# Proper "(i)ch" pronunciation



## Linguistix

Hello-
I was wondering if someone could explain in a more dumbed down, simple explanation of how to pronounce the German "ch" after "i", I already read the other forums and had trouble understanding. Thanks


----------



## Brioche

the closest English sound to the /ç/ sound of *ich* is *h* in words such as *h*uge, *h*uman &c

say _*h*uge_, 
then put an _i_ sound in front: _i-*h*uge_, 
then drop the _uge_. = ich.


----------



## Linguistix

Ok, thanks. What about in words such as "dich or the "ch" after the umlaut ä as in "Eberspächer".


----------



## MarcB

hallo Linguistix,
http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html select Klara or Reiner for male and female speaks type the word and they will say it,in hochdeutsch. Remember the sounds vary in dialects.


----------



## Linguistix

Yea, I'll be moving to south Germany for about a half of a year, and my family is schwäbisch, i was hoping to get a reply for how one would say it in their dialect


----------



## jimreilly

Brioche is on to it--I would use the word "hue" and prolong the "h"; the sound you get when it's prolonged is the one you want in "usual" German. I know you'll sometimes here it closer to a "k" but I don't know which dialects do what! Enjoy Germany---


----------



## MarcB

http://www.schwaebisch-englisch.de/
http://www.cityinfonetz.de/homepages/boeckle/schwlex.html
http://www.cwr16.com/hp/schw-lex.htm


----------



## elroy

This should help.


----------



## Nenita84

In the south of Germany and in Switzerland they pronounce the "ich" much stronger than in the north. However, Spanish people pronounce this sound always too strong even if our accent is compared to the southern dialects!


----------



## DaleC

Linguistix said:
			
		

> Yea, I'll be moving to south Germany for about a half of a year, and my family is schwäbisch, i was hoping to get a reply for how one would say it in their dialect



In the southern parts of the German speaking world (BaWü and Bayern in Germany, Austria, Switzerland), they mostly do not pronounce the 'ch' of 'ich' as in standard German. They mostly pronounce it as in Spanish, Gaelic, Welsh, or Slavic, or like the 'ch' of 'ach' in standard German. The ach-laut is easier to learn than the ich-laut.


----------



## I.C.

DaleC said:
			
		

> In the southern parts of the German speaking world (BaWü and Bayern in Germany, Austria, Switzerland), they *mostly* do not pronounce the 'ch' of 'ich' as in standard German.


 I disagree . Details stated in the thread linked by elroy.


----------



## DaleC

Quote:
Originally Posted by *DaleC*
_In the southern parts of the German speaking world (BaWü and Bayern in Germany, Austria, Switzerland), they *mostly* do not pronounce the 'ch' of 'ich' as in standard German. _



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> I disagree . Details stated in the thread linked by elroy.


 
"Since some Upper German dialects, notably Swiss German, do not have any allophonic variation of [x] after back vowels and [c] after front vowels -- only the voiceless velar fricative [x] occurs regardless of the quality of the preceding vowel -- it is assumed that this variation did not exist in Middle High German. It is not clear when it arose, as the spelling has remained the same in New High German." Charles V. J. Russ, Historical German phonology and morphology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, p. 85. 

I will elaborate with generalties about German dialectology. Linguists recognize "German" as consisting of seven dialect *groups*, each of which contains anywhere from one actual dialect (Mundart) to dozens. There is one northern group, four central groups, and two southern groups. The southwestern group is called Alemannic and it covers roughly the following political divisions: German speaking Switzerland, Alsace in France, and the state of Baden-Württemberg in Germany. Swabia is part of Ba-Wü. Note that the Swiss dialects and the southwest German dialects thus belong to the same major group. Therefore, it is likely that most of the dialects in SW Germany also lack the allophone [ç]. But of course, this is mere speculation; I would need to consult a dialect atlas or find another source that gives specific information.  

Furthermore, since the Alemannic and Bavarian group (all Austrian dialects belong to one of these two groups) really are very similar, it is likely that many dialects of the Bavarian group also lack the allophone [ç]. 

NOTE: ç = ALT 0231 (the leading zero is necessary).


----------



## I.C.

I will copy a passage from the linked thread. I have lived in the deep Southwest. I've met people from any region there is, I'd think.


			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## I.C.

Linguistix said:
			
		

> Yea, I'll be moving to south Germany for about a half of a year, and my family is schwäbisch


 By the way, it can be fairly difficult for foreigners to understand some of the Swabians. I know someone who went on a student exchange to the conservative heart of Swabia and couldn’t understand a word of what the mother of the family she was staying with said, not even after several weeks of exposure to it. The mother was very offended by this. Some people are unaware of their locally restricted use of language. Not surprisingly the mother also didn’t speak a word of English or any other foreign language. As a result, she limited social contact to said student as far as possible, all necessary exchanges were translated by the husband or her kids – into Hochdeutsch. 
Local dialect and strong local accents are still common in Swabia. (There even is a Honoratiorenschwäbisch.) But as proud as some Southerners may be of their heritage, if your aim is to be socially accepted and understood everywhere, then I do not recommend picking up too many of the local peculiarities of speech. 
As a first introduction into Swabian Culture  :
www.historisches-wuerttemberg.de/kultur/kompon/sonstige/haeusle.htm


Regarding the “ch”-sounds, here’s a link to an article, I haven’t read it completely and I wouldn’t be in a position to vouch for its accuracy even if I did: http://www.alemannisch.de/Aufsaetze_Verzeichnis/Gliederung_des_alemannischen_S/body_gliederung_des_alemannischen_s.htm
Still I sense this is true: 


			
				www.alemannisch.de said:
			
		

> In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch die “ich/ach-Laut”-Grenze zu erwähnen, die durch die unterschiedlichen Realisierungen des ch-Lautes entstanden ist. Nördlich dieser Linie gilt die standarddeutsche Aussprache, d.h., daß in ‘ich, dich, echt’ das ch am vorderen, in ‘ach, Dach, Loch’ am hinteren Gaumen artikuliert wird. *Südlich einer Linie, die von Wyhl am Rhein nach Denzlingen, Freiburg und von dort, dem Dreisamtal entlang, in südöstlicher Richtung zum Bodensee verläuft, wird das ch auch in ‘ich, dich, echt’ am hinteren Gaumen gebildet, folglich wie in ‘ach, Dach, Loch’.*


 Angemerkt sei, daß der im Artikel erwähnte Sprachatlas von 1889/90 interessant ist, es aber trügerisch sein kann, aus einem solchen Atlas allzu weitgehende Schlussfolgerungen über heutige Geläufigkeit und allgemein übliche Praxis zu ziehen. Das Fernsehen, veränderte Bildungsstandards und eine allgemein größere Mobilität haben im Laufe der Zeit doch einen gewissen Einfluß entwickeln können, und sie haben den Siegeszug des Hochdeutschen weiter beschleunigt. Insbesondere die Bedeutung lokaler Dialekte ist allgemein weiter zurückgegangen, sogar im hartnäckig lokalpatriotischen Süden, wenn dort auch schwächer als anderswo. 
Daß diese Entwicklung im Süden verzögert stattfindet, mag teilweise mit einer stärker ausgeprägten Seßhaftigkeit und der Herausbildung und früheren Verbreitung des Hochdeutschen im Zusammenhang mit der Verbreitung der Lutherbibel und des Protestantismus zusammenhängen, vielleicht auch mit einer eventuellen Dominanz eher norddeutsch orientierter kultureller Strömungen im 19. Jahrhundert, da kenne ich micht nicht aus. Vielleicht auch mit einem nicht bloß sprachlichen besonderen Hang zum Konservatismus.
Die Deutsche Hochlautung, die prestigeträchtige Standardaussprache, ist weitgehend ein norddeutscher Akzent, auch wenn das nicht alle wahrhaben wollen. Vielen Süddeutschen die ich getroffen habe, war sogar unbekannt, daß es eine ganze Reihe norddeutscher Akzente und Dialekte gibt, die von der Hochlautung, dem schriftlichen Standard und auch untereinander bisweilen sehr stark abweichen. (Es gibt oder gab im NDR eine Talkshow namens „Talk op Platt“, in der diese Dialekte gepflegt wurden oder werden, und je nach Herkunft der Sprecher ist es schon vorgekommen, daß sie sich untereinander kaum verstehen konnten). Viele der norddeutschen Dialekte sind aber inzwischen fast ausgestorben.
Meiner Meinung nach sind ein durchgehend sehr starker lokaler Akzent oder eine komplette Unfähigkeit, Hochdeutsch sprechen zu können, in der Regel das Resultat einer (anteilmäßig individuell variierenden) Kombination aus starker Seßhaftigkeit und Bildungsdefiziten. Allerdings kann eine Unfähigkeit, halbwegs passables Hochdeutsch sprechen zu _können_, auch eine mehr oder weniger erzwungene Seßhaftigkeit nach sich ziehen.


----------



## DaleC

I.C., thanks for the link to the alemannische.de site. 

I have consulted two books whose information is current.  

Linguistix will be interested to know that the bulk of the Swabian dialects, those spoken in the larger northern half of the dialect region, coincide with standard German in having the [ç] sound (ich-laut) after front vowels (i, e, ü, ö, ä) instead of the [x] sound (ach-laut) -- Augsburg, maybe not. Landmarks in this region include Stuttgart, Augsburg, and the Bodensee. 

According to Wiesinger/1/, the entire dialect region that includes the metropolises of Munich and Vienna (called Mittlelbairisch/2/, central Bavarian) lacks the ich-laut. Indeed, the ach-laut is often uvular instead of velar! Regarding Mittelbayrisch, Keller summarizes: "the fricative ch is more or less velar, even after palatal vowels" (Keller 1961, Ch. 6, §2.4). Also, south Alsace (Colmar, Mulhouse) lack the ich-laut; north Alsace (Strassburg) has it. The ich-laut/ach-laut isogloss in Elsass (Alsace) is mapped on p. 317 of Russ 1990. 

I would like to expand on what I.C. said about the unintelligibility of Swabian. Scientifically, there is no single German language. The northern dialects are mutually intelligible with the southern grouping of Alemannisch and Bairisch, and the southern grouping is also untelligible to many speakers of Mitteldeutsch (central German) dialects. So there may be half a dozen German languages. 

Swabians speak a range of dialect mixtures between their pure dialect and Hochdeutsch.  Here's a sample of pure Swabian. I use '@' for the 'e' as in 'große' and 'c' for the short 'o' as in 'hoffe' ('@, c' stand in for special phonetic symbols). 'x' = 'ch; and 'sch' is the same as in Hochdeutsch. Vowels are not held long unless written double. The apostrophe indicates dropped 'n'. Ii@z@mccl = neulich; sach = Dinge. 

Mae' maa' isch no ed lang gschdcr@b@. Siid@rhäar beene emd@r gaa'z @loa'. *Ii@z@mccl *ischd ao mae' schwäar vo Aoschluts@ [Ostelsheim] b@i m@r gwäa on hc gsaet: Dae' Hann@s sodd äab@ noo dcc sae'! Dc hcdd@r räach gheed, ncc wäärsch and@rschd@r: Uf oo's@re ägg@r hcd mi@s@n äll@s hccraggraat sae', dees kee'd @n@ hae'd no jeed@r saa, aab@r s@ide @loa' bee, komme deam *sach *nemme äll@m nccx. M@r wurd äab@n ao alt. (Russ, p. 344 in Russ 1990)/3/


/1/ Annoyingly, the author does not address the issue directly, but by combining remarks made in §9.1.2 and §10.1, it is clear that the local dialects lack the ich-laut. 
/2/ In German dialectology, the dialect name is spelled "bairisch". 
/3/ Mein Mann is noch nicht lange gestorben. Seither bin ich immer ganz allein. Neulich ist auch mein Schwiegervater von Ostelsheim bei mir gewesen und hat gesagt: Dein Hannes sollte eben noch da sein! Da hat er recht gehabt, dann wäre es anders: Auf unseren Äckern hat müssen alles 'haarakkurat' sein, das könnte Ihnen heute noch jeder sagen, aber seit ich allein bin, komme ich den Dingen nicht mehr nach. Man wird eben auch alt. 



Annotated bibliography 

Keller, R. E. 1961. German dialects: phonology and morphology; with selected texts. 

Philipp, Marthe, and Arlette Bothorel-Witz. "Low Alemannic". Ch. 10 in Russ 1990. 

Russ, Charles V.J., editor. 1990. The dialects of modern German:a linguistic survey. London: Routledge. 

Wiesinger, Peter. "The central and southern Bavarian dialects in Bavaria and Austria". Ch. 15 in Russ 1990.


----------



## I.C.

DaleC said:
			
		

> Scientifically, there is no single German language.The northern dialects are mutually intelligible with the southern grouping of Alemannisch and Bairisch, and the southern grouping is also untelligible to many speakers of Mitteldeutsch (central German) dialects. So there may be half a dozen German languages.


 I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. These days there really is _one standard_ for German. 
A standard for a group of dialects is defined by their general orientation towards this standard (else Dutch could be considered a German dialect because of the common origin). The German dialects are - dialects. 

Also feel free to watch Swiss news (or BR or SWR for weaker examples) to check on how their use of language is oriented to the standard despite the significantly differing local dialects. Or see the Rechtschreibreform, supposedly binding for all German-speaking countries.

By the way, I’ve been told of adjoining valleys in the Black Forest whose inhabitants used to have mutually almost unintelligible dialects (used to belong to different religious denominations and principalities, I think). They had almost no contact for centuries, I’ve been told. There also used to be areas in the North were people living in close proximity spoke different, almost unintelligible dialects and would therefore resort to a third dialect, which was something of a Northern standard at the time, to communicate with each other.


----------



## DaleC

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaleC*
> _ Scientifically, there is no single German language.The northern dialects are mutually intelligible with the southern grouping of Alemannisch and Bairisch, and the southern grouping is also untelligible to many speakers of Mitteldeutsch (central German) dialects. So there may be half a dozen German languages. _
> 
> I’ll have to disagree with you on that one. These days there really is _one standard_ for German.
> A standard for a group of dialects is defined by their general orientation towards this standard (else Dutch could be considered a German dialect because of the common origin). The German dialects are - dialects.


Mit dieser beobachtung zeigt es sich eben nur, dass es unter der leute in Deutschland, Österreich, usw. viele zweisprachigen gibt. Die darin einbezogenen definition des wortes "sprache" ist irgendeine soziopolitische, nicht eine sachliche. Jedenfalls habe ich auch nicht "standard languages" gesagt.


----------



## I.C.

DaleC said:
			
		

> Mit dieser beobachtung zeigt es sich eben nur, dass es unter der leute in Deutschland, Österreich, usw. viele zweisprachigen gibt. Die darin einbezogenen definition des wortes "sprache" ist irgendeine soziopolitische, nicht eine sachliche. .


As one of your sources you mentioned Keller. Unless I am very seriously mistaken I was more or less quoting him here, his take on what constitutes dialects and standard, why Dutch isn't a German dialect (from "The German Language"). Because I agree with him. Based on my observations.


----------



## DaleC

We really have two different issues here, but the politicized "standard languages" camp tries to erase or assimilate the other. Linguists, in contrast, do recognize the political validity of establishing standard languages. But scientifically, a standard is just yet one more dialect, with the level of mutually intelligibility with related dialects being an empirical question. 

In discussions of dialect and language classification, it's necessary to bear in mind how "language" is used at more than one taxon, at least by nonspecialists. Your successive remarks negate the notion, which I uphold, of objective classification of *speech communities* according to the criterion of mutual intelligibility; they actually disregard the speech communities and concern themselves with standards for nationwide use. The idea that we should ignore spoken differences and focus on use of a national or international standard is precisely the unscientific approach to dialect and language classification, because in fact such classification is really not quite the concern of those who insist upon such statements as "all ethnic Germans in Germany speak German", "all ethnic Dutch in the Netherlands speak Dutch", "Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are distinct languages". To put it simply, you're talking past me.  

An "accepted standard language" does not equal a "same language". All the German speakers in Alsace must undergo being educated in French. They are thus bilingual and they can communicate with their fellow citizens in a common language. This doesn't make Alsatian Alemannic a dialect of something called "French". Likewise for "German" speakers in the Italian Alps and "German" speakers in the southern third of the FRG. The fact that the mass of speakers of Bairisch and Alemannisch become fluent in Hochdeutsch during twelve years of education conducted in Hochdeutsch doesn't make their mother tongues dialects of a single language called "Deutsch". The objective fact is that you can select pairs of natives of Germany such that they can't understand each other when each one addresses the other in his/her respective *mother dialect*. And *that* is the scientific definition of language boundary. 



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> As one of your sources you mentioned Keller. Unless I am very seriously mistaken I was more or less quoting him here, his take on what constitutes dialects and standard, why Dutch isn't a German dialect (from "The German Language"). Because I agree with him. Based on my observations.


 
I don't necessarily agree with every statement of every author I consult. I will look up the discussion you refer to.


----------



## I.C.

> Your successive remarks negate the notion, which I uphold, of objective classification of speech communities according to the criterion of mutual intelligibility; they actually disregard the speech communities and concern themselves with standards for nationwide use.


 Nope.
I’m commenting on the importance of Hochdeutsch for _life_. 
Hence for most foreign language students, it would appear. 
It’s nice if dialects are kept alive, but chances are most of them will die out and mostly just accents and a bit of vocabulary will remain.


> The fact that the mass of speakers of Bairisch and Alemannisch become fluent in Hochdeutsch during twelve years of education conducted in Hochdeutsch doesn't make their mother tongues dialects of a single language called "Deutsch".


 Think you’re wrong to consider them as separate languages, but if you insist on it, OK. I’m not interested to argue about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I’ll relate two little anecdotes as my probably last contribution:

Guy from a village in the Black Forest goes away to study in the city. He speaks very good Hochdeutsch, but with an accent (with his father being a teacher, nothing else to be expected). Comes back after a few months, meets up with some of his old mates. After a while one of them asks him if he now thinks he’s something better than them. Reason? He had been grinding off his accent in his new university environment and conformed further to standard pronunciation – which he noticed only just then.

There was this head of a small German department at a University in some city in an English-speaking country. How she got the job? Who knows. Her German accent was really, really bad. She also couldn’t pronounce “ich” properly according to the Hochlautung. Instead she said “ick” and explained to each and everyone that this was really good German as it’s Berlinerisch, as she said a highly prestigious accent. Behind her back the Germans on her staff and the more capable of her native English staff were either laughing their behinds off or sneering. 
Guys, don’t let it happen to you.


----------



## Brioche

I.C. said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> It’s nice if dialects are kept alive, but chances are most of them will die out and mostly just accents and a bit of vocabulary will remain.


 
Dialects everywhere are destined to die out. The necessary "habitat" for dialects is gone.


----------



## jimreilly

These are charming stories. But we (already) knew that dialect intersects with class and that some dialects (even "languages") are spoken by people who are better, smarter, richer, or better educated than others, didn't we?

Sure, many dialects will fade. So will many languages. Maybe we'll be left with just American English and Chinese (the "best" type, whatever that may be) in a few years. If we all work hard enough we can accelerate the process by not bothering ourselves with all those other languages and dialects.

Is there a human dimension to all this linguistic and scientific talk? Perhaps only if you're as sentimental as I am....

Here's a different story: I knew someone once who spoke an African-American dialect of English. He never finished high  school, led a terribly hard life, and for some of my friends he was not a person worth bothering with. He was easy for some people to laugh at or just ignore. Now that's he's gone from this earth I'm certainly glad I made the effort to understand all the generous things he had to say about life and other people. Maybe when all those dialects/languages  are gone we'll miss them too.


----------



## DaleC

In posts #16, 18, and 20, I.C. is talking about the fate of nonstandard dialects and the utility of nationwide national standards. One might get the idea so was I. But no; I never was talking about that (worthy topic though it is). I even pointed out this discrepancy in post #19: 



			
				DaleC said:
			
		

> We really have two different issues here [. . . .] Linguists [. . . .] do recognize the political validity of establishing standard languages.
> 
> [. . . .] In discussions of dialect and language classification, it's necessary to bear in mind how "language" is used at more than one taxon, at least by nonspecialists. Your successive remarks negate the notion, which I uphold, of objective classification of *speech communities* according to the criterion of mutual intelligibility; they actually disregard the speech communities and concern themselves with standards for nationwide use.


 
I.C.'s response: 





			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Nope.
> I’m commenting on the importance of Hochdeutsch for _life_.
> Hence for most foreign language students, it would appear.
> It’s nice if dialects are kept alive, but chances are most of them will die out and mostly just accents and a bit of vocabulary will remain.


 
So: I.C. denies saying certain things and in the next breath says them again. (Objectively, *at least part *of my allegation is true. I believe it's all true.) Clearly, I.C. is just refusing to acknowledge whatever I say because it's me saying it. Yet I.C. earlier shared a vivid anecdote (about the exchange student in Swabia) that eminently proves one of my points.


----------



## I.C.

DaleC said:
			
		

> Clearly, I.C. is just refusing to acknowledge whatever I say because it's me saying it.


I can hardly believe you're being serious...


			
				DaleC said:
			
		

> So: I.C. denies saying certain things and in the next breath says them again. (Objectively, *at least part *of my allegation is true. I believe it's all true.)


So allegations have been made. Oh dear. 
Well, I got the impression this little exchange is mostly a waste of time, but as you appear to be set on it, I guess we can continue a little more. To do so effectively, I’ll have to ask a few questions:

What is your first-hand knowledge of current every-day life in Germany and the practical usage of spoken language in Germany today?

Have you lived in Germany or other German-speaking countries? If so, how long ago and for how long? 

Do you know from own experience how people speak on the street, at the workplace and at home?

Have you compared mutual intelligibility of some German dialects (or idioms or varieties, all terms fine by me) in practice, on the basis of a very good understanding of spoken German?


----------



## DaleC

I.C. said:
			
		

> Think you’re wrong to consider them as separate languages, but if you insist on it, OK. I’m not interested to argue about it. I’ll relate two little anecdotes as my probably last contribution


 
Harsh, but effective: you had no wish to join in my discussion of dialect classifications. 



			
				I.C. said:
			
		

> Well, I got the impression this little exchange is mostly a waste of time, -- as you already intimated, as quoted above, from your previous post --
> but as you appear to be set on it, I guess we can continue a little more.


There was still unfinished business for me. You were disallowing my factual claims (the ones you "didn't want to argue about" in the first place) with reference to your own desired discussion, which wasn't my discussion (you didn't refer to my reasoning). Furthermore, I understood what it was you desired to emphasize. You would not acknowledge either point. 

I think I have removed the last bits of possibility of being misunderstood. Now everybody can move on to their next discussions.


----------



## xav

I'm much interested about intercomprehension between the German dialects, since for example I'm not sure there's intercomprehension between northern and southern Alsatians. I've read the main difference lines between middle- and south German pass through Alsace - but of course not the big one between north- and middle German, the consonantic shift from p to f.

About "ich" : as I came to Alsace, having learned before to pronounce a very soft ich-laut (it's one of the beauties of German), I was much surprised to hear my new colleagues, who had a much wider vocabulary than I, say either "i*sch*" or "i*kh*" ; these ones produced a sound a bit softer and "wetter" than the ach-laut, usually rather velar than guttural, but basically very near to it.


----------



## DaleC

I have started a new thread in reply to this. 





			
				xav said:
			
		

> I'm much interested about intercomprehension between the German dialects, since for example I'm not sure there's intercomprehension between northern and southern Alsatians.


----------

