# Slovenian: misnla/misla 'I thought (f.)'



## dihydrogen monoxide

Which feminine form of the Slovene verb misliti have you heard and which is the most natural sounding to you and where did you hear it use most often. The forms are:
a) misnla
b) misla
c) mislila (this is also a standard form, but I think it is used as a non standard form)


----------



## skye

I don't know which one I hear most often. I think that many people use a shortened form of the standard form "mislila". But not all. 

I usually use a shortened form, most often "mislna", sometimes also "misl-la" with a kind of a double or prolonged l. 

I think this question will be better answered by speakers of more central dialects.


----------



## trance0

I use "misl-la" with a kind of a double or prolonged l. I believe this is the most frequently used form in Lj.


----------



## sokol

skye said:


> (...) I usually use a shortened form, most often "mislna", sometimes also "misl-la" with a kind of a double or prolonged l. (...)





trance0 said:


> I use "misl-la" with a kind of a double or prolonged l. I believe this is the most frequently used form in Lj.



I guess, in both cases, that this is a syllabic /l/? Like in IPA (for "misl-la"): /misl̩a/ and ("mislna") /misl̩na/.
At least that's what I would expect here, from your descriptions.
(The sign below /l/ indicating syllabic pronunciation is positioned slightly to the left of the /l/, almost between /s/ and /l/ which is due to the script; unfortunately I can't write it better with the tools available to me, it should be positioned exactly below the /l/.)


----------



## skye

I don't know if it's syllabic, it sounds more like the first l is still a part of the first syllable and the second l is already a part of the second syllable. 

I thought a syllabic l would only be needed if there were no vowels that could build a syllable? (But my knowledge isn't perfect.)


----------



## sokol

skye said:


> I don't know if it's syllabic, it sounds more like the first l is still a part of the first syllable and the second l is already a part of the second syllable.


This is the description of a geminated conconant (Slovenian standard language of course has no geminates, but it is perfectly possible that they exist in colloquial speech) - that is, indeed a double /l/ (both part of the first and the second syllable, with the syllable break occuring "in the middle of /ll/".



skye said:


> I thought a syllabic l would only be needed if there were no vowels that could build a syllable? (But my knowledge isn't perfect.)


Well, a syllabic consonant is forming a syllable peak - no vowel is part of a syllable with a syllabic consonant (but there may be other consonants).

Therefore a syllabic /l/ also is of course possible even if it would not be necessary (phonetically) to pronounce the consonant syllabic. Apart from that not each consonant which phonologically is syllabic has to be a syllabic consonant phonetically (in Slavic languages where the Slovenian /volk/ is a /vlk/ the /l/ phonemically is - or may be - syllabic, but phonetically I think in these languages /l/ is pronounced with a shwa before it, so phonetically we would have /vəlk/ - and thus more likely a syllabic shwa rather than a syllabic /l/).

If you know some non-standard Austrian speech you probably know what a syllabic /l/ sounds like and if your /misl'la/ is a geminata or rather a syllabic /l/: standard language "Bild", diminutive Austrian /Bildl/ in some dialects is pronounced /byl̩/, with syllabic /l/ (in other dialects however it is /bydl/).

Or probalby you know Italian and then know what a geminata should sound like (geminata also exist in Austrian dialects, but it would be surely easier for you with Italian).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

I use "mislna" in informal, everyday speech, and "mislila" in more formal contexts. Only "mislila" is acceptable in formal speech (of the type you would hear on television, for instance).

I never use "mis*nl*a".


----------



## skye

sokol said:


> This is the description of a geminated conconant (Slovenian standard language of course has no geminates, but it is perfectly possible that they exist in colloquial speech) - that is, indeed a double /l/ (both part of the first and the second syllable, with the syllable break occuring "in the middle of /ll/".
> 
> 
> Well, a syllabic consonant is forming a syllable peak - no vowel is part of a syllable with a syllabic consonant (but there may be other consonants).
> 
> Therefore a syllabic /l/ also is of course possible even if it would not be necessary (phonetically) to pronounce the consonant syllabic. Apart from that not each consonant which phonologically is syllabic has to be a syllabic consonant phonetically (in Slavic languages where the Slovenian /volk/ is a /vlk/ the /l/ phonemically is - or may be - syllabic, but phonetically I think in these languages /l/ is pronounced with a shwa before it, so phonetically we would have /vəlk/ - and thus more likely a syllabic shwa rather than a syllabic /l/).
> 
> If you know some non-standard Austrian speech you probably know what a syllabic /l/ sounds like and if your /misl'la/ is a geminata or rather a syllabic /l/: standard language "Bild", diminutive Austrian /Bildl/ in some dialects is pronounced /byl̩/, with syllabic /l/ (in other dialects however it is /bydl/).
> 
> Or probalby you know Italian and then know what a geminata should sound like (geminata also exist in Austrian dialects, but it would be surely easier for you with Italian).


 
Actually, I don't know any non-standard Austrian speeches and I don't know Italian either (just a few words). But I can imagine what you mean by geminata. I think this l in misl-la is probably more like a geminata than a syllabic l. 

In Slovenian volk is pronounced with an o and the l is also not pronounced like l, more like something between v and u. I think it's a monosyllabic word with o as the "carrier" of the syllable. 

I remember syllabic l from my German lectures. I think we said that it can occur at the end of verbs (würfeln) or nouns (Stiefel). In the first example you get an extra syllable: wür-fe-ln instead of wür-feln and in the second example the l takes on the function of the vowel e: Stie-fl instead of Stie-fel. It's been a few years since, but hopefully I didn't forget too much.


----------



## skye

TriglavNationalPark said:


> I use "mislna" in informal, everyday speech, and "mislila" in more formal contexts. Only "mislila" is acceptable in formal speech (of the type you would hear on television, for instance).
> 
> I never use "mis*nl*a".


 
Now that I thought about it a little I realised that I used to use misnla a lot, but then I somehow stopped and now I use mislna more frequently.


----------



## zigaramsak

I know nothing about syllabic and geminated consonants, but what kind of consonants are e.g. f and n in German words "auffahren" and "annehmen" (Hochdeutsch)? Is italian m in "potremmo" geminated or syllabic? I'd say our l in "mislla" (I don't hear that word very often in Gorenjska, though) should be similar to any of these, but actually I'm more asking than answering... 

Btw, I use mislna.


----------



## sokol

zigaramsak said:


> I know nothing about syllabic and geminated consonants, but what kind of consonants are e.g. f and n in German words "auffahren" and "annehmen" (Hochdeutsch)?


In standard language they are not geminated, but there are dialects where I would describe them phonetically as geminates (the topic is a disputed one). But let's stick to the topic which of course is this:


zigaramsak said:


> Btw, I use mislna.



And to contribute something: the posts so far seem to suggest that the threadopener's original version of "misnla" most likely is a typo, this surely should have been "mislna", right?


----------



## zigaramsak

sokol said:


> And to contribute something: the posts so far seem to suggest that the threadopener's original version of "misnla" most likely is a typo, this surely should have been "mislna", right?


 
Maybe it's not a typo. I also thought it was, but it sounded somehow familiar to me and then skye said that she was using this form and then she switched to "mislna". It could still be a typo, but it seems likely that the form is still (or at least was) in use in some parts.


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

It's definetely not a typo.
I use "misnla", never "mislna". 

And don't forget a plural form of "mislili": misnli/misnl ... like in "smo misn'l j't u kino."

Well, dropping out vocals from the none-accented syllables in the speech strengthens going from east towards west of the country. The most terrible in there in Jesenice (or it used to be).
But why we add new sounds into the existing words like this "n" in this case, I don't know.


----------



## sokol

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> (...) But why we add new sounds into the existing words like this "n" in this case, I don't know.



Phonologically it _could _be a case of dissimilation: with dissimilation being a process of changing two identical sounds in neighbouring syllables to two similar, but not identical sounds.
So dissimilation could be, as is well documented in Romance languages:
- /arbre/ (French) is /arbol/ (Spanish), both going back to Latin /arbor/: in these languages at least historically (with French later changing the quality of /r/) /r/ = palatal trill and /l/ = palatal lateral are both very similar sounds and were changed in Spanish only
I am not familiar with dissimilation like that, but it may well be possible:
- misl'la (however this may be pronounced) > mislna (or) misnla (/n/ is dental as is /l/, but /n/ is nasal while /l/ is lateral)

The reason why dissimilation happens is first and foremost to make perception easier, but also to make pronunciation easier.

Note: this is certainly NOT the only explanation possible in this case. Other explanations might fit much better (e. g. a different ancient root of the word to which this form goes back in certain dialects), but this is the only (and best) one I can think of in this case.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

I remembered now, professor told us that was the case of dissimilation in Slovene.


----------

