# BCS and Macedonian: Syllabic R



## iobyo

The /r/ is distinctly syllabic between consonants (for example, [pr̩st]), but how is it pronounced and phonetically transcribed:



at the beginning of a word before a consonant (ex._ рђати_)?
at a morpheme boundary (ex. _зарђати_)?
Is it at all possible to have a syllabic consonant in these two situations or is a schwa pronounced?


----------



## Duya

Well, a phonetic (non-phonemic) schwa is virtually always pronounced  before the syllabic consonant. So, /pr̩st/ is normally pronounced [pə̆rst], and, for example, /grːmʎe/ is either [gə̆rːmʎe], or, even more  frequently, [gəːrmʎe]. 

"Rđati" and "zarđati" are no exceptions, and the consonant remains  the syllable carrier. Thus, they are broken in syllables as /'r.dʑa.ti/  and /za.'r.dʑa.ti/, and pronounced [ə̆r.dʑa.ti] and [za.ə̆r.dʑa.ti]; the  latter may even get a glottal stop, fairly rare in BCS phonology, i.e. [za.ʔə̆r.dʑa.ti].


----------



## iobyo

Thanks for the explanation, Duya.

You'll have to excuse my poor understanding of phonetics.

I still perceive a difference between BCS/Macedonian/Czech ([pr̩st]), Slovenian ([pərst]) and Bulgarian ([prəst]) pronunciations.

What does this diacritic ( ̆ ) represent in your transcription?


----------



## Awwal12

> What does this diacritic ( ̆ ) represent in your transcription?


It should mean that the vowel is supershort, I believe.


----------



## Duya

Awwal12 said:


> It should mean that the vowel is supershort, I believe.



Indeed.



			
				iobyo said:
			
		

> I still perceive a difference between BCS/Macedonian/Czech ([pr̩st]),  Slovenian ([pərst]) and Bulgarian ([prəst]) pronunciations.



Do you perhaps have sound recordings available? I was talking from BCS perspective, of course, but I don't think it would be significantly different between BCS, Macedonian and Slovene. In BCS, (although it's not phonetic so it may vary among speakers) we tend to precede the "r" with the epenthetic schwa, rather than pronounce it after it. Bulgarian has the phonemic schwa, so they may easily pronounce it differently -- it is пръст rather than пърст.


----------



## phosphore

Duya said:


> Well, a phonetic (non-phonemic) schwa is virtually always pronounced before the syllabic consonant. So, /pr̩st/ is normally pronounced [pə̆rst], and, for example, /grːmʎe/ is either [gə̆rːmʎe], or, even more frequently, [gəːrmʎe].
> 
> "Rđati" and "zarđati" are no exceptions, and the consonant remains the syllable carrier. Thus, they are broken in syllables as /'r.dʑa.ti/ and /za.'r.dʑa.ti/, and pronounced [ə̆r.dʑa.ti] and [za.ə̆r.dʑa.ti]; the latter may even get a glottal stop, fairly rare in BCS phonology, i.e. [za.ʔə̆r.dʑa.ti].


 
I've already seen that this "schwa" (I wouldn't say we could really call it a schwa) is allegedly pronounced before the syllabic "r", but I don't think it's true, at least not for Belgrade and Serbia. You can compare these two:

Magazin, "Kasno je", link to video deleted (at the very beginning): "Ako me imaš, imaš u krvi..."
Aco Pejović, "Litar krvi", link to video deleted  (around 0.55): "...litar krvi, ove ruke..."

Mod note:
I'm really sorry but YouTube links are not allowed; you need to search for those yourself.


I don't think he's from Serbia originally, but I couldn't find anyone else. Anyway, you can clearly hear how she pronounces [kə̆:rvi] while he pronounces [kr:vi].

To answer the initial question, initial syllabic /r/'s are pronounced in pretty much the same manner as non-inital ones. In "hrđa" and "rđa" the two /r/'s are in my pronunciation exactly the same. There is no schwa before (definitely not in "zarđati"), while there may be some kind of vowel sound after the vocalic /r/, but that's what makes it syllabic, we can't expect it to be pronounced exactly the same as the non-vocalic /r/.


----------



## DenisBiH

But is this [kəːrvi] more due to the song or the way it's pronounced in Croatia? I personally see the point Duya made with [gəːrmʎe] but I'm not really sure about the schwa being there usually when there is a syllabic r. Is there a sure way to distinguish between a super-short schwa and the airflow after the stop as in krvi?


----------



## iobyo

Duya said:


> Do you perhaps have sound recordings available?



Check out this recording of a Czech speaker. 

I do admit, now that I've been repeatedly saying _prst_, I can hear myself pronouncing a sort of half mute sound. Nothing phonemically significant.



phosphore said:


> You can compare these two:



I think the difference here is that the _prst_ in "Kasno je" is elongated while Aco pronounces it almost as one would during a normal conversation.

Assuming that the following transcription is accurate, a [pr̩ːːst] pronunciation wouldn't sound as nice in a song as [pəːːrst] would.


----------



## iobyo

I stumbled across the following which might be of some interest:

O prirodi glasa [r] u srpskom jeziku


----------



## sokol

Supposedly (or that's what I've learned by my teachers) in BCS the schwa supposedly is extra short and only indicates that in "prst" there's a tiny pause between <p> and <r>, but that there isn't one between <r> and <st>.
However, at least in colloquial speech you hear the schwa frequently enough.

(And concerning video links please note that by our rules I have to delete YouTube links; those songs anyway very clearly show this pronunciation of schwa.)


iobyo said:


> I still perceive a difference between BCS/Macedonian/Czech ([pr̩st]), Slovenian ([pərst]) and Bulgarian ([prəst]) pronunciations.


Well, there _*is*_ a difference.

In Czech syllabic <r> (to my knowledge) indeed is only produced with an extra-short schwa which is rather not a schwa but just a short pause, as it is supposed to be in BCS (according to my teachers, while the linguistic reality seems to differ somewhat).

In Slovene however the schwa is accepted and correct pronunciation of formal standard language - it is, and should be, [pərst], even though this is written <prst>.


----------



## phosphore

I'm telling you that if there's any vowel sound connected to syllabic /r/, in the speech of Serbia it is placed after and not before this /r/. The pronunciation with a clear vowel sound before this /r/ is characteristic for Croatian speakers and at first when I was younger it sounded foreign to me. This seems logical when comparing with what you wrote about Slovene and Bulgarian: in Slovene it is /pərst/ [pərst], in Croatian /prst/ [p(ə)rst], in Serbian /prst/ [pr(ə)st] and in Bulgarian /prəst/ [prəst].


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I'm telling you that if there's any vowel sound connected to syllabic /r/, in the speech of Serbia it is placed after and not before this /r/. The pronunciation with a clear vowel sound before this /r/ is characteristic for Croatian speakers and at first when I was younger it sounded foreign to me. This seems logical when comparing with what you wrote about Slovene and Bulgarian: in Slovene it is /pərst/ [pərst], in Croatian /prst/ [p(ə)rst], in Serbian /prst/ [pr(ə)st] and in Bulgarian /pərst/ [pərst].


Well, I can only trust your judgement. 
Of course it is perfectly possible that this is a difference typical for Serbian and Croatian speech.

However, as far as that song of Aco Pejović, "Litar krvi" is concerned I still think that I hear (around 0:55) distinctly [k(ə)rvi], rather than [kr(ə)vi]; however, the schwa here is definitely extra short, so I could be wrong - but my ear (and brain) indeed, at least in this case, place the schwa before the <r>.


----------



## Duya

phosphore said:


> I'm telling you that if there's any vowel sound connected to syllabic /r/, in the speech of Serbia it is placed after and not before this /r/. The pronunciation with a clear vowel sound before this /r/ is characteristic for Croatian speakers and at first when I was younger it sounded foreign to me.



No, you're wrong. You may start from our very people and country name: it's ['s@r.bi] and ['s@r.bi.ja], not ['sr@.bi] and ['sr@.bi.ja].


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> Well, I can only trust your judgement.
> Of course it is perfectly possible that this is a difference typical for Serbian and Croatian speech.
> 
> However, as far as that song of Aco Pejović, "Litar krvi" is concerned I still think that I hear (around 0:55) distinctly [k(ə)rvi], rather than [kr(ə)vi]; however, the schwa here is definitely extra short, so I could be wrong - but my ear (and brain) indeed, at least in this case, place the schwa before the <r>.


 
The first syllabe of /kr.vi/ is phonologically long, so it doesn't make much sense to propose an extra short vowel in it. The /r/ would still have to be syllabic if the syllable is to be long and since /kr/ is one syllable this extra short vowel would then be non-syllabic? I don't know.

The problem may be that the /r/ is a vibrant and these vibrations are sometimes reduced and quite irregular, so we may think we hear some kind of vowel sound between the syllabic /r/ and the consonant that precedes it. And when the syllable is short, it is really hard to tell, but when the syllable is long a super short vowel simply does not fit in. And when the syllable has no onset, there is definitely no schwa before /r/. 

Now when Duya mentioned Serbs and Serbia, I remembered how some Croats really say ['ħˆər.vat.ska] and not ['xř.vat.ska]. But to me that's distinctively Croat.


----------



## Duya

phosphore said:


> Now when Duya mentioned Serbs and Serbia, I remembered how some Croats really say ['ħˆər.vat.ska] and not ['xř.vat.ska]. But to me that's distinctively Croat.



Still not quite sure what you mean. What I observe is that many Croats pronounce "hȑvatska" (with short falling, or whatever it's called in Kajkavian-like framework, and no length on second syllable) instead of standard "hr̀vātska" (short rising + length). I believe it's chiefly a Zagreb accent, and I must admit I don't like the sound of it. 

http://www.forvo.com/word/hrvatska#hr 

has two recordings of Croatian speakers, the first [Phlatline] pronouncing with short rising but no length (and some odd k-like sound at the beginning, probably due to bad recording), and the second [teapot] pronouncing with that annoying short falling accent. But I don't perceive a significant amount of schwa in any of those, compared with what I would hear in Serbia.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> The problem may be that the /r/ is a vibrant and these vibrations are sometimes reduced and quite irregular, so we may think we hear some kind of vowel sound between the syllabic /r/ and the consonant that precedes it.


I can only speak for that sound sample above; as I said, I'm still perceiving a tiny pause between /k/ and the onset of the first trill of /r/, and no pause at all between /r/ and the onset of /v/: this pause I perceive definitely is extremely short, and definitely is "voiced" (that is, not voiceless noise - as could also be the case, after the voiceless consonant /k/).

This pause I perceive is definitely not a full vowel (except of course for the Croatian sample where this very clearly is the case); I used "extra-short schwa" because this pause is very short and voiced, or so I perceive it.
This pause only tells me that /k/ and /r/ are NOT forming a consonant cluster while /r/ and /v/ ARE forming a consonant cluster.

There's a difference, phonetically; a cluster /kr/ would be a stop where the release is simultaneous with the beginning of the trill (like in "kravata"), but in this case I do not hear the same cluster as in "kravata", but I hear instead the cluster "rv" while between /k/ and the cluster /rv/ I perceive a minute schwa (or an extra-short voiced pause).

Of course, as said, that's only my perception - and I might be wrong.
But I hope that at least you see what I mean.

By the way, it is different with syllabic /l/ because /l/ is a continuous sound, it is perfectly possible to pronounce /pln/ without even a tiny pause between consonants (speakers might still insert a schwa, but phonetically there's no need for it); however, with a trill there's always a pause however short it may be, and in clusters /tr dr/ this is even more obvious as they're even closer coarticulated.
So this should be even more obvious with /drvo/ which I always have perceived in BCS as /də̆rvo/ (so the super-short schwa again) rather than /drə̆vo/. But as said already above it might well be that Serbians rather prefer the latter.


----------



## phosphore

Duya, you're right, the accent is falling and not rising (that's what I tried to represent with the circumflex over the schwa), but also the realisation of /x/ is laryngal or even pharyngeal and the realisation of /r/ is schwa+vibrant, not in this particular instance, but in what I had in mind.

Apparently I am not allowed to post links to YouTube, but if you have time you can search for these videos:

*Ceca - Doktor HQ* around 0.07
"Juče sam bila *prvi *kod doktora..."
watch?v=PCn9jJryDNQ

*Ceca - Decenija* around 0.59
"...a *prvi* put plačem i to je normalno..."
watch?v=ew9t4_PWnFQ

*Gordana Stojicevic - Zagrli me ti i oprosti mi* around 0.47
"*Zagrli* me ti i oprosti mi, stegni *srce*, nemoj plakati, jedno drugo smo bili sve, *prva* ljubav sreca i prolece..."
watch?v=nrTnH0b5Vjw

And on the other side:

*Marija Serifovic - Sto prvi.wmv* around 0.52
"Šta koji si, sto *prvi* si..."
watch?v=rg9cuQ6exuo

*Magazin - Često* around 0.06
"*Prvi *puta oči su plakale, *prvi *puta kada su videle..."
watch?v=uAUH7yftZn4

*Magazin - Ginem* around 0.18
"...dok se budem sjećala tebe pod *prstima*..."
watch?v=56f6HUdw5C4

It seems that it's not regional after all, it's rather characteristic for Jelena Rozga, but she really does pronounce [ər] or [əɾ], while Ceca for instance pronounces [ɾə] or just [r].


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> I can only speak for that sound sample above; as I said, I'm still perceiving a tiny pause between /k/ and the onset of the first trill of /r/, and no pause at all between /r/ and the onset of /v/: this pause I perceive definitely is extremely short, and definitely is "voiced" (that is, not voiceless noise - as could also be the case, after the voiceless consonant /k/).
> 
> This pause I perceive is definitely not a full vowel (except of course for the Croatian sample where this very clearly is the case); I used "extra-short schwa" because this pause is very short and voiced, or so I perceive it.
> This pause only tells me that /k/ and /r/ are NOT forming a consonant cluster while /r/ and /v/ ARE forming a consonant cluster.
> 
> There's a difference, phonetically; a cluster /kr/ would be a stop where the release is simultaneous with the beginning of the trill (like in "kravata"), but in this case I do not hear the same cluster as in "kravata", but I hear instead the cluster "rv" while between /k/ and the cluster /rv/ I perceive a minute schwa (or an extra-short voiced pause).
> 
> Of course, as said, that's only my perception - and I might be wrong.
> But I hope that at least you see what I mean.
> 
> By the way, it is different with syllabic /l/ because /l/ is a continuous sound, it is perfectly possible to pronounce /pln/ without even a tiny pause between consonants (speakers might still insert a schwa, but phonetically there's no need for it); however, with a trill there's always a pause however short it may be, and in clusters /tr dr/ this is even more obvious as they're even closer coarticulated.
> So this should be even more obvious with /drvo/ which I always have perceived in BCS as /də̆rvo/ (so the super-short schwa again) rather than /drə̆vo/. But as said already above it might well be that Serbians rather prefer the latter.


 
I should record myself and then post it here, maybe I have some kind of speech disorder  (it is true that sometimes I roll my r's a little too much).

I have already stated above that I find the hypothesis about a super short schwa before syllabic /r/'s unsatisfying from the point that there are *long* syllables with the syllabic /r/ in the nucleus and I don't understand how a super short vowel could fit in such a structure. I agree that /kr/ in /krv/ is not a consonant cluster, while in /krov/ it is, but I don't agree that /rv/ in the same word is a consonant cluster in the same way as in /survati/. Do you have the impression that /r/ and /dʑ/ in /rdʑa/ form a consonant cluster too? And anyway, the difference between /kr/ in /krv/ and /kr/ in /krov/ is not in a true vowel sound and definitely not in a schwa, I could only imagine some kind of r-coloured vowel.

There's more evidence. The grammars say that /r/ in such words as /umro/ used to be syllabic. Nowadays /r/ before a true vowel can't be syllabic, but after a vowel it can. I think that if there were a schwa before syllabic /r/ it could still be syllabic before vowels.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> Do you have the impression that /r/ and /dʑ/ in /rdʑa/ form a consonant cluster too? And anyway, the difference between /kr/ in /krv/ and /kr/ in /krov/ is not in a true vowel sound and definitely not in a schwa, I could only imagine some kind of r-coloured vowel.


Well, of course such a short "pause" (to not use schwa ) is always strongly coloured by preceding and following sound.
We don't need to use "schwa" for this (which would be inexact anyway, phonetically); the point is that I perceive a short pause between /k/ and /r/, but not between /r/ and /v/: between the latter I hear no pause at all.

And as far as Ceca, Doktor HQ is concerned I can confirm that here I perceive clearly /prə̆vi/ rather than /pə̆rvi/ (and also that this pause between /r/ and /v/ indeed is extremely short, only long enough to tell where to /r/ "belongs", cluster-wise, so to speak).

As for /rđa/, that'd be interesting - I always thought that yes, /rdʑ/ is a cluster (and that there's a vocalic schwa-like onset to /r/); and when listening to:

Zeljko Sasic - Pojesce me i rdja i crvi (Poješće ... rđa ... but you find it written like that): around 0:59

this impression is confirmed. But I don't know whether he's Croatian or Serbian.

(sorry, but YouTube is not allowed by our rules, that's valid for all WR forums )


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> As for /rđa/, that'd be interesting - I always thought that yes, /rdʑ/ is a cluster (and that there's a vocalic schwa-like onset to /r/); and when listening to:
> 
> Zeljko Sasic - Pojesce me i rdja i crvi (Poješće ... rđa ... but you find it written like that): around 0:59
> 
> this impression is confirmed. But I don't know whether he's Croatian or Serbian.


 
Well then, I don't really know. I've tried everything I could to convince you.


----------



## Orlin

> Do you perhaps have sound recordings available? I was talking from BCS perspective, of course, but I don't think it would be significantly different between BCS, Macedonian and Slovene. In BCS, (although it's not phonetic so it may vary among speakers) we tend to precede the "r" with the epenthetic schwa, rather than pronounce it after it. Bulgarian has the phonemic schwa, so they may easily pronounce it differently -- it is пръст rather than пърст.


 
Međutim, u bugarskom je _ъ_ zaista fonemno, _ali može da izmenjuje svoju_ _poziciju prema р _- postoje neka pravila za to: u jednosložnim rečima je _ъ_ najčešće posle _р_ (npr. пръст, кръст), ali postoje izuzeci; u višesložnim imamo grupu _ръ_ ispred samo jednog suglasnika i _ър_ ispred 2+ suglasnika (npr. дърво-дръвче). Zato i očekujem da ovaj "nefonemni priglas" koji ide sa sonantnim r u BCS može biti i ispred i iza sonantnog r u jednakoj meri s čisto fonotaktičkoj perspektivi i sve zavisi od drugih faktora (npr. regionalnih).


----------



## Duya

Orlin said:


> Zato i očekujem da ovaj "nefonemni priglas" koji ide sa sonantnim r u BCS može biti i ispred i iza sonantnog r u jednakoj meri s čisto fonotaktičkoj perspektivi i sve zavisi od drugih faktora (npr. regionalnih).



Tu si u pravu, s tim što Sokol i ja pokušavamo da ubedimo Phosphorea da je on *obično *(ne nužno)pre sonanta, dok on tvrdi suprotno. Na primer, meni sasvim prirodno zvuči i "zaərđati" i "zarəđati", ali nipošto "srəbija" ili "grəčka".


----------



## Orlin

Duya said:


> Na primer, meni sasvim prirodno zvuči i "zaərđati" i "zarəđati", ali nipošto "srəbija" ili "grəčka".


 
Možda to znači da se bugarski _Сърбия_ i BCS _Srbija_ izgovaraju (gotovo) jednako i najbitnija je razlika u (ne)fonemnosti glasa _ъ._


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> Well then, I don't really know. I've tried everything I could to convince you.


I'm of course not a native speaker but I've had extensive phonetic training; I'm only saying how I perceive syllabic /r/ in BCS; to be entirely sure one would need to measure and analyse the sound acoustically, for which I don't have the hardware available. 

However, see also Duya's last post; but probably there's also significant regional variation within Serbian concerning syllabic /r/ pronunciation - that I don't know.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> It seems that it's not regional after all, it's rather characteristic for Jelena Rozga, but she really does pronounce [ər] or [əɾ], while Ceca for instance pronounces [ɾə] or just [r].



Interesting, I didnt't notice that [rə] pronunciation as in Ceca's songs before. Here are some Bosnian examples of [ər] I believe. Hari is native Sarajevan and Beba moved to Sarajevo from Trebinje as a four year old.

BEBA SELIMOVIC--U SRCU MOME 
watch?v=1HWf5RNE8PI
"...život *brzo* prolazi...u *srcu* mome samo živiš ti...nek se naša *srca* spoje..."

Hari Mata Hari - Prsten i zlatni lanac 
watch?v=P31eL3t597g
"...*srce* mi se slomilo...*prsten* i zlatni lanac daće ti"
("sve se *brzo* desilo" on the other hand is either [r] or [rə]?)


----------



## phosphore

It seems I don't understand something here so I'm giving up on this discussion. I mean, in order to pronounce z[aər]đati I have to insert a glottal stop between [a] and [ə]! But maybe after all there is some kind of vowel sound before the vibrant in the realisation of syllabic /r/, I don't really know anymore, but I'm certain that's not a schwa because the way Jelena Rozga from Magazin pronounces it with a real schwa sounds definitely foreign to my ears.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Interesting, I didnt't notice that [rə] pronunciation as in Ceca's songs before. Here are some Bosnian examples of [ər] I believe. Hari is native Sarajevan and Beba moved to Sarajevo from Trebinje as a four year old
> 
> BEBA SELIMOVIC--U SRCU MOME
> watch?v=1HWf5RNE8PI
> "...život *brzo* prolazi...u *srcu* mome samo živiš ti...nek se naša *srca* spoje..."
> 
> Hari Mata Hari - Prsten i zlatni lanac
> watch?v=P31eL3t597g
> "...*srce* mi se slomilo...*prsten* i zlatni lanac daće ti"


 
Beba does pronounce [ər]. Hari Mata Hari however says b[r]zo around 0.27 and then s[ər]ce around 0.33 and then again p[ə:r]sten around 1.12.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> Beba does pronounce [ər]. Hari Mata Hari however says b[r]zo around 0.27 and then s[ər]ce around 0.33 and then again p[ə:r]sten around 1.12.




Thanks, that's what I assumed but wasn't sure about Hari's brzo.  Could you please say what you hear in these examples, because it seems to me Nedžad has all three. 

NEDZAD SALKOVIC--IMAM SAMO PJESMU 
watch?v=_G3MPOoYVYg
[rə]  or [r]? "stari se polako a *srce* mi boluje" 

"*srce* moje moli je"
Nedzad Salkovic Zagreb Nov.2008 Vece Sevdaha 
watch?v=VAye8H9gAZs
I hear [rə] "i *umrlu* majku zvao" vs [ər] "nosio joj dar od *srca*"

A particularly interesting comparison is between the versions of "Jesen u vrtu mom" by Nedžad and (supposedly) Lidija Percan (Nedžad's is v=Xc_w5zo9CJI , Lidija's is v=NJsdRaTr5f0)


----------



## phosphore

I don't know anymore and these songs make me sad.

In the second song I hear "um[rə]lu" and "s[ər]ca" (and I see now that's what you heard too) but for the first song I really don't know.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> I don't know anymore and these songs make me sad.
> 
> In the second song I hear "um[rə]lu" and "s[ər]ca" (and I see now that's what you heard too) but for the first song I really don't know.




Bad choice of songs emotion-wise, but too late now to correct. "Jesen u vrtu mom" would have sufficed. I believe I even heard a couple of (semi-)long rrr's. 

He's from Tuzla so there might be some regional distribution here. Or not. Anyway, I've really never noticed this before.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> It seems I don't understand something here so I'm giving up on this discussion. I mean, in order to pronounce z[aər]đati I have to insert a glottal stop between [a] and [ə]! But maybe after all there is some kind of vowel sound before the vibrant in the realisation of syllabic /r/, I don't really know anymore, but I'm certain that's not a schwa because the way Jelena Rozga from Magazin pronounces it with a real schwa sounds definitely foreign to my ears.


As I said before, it would indeed be better not to use the term "schwa" as in those cases when there's only an "extra-short vocalic pause" this isn't really a schwa phonetically but a vowel sound entirely coloured by preceding and following consonant. As opposed to those instances when indeed and clearly a "schwa" is pronounced.

Both pronunciation varieties exist, as we've seen so far, and as far as my perceptive skills are concerned; and the one which is clearly a schwa pronunciation obviously is the one which you find foreign while you don't have that impression with the other one (where I hear the pause and you don't).

Concerning "z[aər]đati": well, you don't necessarily need to pronounce a glottal stop here, not at all. Slovenians don't, I think; I think "zardeti" should be "z[aər]deti", without a glottal stop (I'm not entirely sure here though; that's only how I always thought this is pronounced).


----------

