language or do not analyze it carefully, they may have no idea the differences even exist.


> This is exactly the same with the two "s"-sounds, as in English _house_ and _houses_:
> The "s" in _hou*s*e_ is unvoiced while both "s" in _hou*s*e*s*_ are unvoiced.


As you know, the "s" in _hou*s*e_ is voiced in singular, but in the plural form, only the second "s" is consistantly unvoiced (with a "z" sound), since the pronunciation of the first "s" differs regionally.

Thus "hou-s&z" and "hou-z&z", with the 2nd actually shown as preferred by MW. 

Gaer


----------



## Isotta

Yes, ok, spoke with three Germans today from Frankfurt (denied having Frankfurt accent). When I asked them about "ach" and "ich," they  said the two sounds were completely different without taking time to reflect. 

As for "ich," I had to soften it and change my mouth so that more air was passing over the molars rather than concentrating in the hard palatte for them to say it was "perfect." 

Thanks to everyone; this has been an interesting thread--

Z.


----------

