# Norwegian - rs, rkj



## mezzoforte

Can someone help me to understand the "*rs*" sound, like in "No*rs*k".  Is it the same as "*skj*", or as "*kj*"?  Also, do you always make that sound between words, e.g. "væ*r s*å god".  Is it "optional"?  Is it more correct sounding to pronounce the letters separately?  Can you separate the letters if it's within the word?

How is the sound of "*rkj*"?  I don't know any words containing it, but for example you have: "Alt hva fedrene ha*r kj*empet."


----------



## kirsitn

The "rs" sound is never pronounced like "kj". It's quite similar to "skj" except that you have a hint of "r" at the beginning of the sound. The pronunciation of rsk as "rskj" is standard in all the dialects that use a "rolling r". Probably not the correct grammatical term for it, but it's the r-sound that's used in most of the country including the Oslo-dialect, which is the one that's usually taught as "standard" Norwegian pronunciation for foreigners. Pronouncing the sounds separately sounds funny in those dialects, but is of course perfectly understandable. In the dialects that use a "French r" (mostly in the west and south), the sounds are normally pronounced separately - probably because it's more difficult to add a "skj"-sound after a French r.

The pronuciation of "r+kj" is the same as "r" and "kj" separately except that the "r" is often pronounced more lightly if you speak fast. So the pronunciation of "har kjempet" often sounds _almost_ the same as "ha kjempet".


----------



## mezzoforte

Awesome.  I really like how the "*rs*" becomes "*rskj*", because it shows how you've made an "akward" sound easier to say.  And it makes perfect sense that the "French"-*r* would be separated from "*s*"!!

I'm still wondering if it's optional to separate "*r*" from "*s*" when it's between words, like in "*vær så god*".  I'm thinking of how in Norwegian songs, it seems that consontants don't always get combined.  I feel that maybe it's more "proper" to pronounce the "*r*" fully and pronounce the next consonant correctly.

Do you think this is true?  Or perhaps when reading an important text, slowly and carefully?

Also, how would you describe the clusters: "*rn*", "*rl*", "*rt*", "*rd*"?

Thanks!


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> I'm still wondering if it's optional to separate "*r*" from "*s*" when it's between words, like in "*vær så god*".  I'm thinking of how in Norwegian songs, it seems that consontants don't always get combined.  I feel that maybe it's more "proper" to pronounce the "*r*" fully and pronounce the next consonant correctly.



In a song the words might be pronounced separately in order to fit with the rhythm. Pronouncing the words separately in normal speech, however, makes you sound like a priest or an actor from the 1950s... 




mezzoforte said:


> Also, how would you describe the clusters: "*rn*", "*rl*", "*rt*", "*rd*"?



In all of these combinations the r gets merged with the following consonant, resulting in a kind of retroflex r (if that's what it's called when the sound is produced with the tip of the tongue touching the palate). Pronouncing the two consonants separately with a "normal" r-sound gives the same impression of speaking like a priest. (In other words, clear diction is reserved for priests and stage actors.)

The exception to this rule is people from the northern part of western Norway (Sogn og Fjordane and Møre). They tend to pronounce the r separately from the following consonant even though they don't use a French r.


----------



## missTK

I'm from the east of Norway and can't separate the consonants completely in "vær så god" without really focusing and taking an exaggerated break. It sounds very strange and I don't think I've ever heard anybody do it. Even a priest speaking carefully will make it an "sj" sound. People speaking formally may say "vær sjå god" instead "væsjågod", but hardly ever "vær så god".


----------



## aaspraak

missTK said:


> I'm from the east of Norway and can't separate the consonants completely in "vær så god" without really focusing and taking an exaggerated break. It sounds very strange and I don't think I've ever heard anybody do it.



I would say it like that, but when speaking fast it comes out closer to *værs(e)god*, r and s still pronounced as two separate sounds. 

I am from the western part of Norway. I also tend to pronounce g's and d's that would be silent in other dialects. So I pronounce *bønder* and *bønner* different not only because of different toneme.


----------



## mezzoforte

Can you please explain to me why *bønder* and *bønner* have different tonemes?  Also, I've read that West/East (maybe it was Nynorsk/Bokmål) say the tones differently; but do you always agree on which words are "Tone 1" and which are "Tone 2"?


----------



## Cerb

mezzoforte said:


> Can you please explain to me why *bønder* and *bønner* have different tonemes?  Also, I've read that West/East (maybe it was Nynorsk/Bokmål) say the tones differently; but do you always agree on which words are "Tone 1" and which are "Tone 2"?


I can't really explain why they have different tonemes. I think it's something you simply have to pick up from hearing Norwegian. Wikipedia has:


> Accent 1 is, generally speaking, used for words whose second syllable is the definite article, and for words that in Old Norse were monosyllabic.


but that's of little help in this case I guess.

As I've seen discussions about the use of 1 or 2 for words in Bokmål, I'm fairly sure there is some variation. It's probably pretty obvious, but I can't think of any examples at the moment (someone please correct me here if I'm wrong).


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> Can you please explain to me why *bønder* and *bønner* have different tonemes?



Perhaps simply in order to be able to separate the words from each other?

But it's not the same all for all dialects. In my dialect the words can be separated without using tonemes since bønder is pronounced with a final -r, whereas the final -r in bønner is silent.


----------



## mezzoforte

Okay.  I'm glad to know that this is more complicated than I imagined.


----------



## kirsitn

If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about the bønder/bønner case. Even if you pronounce both words the same way, it's not likely to cause much confusion. (Assuming that you're not a cannibal who likes to eat farmers. ;-))


----------



## missTK

aaspraak said:


> I would say it like that, but when speaking fast it comes out closer to *værs(e)god*, r and s still pronounced as two separate sounds.
> 
> I am from the western part of Norway.



Yes, I should have clarified that I've never heard it from people where I live, who speak an East Norwegian dialect that has retroflex sounds.


----------



## mezzoforte

If I may resurrect this post:  I read that you don't always make "*d*" retroflex when it's after "*r*"... I heard "mord", "lærd" with the "*r*" *(Edit) and "d" *pronounced... I'm not sure if "*d*" was retroflex.  Is there a way to know when to pronounce the "*r*" before "*d*"?  (This makes me think of asking about "*l*" before "*v*" and "*l*" before "*g*"...  )

I am asking of the Oslo accent, but I'd be interested in knowing for other accents if the rule is different.


----------



## mezzoforte

I just want to clarify that I want to know (your opinion on) when, in a word with "*rd*",

"*r*" is
1. trilled, or
2. retroflex

and "*d*" is
1. retroflex, or
2. silent, or
3. normal (I think this would not happen?)

Thx


----------



## kirsitn

As far as I can figure out, the r is usually retroflex if the preceding vowel sound is short, whereas it is trilled with the d silent when the preceding vowel is long. Unfortunately I don't think there's any rule for when a vowel is long or short...

Examples of retroflex r+d:
Mord, lærd, ferd, herde, verden, leopard, myrde, lørdag

Examples of trilled r + silent d:
Gjorde, gjerde, gård, hard


----------



## mezzoforte

Thx.... too bad about "gjorde"... I would have said the "d"


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> Thx.... too bad about "gjorde"... I would have said the "d"



I think some people actually pronounce the d in gjorde, but it sounds a bit posh to me.


----------



## mezzoforte

BUT IT'S A PAST TENSE... you must say the "*D*"  ... right?


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> BUT IT'S A PAST TENSE... you must say the "*D*"  ... right?



No. I would never pronounce the d in gjorde. I also don't pronounce the t in jordet (= the field), so they sound pretty much the same, but they might have different tonemes... (I'm not so good at telling what toneme I'm using, I just pronounce the words the way that feels right...)

(Speaking of tonemes... When jordet is meant to mean grounded (electrical socket), I pronounce it like "jorda" because adjectives ending in -et are pronounced like -a in my dialect. But it is distinguished from jorda (the earth) by having different tonemes. But that's a digression since you're learning the Oslo dialect where jordet is pronounced like it's written.)


----------



## Cerb

It doesn't sound like "gjorde" without the "d" and "jordet" have different tonemes to me. I know people that pronounce the "d", but I don't myself. 

Coming from Oslo, I'd say "jorda" rather than "jordet" for grounded. It's about preference. Both are fine, but "jordet" is probably more common in writing (if not the only correct spelling in Bokmål?) Writing "jordet" makes it a bit easier to read as well as using the wrong toneme will give "jorda" in the meaning of "the Earth" as in the planet


----------



## mezzoforte

So I should not write "jordet" to mean the Earth?  Is it one of the "compulsory feminine" nouns?

Also, why shouldn't I pronounced the "t" in "jordet"... IT IS PAST TENSE


----------



## kirsitn

No, jordet can never mean the Earth. The Earth is either jorden (masc.) or jorda (fem.).
The t in jordet should be pronounced (unless you say "jorda" like in my dialect), it's the d that is silent.


----------



## mezzoforte

Sorry, me got confused... n/m


----------



## mezzoforte

Okay, now I want to ask my question about "*ig*".  I read that you pronounce it in the _superlative_, but what about in the _comparative_?  e.g. *rolig, roliger, roligst*

Thx


----------



## kirsitn

Rolig -> "roli"
Roligere -> "roliere"
Roligst -> "rolikst" (or rather something in between g and k)


----------



## Cerb

My bad. I messed up that post with some last minute editing. My point was that "jorda" can mean either "grounded" or "the Earth" (as in the planet) depending on what toneme is used. Thus, "jordet" might be better than "jorda" when writing even if you say "jorda".


----------



## Cerb

I'm sorry, try to reload. Been up for too long and you're posting to fast for me, hehe. I'll try again tomorrow


----------



## mezzoforte

Well, I'm not complaining... English has terrible words like "live" (verb) and "live" (adj.), and even worse, "read" (present) and "read" (past)....


----------



## mezzoforte

I am not clear on something here.  Is "jordet" (grounded) pronounced "jorda" in the Oslo dialect? Also, are past tenses ending in "-et" always/usually pronounced like "-a", or is "jord-" an exception?


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> I am not clear on something here.  Is "jordet" (grounded) pronounced "jorda" in the Oslo dialect? Also, are past tenses ending in "-et" always/usually pronounced like "-a", or is "jord-" an exception?



That depends on which part of Oslo you come from. "Jordet" is more common in the western part of the city, "jorda" is more common in the eastern part. 

Jordet is not a past tense, it's an adjective, and adjectives ending in -et can always be pronounced either as -et or as -a. However, the same rule also applies to verbs with past tense ending in -et.


----------



## Cerb

"jordet" (used mainly on the west side) or "jorda" with toneme 1 (mainly east side) means grounded.

"jorden" (west side) or "jorda" with toneme 2 (east side) means the Earth.

There's a general preference for "a"-endings on the east side. I forgot about this thread for a bit. Hope I didn't make you even more confused with this post


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

This thread is temporarily closed for maintenance. It contains more than one topic, and will be split into as many parts as is necessary.

Please, *please*, do not change the topic of a discussion. Open a new thread for any new topic you want to discuss.


----------

