# Norwegian: pronunciation of "rs"



## Xander2024

Hei,

Jeg har lest i en lærebok at bokstavkombinasjonen "rs" leses som [ʃ] i Oslo-regionen, men annensteds leses den som [rs]: norsk [nɔ(r)sk], forstå [fɔ(r)sto:], spørsmål [spø(r)smo:l].

Could a native speaker please tell me what kind of pronunciation is considered standard (TV and radio) and how "rs" is pronounced in back lands of Norway?

Takk.


----------



## Tjahzi

Are you sure that it's considered a post-alveolar fricative rather than a retroflex alveolar fricative?


----------



## Xander2024

Tjahzi, I'm not sure what exactly is meant by those "post-alveolar fricative" and "retroflex alveolar fricative" . But I can still remember from way back when I learnt Swedish, that the so-called cacuminal sounds "rd", "rt", "rs" are pronounced separately in a lofty style and when making official speeches. So I'm wondering how widespread the separate pronunciation of the "rs" in Norway is.


----------



## TomTrussel

I'm not sure about these terms and IPA signs either, but you can usually assume the Oslo-variants are those most commonly used in the media. I don't think there are many places that pronounce "rs" very differently than we do in Oslo, my guess would be the Bergen and surroundings area, that has a similar R-sound as the swedes in the Skåne-area, if that helps you any.  

TT


----------



## Xander2024

Thanks anyway, Tom. Anything a native speaker says is helpful.


----------



## Tjahzi

Sorry, I didn't have access to IPA signs. 

The "(voiceless) post-alveolar fricative" is your [ʃ], similar to the English sound usually written _sh_. 

The "(voiceless) retroflex alveolar fricative", [ʂ], is basically a normal [s], with the difference that the top of your tongue is somewhat retracted (that is, it is retroflex).

(It's disputed among scholars whether Russian /ш/ is really a [ʃ] or [ʂ].)


As for their usage in Norwegian (and Swedish): in (most dialects of) Swedish, the sequences r+t/d/s/n/l (notice how all these consonants are dental/post-alveolar) trigger a retroflex assimilation, such as [r]+[s]->[ʂ]. I previously believed this was the case for Norwegian as well, until I learned that final _-rd_ was pronounced [r], rather than [ɖ] (which is standard in Swedish). I don't know if this just applies to just /rd/, or if it's the final position that triggers it. Then again, whenever I listen to (Oslo based) Norwegian, I tend to get  the impression of that they are very similar to those found in Swedish,  and as such the most accurate way to describe them would be to label  them retroflex allophones.

That said, keep in mind that this is a case of assimilation. Meaning, a natural phonologic process that's present in normal speech, but not necessarily when speaking overly slow/formal/etc. (Just as you _can_ say /drug/ or /vkomnatu/, rather than /druk/ and /fkomnatu/ (друг/в комнату)). 

It's worth noting however that the Swedish dialect of Skåne realizes /r/ as [ʀ] or [ʁ] (unlike most other dialects) and that these don't trigger this retroflex assimilation (but rather maintain the [rs]/[rt]/etc pronunciation). Hence, it sounds logical that the very same pattern is found among Norwegian dialects.


----------



## Dan2

Tjahzi said:


> As for their usage in Norwegian (and Swedish): in (most dialects of) Swedish, the sequences r+t/d/s/n/l (notice how all these consonants are dental/post-alveolar) trigger a retroflex assimilation, such as [r]+[s]->[ʂ]. I previously believed this was the case for Norwegian as well, until I learned that final _-rd_ was pronounced [r], rather than [ɖ] (which is standard in Swedish). I don't know if this just applies to just /rd/, or if it's the final position that triggers it.


It's true that in Norwegian final -rd is pronounced as [r]  in many or most common words (for ex., "ord", "jord") but I would think this has to do with the general tendency to drop final -d (as in "god", "land") rather than having to do specifically with the sequence /rd/.

In support of this, note that in some words the /d/ of /rd/ is not dropped (for ex., "mord", according to my dictionary), and in such words, I believe you get the expected retroflex /d/.

(My Norwegian is not good enough to have a "feel" for these things.  Please correct any misconceptions.)


----------



## hanne

Dan2 said:


> In support of this, note that in some words the /d/ of /rd/ is not dropped (for ex., "mord", according to my dictionary), and in such words, I believe you get the expected retroflex /d/.


The pronunciation of -rd has recently been discussed here.

<mod note: If possible, we should try to keep the two discussions separated, alternatively the threads can be merged (if anyone prefers merging, please let me know).>


----------



## Xander2024

Thanks for elaborating on the subject, guys.


----------



## Tjahzi

Dan2 said:


> It's true that in Norwegian final -rd is pronounced as [r]  in many or most common words (for ex., "ord", "jord") but I would think this has to do with the general tendency to drop final -d (as in "god", "land") rather than having to do specifically with the sequence /rd/.
> 
> In support of this, note that in some words the /d/ of /rd/ is not dropped (for ex., "mord", according to my dictionary), and in such words, I believe you get the expected retroflex /d/.
> 
> (My Norwegian is not good enough to have a "feel" for these things.  Please correct any misconceptions.)


Indeed, we could probably establish that "final d is dropped" overrides "r+coronal consonant triggers assimilation" (which is not true in Swedish, despite the fact that Swedish, too, tends to drop final _-d_). 

While the case of /rd/ is not exactly what is being asked for in this thread, it's essential to determine the case of /rs/ (given the obvious similarities between [d] and [s]). If we find [r]+[d]->[ɖ] in Norwegian, we probably find [r]+[s]->[ʂ].


----------



## TomTrussel

If I recall correct, we got to the conclusion that -rd- elements and -rd endings where treated the same in the Oslo-area dialect, that is, *if* the d is dropped like in "ord"; it is also dropped in "ordene" and also in "ordboka" We do however have words that doesn't drop the d in the rd sequence, but they are usually NOT [ɖ] but rather [rd]. If you take Norwegian "morder" and compare it to Swedish "mördare" there is a distinct difference between Norwegian and Swedish pronunciation, where in Swedish the r all but merges with the following d, while the Norwegian version clearly pronounces the [rd]

TT


----------



## Dan2

hanne said:


> The pronunciation of -rd has recently been discussed here.
> 
> <mod note: If possible, we should try to keep the two discussions separated, alternatively the threads can be merged (if anyone prefers merging, please let me know).>


Sorry - somehow I missed that thread.  Thanks for the pointer.

However, as Tjahzi points out, the retroflexion that /r/ induces in a following consonant is of interest in this thread, and that topic is not discussed in the other.

In particular, in the other thread it was stated that "mord" is pronounced with [rd].  I would ask: does this word literally have an [r] followed by a [d]?  Or does  the [rd] coalesce into a single retroflex-[d] sound, in the same way that, for ex., "bort" is so often described as having no true [r] but rather a retroflex-[t]. (The fact that the /d/ is not deleted in "mord" (as it is in "jord", "fjord", and so many other words) makes it an interesting case for the line of reasoning Tjahzi is following.)

Thanks.

EDIT: I've just read Tom's post, which perhaps answers my question.  However Tom talks specifically about "morder".  So the question I ask above is perhaps still open.  And if the answer is that "mord' is pronounced with true [rd], the relevant question becomes, does final -rd EVER coalesce to retroflex-[d] in Norwegian.  And don't we get retroflex-[d] in internal /rd/, as in "ferdig"?


----------



## TomTrussel

> EDIT: I've just read Tom's post, which perhaps answers my question.   However Tom talks specifically about "morder".  So the question I ask  above is perhaps still open.  And if the answer is that "mord' is  pronounced with true [rd], the relevant question becomes, does final -rd  EVER coalesce to retroflex-[d] in Norwegian.  And don't we get  retroflex-[d] in internal /rd/, as in "ferdig"?



I'm not going to absolutely deny that no Norwegian dialcets use retroflex -[d]. "ferdig" as you say, is a good example where we seems to use it, but I'm not convinced it's "correct" because we certainly pronounce it [rd] when we say "ferdighet" Maybe it's an ongoing change  

TT


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Part of this discussion is a moot point - in the areas with the guttural -r-, the [rd] will not form as a retroflex at all. However,  in east, southeast, central and mid-Norwegian dialects, [rd] often becomes a retroflex in words like _ferdig, ferdighet, varde_ and _mord_.

At the same time it is important to keep in mind that there is no such thing as Standard Spoken Norwegian, so it is nigh impossible to say whether one form is 'correct' or not.


----------



## Xander2024

Thanks for weighing in, NNYC.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Tjahzi said:


> Are you sure that it's considered a post-alveolar fricative rather than a retroflex alveolar fricative?


Do you mean the way Swedes pronounce "sju" around Stockholm? This pronunciation is definitely not used in Norwegian. The Norwegian *rs* or *sj* sound (østlandet) is rather more like German *Sch* in *Schule* and or Russian *ш* in *шапка* or *школа *than English *Sh* in *shame*. The English is in my perception more dental.


----------



## Xander2024

And if we consider a situation where "r" and "s" belong to two different words? For example, "Her studerer vi". Could it be so that we drop the final "r" and pronounce the sentence as [Hæ studerer vi]?


----------



## Tjahzi

Ben Jamin said:


> Do you mean the way Swedes pronounce "sju" around Stockholm? This pronunciation is definitely not used in Norwegian. The Norwegian *rs* or *sj* sound (østlandet) is rather more like German *Sch* in *Schule* and or Russian *ш* in *шапка* or *школа *than English *Sh* in *shame*. The English is in my perception more dental.


Well, I don't mean to dismiss your comment, but the realization of the /skj/sk/etc-phoneme varies considerably, and I can think of at least three different versions found in or around Stockholm, as such I'm not sure which of them you mean exactly (and which of the ones I mentioned did you mean?). Either how, I _believe_ the Norwegian realizations of /rs/ and /sj/ to be two different sounds, namely [ʂ] and [ʃ] (of which only the first is officially found in Swedish). Then again, given their proximity, it's possible that they have merged or established complementary allophony. That said, your familiarity with a rich fricative inventory (as a Polish speaker) should make you more qualified than me to make such an estimation.


Xander2024 said:


> And if we consider a situation where "r" and "s" belong to two different words? For example, "Her studerer  vi". Could it be so that we drop the final "r" and pronounce the  sentence as [Hæ studerer vi]?


Swedish would always assimilate in  such a context.


----------



## Magb

Xander2024 said:


> And if we consider a situation where "r" and "s" belong to two different words? For example, "Her studerer vi". Could it be so that we drop the final "r" and pronounce the sentence as [Hæ studerer vi]?


I can and do use both pronunciations in that example. To me, dropping the r instead of assimilating it is a more colloquial pronunciation, but perfectly common and acceptable.



Tjahzi said:


> Either how, I _believe_ the Norwegian realizations of /rs/ and /sj/ to be two different sounds, namely [ʂ] and [ʃ] (of which only the first is officially found in Swedish).


I think it's mentioned somewhere in The Phonology of Norwegian that they used to be distinct for most people up until relatively recently, but that most if not all speakers now merge them. I know I do.


----------



## Xander2024

Takk for konfirmasjonen, Magb.


----------



## Clemica

Dan2 said:


> In support of this, note that in some words the /d/ of /rd/ is not dropped (for ex., "mord", according to my dictionary), and in such words, I believe you get the expected retroflex /d/.



Dan which dictionary do you have that indicates pronunciation in Norwegian? That would be so useful to know and have. Thanks


----------



## Xander2024

Yes, Dan, I was about to ask you the same question. I've been surfing the web trying to find a Norwegian dictionary with a transcription but haven't found one so far.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Well, my post was not precise enough, sorry. I live in the suburbs of Oslo, and i hear mostly the East Norwegian dialects around me. The "[ʃ]" sound  heard in this area is certainely not the same as the Swedish [ʂ] sound  that is so characteristic of the Swedish language (but apparently not used by so many Swedes as it may appear for foreigners). I put the [ʃ]  symbol in quotes because it is not identical with the English sh sound for which the [ʃ]  is most usedmuchiis symssymbol is widely used. For my ears, however, the East Norwegian sj/rs sound is almost identical with the Polish sound in szewc, Russian sound in *шапка * or German sound in *Schule. *But       B     B


----------



## Dan2

Clemica, Xander: I have "Norwegian-English Dictionary" by Einar Haugen, originally published in 1965 (I have the 1974 edition, which I bought on amazon.com a few years ago).  This is a very thorough dictionary, and includes both BM and NN (but goes in the Norw-to-Eng direction only).

BTW, in the introduction, Haugen states that "many people" pronounce "rs" and "sj" alike.  And this was 40 years ago.

If there are any words you are particularly curious to know Haugen's pronunciation of, drop me a PM.

Dan


----------



## Clemica

Thanks a lot Dan2! What would we do without Einar Haugen. This dictionary sounds great, pronunciation and both NN and BM words. I am curious, are words from both languages listed under each other or is there two different sections?


----------



## Magb

Dan2 said:


> BTW, in the introduction, Haugen states that "many people" pronounce "rs" and "sj" alike.  And this was 40 years ago.


If it's true that merely "many" pronounced them identically 40 years ago then there must certainly be people around who pronounce them differently today. I'll have to keep an ear out for people who still make the distinction.


----------



## Xander2024

Ah, I have the very same dictionary by E. Haugen.


----------

