# Norwegian - u,ur



## mezzoforte

Are "*sul*" and "*surl*" homophones?  I mean in the Oslo dialect.

I'm really asking two questions: If "*u*" and "*ur*" always sound the same (assuming a retroflex "*r*"), and if consonants are always made "retroflex" after "*u*" as they would be if "*u*" were replaced by "*r*".


----------



## missTK

Deleted since I agree with Pteppic, my explanation was confusing and quite possibly wrong.
I still stand by my statement that they may be perceived as homophones by a non-linguist, at least in some dialects.


----------



## Pteppic

I'm a little confused by missTK's answer (there seems to be a mix-up of retroflex r (or "thick l") and retroflex l), so I'll take a shot at another explanation. 

Sul and surl would technically not be homophones - the first would end in a alveolar l and the second in a retroflex l - but, I think, to most non-linguists the difference would be near inaudible. However, the occurrence of the retroflexive l is only due to the combination of the letters r and l, and has nothing to do with the u.

There is no rule that consonants are made retroflex when preceded by a u, otherwise "ut" would be proncounced as "skurt" without the "sk". It's the r in combination with another consonant that creates the retroflex. Therefore, "u" and "ur" are always pronounced differently (the former as u and the latter as u + a non-retroflex, alveolar flap). And the retroflex r is very noticeable, especially compared with the regular r, so even if the r in "ur" were retroflex, "u" and "ur" could hardly be said to sound the same.

The letter combination "rl" can, as far as I know, never be pronounced as a retroflex r (or "thick l" as we call it). For instance, if you were to pronounce "perle" (pearl) with a retroflex r, you'd get a different word - "pæle" (to toil or drive something into the ground - note the lack of r's in the spelling, btw). The only instance I can think of where "rl" is not pronounced as a retroflex l, is "Irland" (Ireland, though I'm sure you figured that out on your own), where the two letters are pronounced separately.

Incidentally, I don't know if you've noticed, but all the Wikipedia articles have sound samples, so you can hear what they sound like. If you don't have the software to play .ogg files, though, the VLC media player (to which I am not affiliated ) is easy to google, install and use.


----------



## missTK

Pteppic said:


> I'm a little confused by missTK's answer (there seems to be a mix-up of retroflex r (or "thick l") and retroflex l), so I'll take a shot at another explanation.
> 
> Sul and surl would technically not be homophones - the first would end in a alveolar l and the second in a retroflex l



I agree with most of what you're saying, and you convinced me that I was missing something, but I'm a little confused by this.

I'm pretty sure in my dialect, sul doesn't end in an alveolar l. It's retroflex, but probably a retroflex flap rather than a retroflex l. I didn't distinguish between those two, but as you correctly point out they aren't completely the same. They are very similar, though - "perler" and "pæler" are almost (but maybe not quite) homophones for me.

Also, isn't retroflex r a different sound from the thick l? I thought that was like the American English "r".


----------



## Pteppic

Ok, so I'm being confusing as well  The problem is that what we call a thick l is more of an r sound than an l sound, so when "retroflex r" is used in the context of Norwegian phonology (which doesn't have the American r) I normally assume the thick l is meant. 

Anyway, I was referring to Standard East Norwegian, where (I believe) "sul" would have the same l as "eller" and surl the same as "perle".


----------



## mezzoforte

I realize my example might not have been a minimal one, because doesn't "sul" have a long "u" and short "l", while "surl" a short "u" and long "l"?  I should have used words ending with "-ull" and "-url".

I should download that .ogg player, because I could never figure out how to play the files.


----------



## Pteppic

Well, I read sul as [sʉːl] and surl as [sʉːɭ]. So both have long u's and short l's as far as I'm concerned. It would also be fairly common to read sul as [sʉːɽ] (i.e. with the "thick l"), but that would be outside Standard Eastern Norwegian, I think.

I have to admit I'm a little curious about where you found that "U makes consonants retroflex" rule you mentioned...


----------



## mezzoforte

I didn't.  I was just thinking theoretically, because "*u*" is a high central vowel!  And perhaps in English we never have a mid-to-high central vowel without "r" after, like in "_*were,curve*_".... I could be wrong about that even; it was just an intuition that I thought might apply to Norwegian.  I also have similar intuitions about pre-glottalization and flapped d's, but that is for another post.


----------



## mezzoforte

Pteppic said:


> Well, I read sul as [sʉːl] and surl as [sʉːɭ]. So both have long u's and short l's as far as I'm concerned. It would also be fairly common to read sul as [sʉːɽ] (i.e. with the "thick l"), but that would be outside Standard Eastern Norwegian, I think.
> 
> I have to admit I'm a little curious about where you found that "U makes consonants retroflex" rule you mentioned...



That is good to know that both *u*'s are long.

Is it the vowel usually long when you have "*vowel+rl*"?  I feel that it would usually be short when you have "*vowel+rs*", "*vowel+rt*", "*vowel+rd*", or "*vowel+rn*".  Is that true?


----------



## missTK

mezzoforte said:


> That is good to know that both *u*'s are long.
> 
> Is it the vowel usually long when you have "*vowel+rl*"?  I feel that it would usually be short when you have "*vowel+rs*", "*vowel+rt*", "*vowel+rd*", or "*vowel+rn*".  Is that true?



I don't think there's enough correlation to make a rule in either direction, actually. Both are common.


----------

