# Norwegian - "v"



## mezzoforte

Okay, I'd just like to know more about how the "*v*" is pronounced in Norwegian.  Is it always "softer" than the English "_*v*_"?  Is it sometimes the same as in English?

Can someone describe the "*v*" sound in terms of articulation, or compare it with English articulation?

I think, _maybe_,in English we have a hard and soft "*v*", like for "*very*" and "*ever*", respectively.  (Though I think the latter is optionally a "voiced labiodental flap"!!)

(In French, one has to get used to not aspirating hard consonants at the beginning of words; maybe in Norwegian, one has to go through a similar thing and soften "*v*" at the beginning of words... or flap them or whatever.)

P.S. I don't know why I'm learning Norwegian, but I can't stop....


----------



## Pteppic

Well, from what I recall of my phonetics classes the Norwegian v is an aproximant, which means that there should be a tiny space between the teeth and the lips, so there's no "friction" when the air passes through. 

And there are worse addictions, I guess


----------



## mezzoforte

I don't understand you.

Also, in English you bite your lip ("labiodental fricative", I think it's called).  Does this happen in Norwegian?


----------



## kirsitn

Yes, you have to let your teeth touch your lip at some point, otherwise you end up saying f instead. The amount of friction between teeth and lips is however not the same for all words. v+o is pronounced with almost no friction, whereas v+a has a clear "front teeth on the lower lip" phase.


----------



## mezzoforte

hmm... this seems more and more like English, lol

Anyway, can you give some word(s) that an English-speaker would mispronounce because of the "v"?

(P.S. I was waiting for you to respond, lol)


----------



## Pteppic

kirsitn said:


> Yes, you have to let your teeth touch your lip at some point, otherwise you end up saying f instead. The amount of friction between teeth and lips is however not the same for all words. v+o is pronounced with almost no friction, whereas v+a has a clear "front teeth on the lower lip" phase.



Surely, changing from v (whether approximant or fricative) to f involves the vocal chords, not the teeth and lips? And do you have examples of words where that difference occurs? I can't sense any difference between, say, vann and vondt. 

Anyway, this is what Wikipedia says: "...it is produced by bringing one articulator [your upper teeth] close to another [your bottom lip] but without the vocal tract being narrowed to such an extent that a turbulent airstream is produced." This "turbulent airstream" is what separates the Norwegian and the English v - "a soft v" is probably as good a description as any other for the Norwegian sound.

On this page there are two recordings of a man reading the alphabet and the first article of the Universal Delcaration of Human Rights. You'll hear the v in the V and W on the alphabet recording, and in words like "menneskeverd", "samvittighet", and "hverandre" on the Human Rights recording. There's also this page, where you can hear the word "vits".

Basically, the difference is hardly dramatic, you'll never be misunderstood with an English v, and a lot of people probably won't even notice (the developers of the norskklassen page (the 2. link) have marked the English example word valour as has having a v "precisely equivalent" to the Norwegian sound).


----------



## kirsitn

Pteppic said:


> Surely, changing from v (whether approximant or fricative) to f involves the vocal chords, not the teeth and lips? And do you have examples of words where that difference occurs? I can't sense any difference between, say, vann and vondt.



Yes, I guess the difference between f and v mainly involves the vocal chords, but it's possible to pronounce f without having contact between the upper teeth and the lower lip, not so for the v.

As for the difference between v+o and v+a it feels like my front teeth have closer contact with the lower lip when I say v+a, but that might just be me...


----------



## mezzoforte

That post was funny... lol... but helpful!

Yeah, I've listened to the recordings on both those sites before.  The reading he does always fills me with terror... each sentence sounds like one long word.... is there something peculiar about how he reads it, or should the words be joined like that?  (I realize that learning to parse speech comes with time.)

*I did not notice the asterisks before though.. THANK YOU.  *I now know the Norwegian "*v*"...

I do think I understand about tightening the vocal tract..... I will no longer do this in Norwegian.  It is actually easier to say... like singing, when you are supposed to open your throat.

Before I was thinking that the Norwegian "*v*" was either like the German "*pf*", except _voiced_.... or like a "very _un_aspirated *b*".

That is to say, I was thinking of it like a "plosive"... do you feel a puff of air when you say the letter "*v*"?  On that note, what about the other hard consonants like "*b,p,d,t,g,k*"?   I think they would be aspirated, like English (but not French).

Thx


----------



## Mons_17

The Norwegian "v" has always confused me when it appears in words such as "gavn" and "navn". 

How are these words, and others like them, pronounced? The way I hear them, they _almost_ sounds like the English "gown" and "noun", respectively. I know this is probably wrong.


----------



## mezzoforte

KIRSITN IS CORRECT! Look at the Wiki pages for *labiodental approximant* and *voiced labiodental fricative*.  (But it thinks that all English _*v*'s _are the latter kind... but even in the example it gives of "_*valve*_", the second "_*v*_" is the former kind.)

Mons_17, I agree that is hard... it might be that English doesn't permit _*vn*_ together (like for _*sr*_).  I am going to _guess _that for "..*avn*" words, it is a* labiodental approximant*, which is why it sounds like "...own"... 

But fortunately, Norwegian doesn't have a "_*w*_" sound, which is a *labio-velar approximant*... so whenever we think it's a "*w*", we know it's really a "*v*"... LOL

(Of course, "*i*" and "*y*" will still always be a nightmare. )

_*P.S. It would be cool if someone could come up with a rule that determines which "v" is used in any word!!* (Bonus points if you do it for English too.)
_


----------



## Cerb

Norwegian only has one type of "v" as far as I can tell, the labiodental approximant. This sound can't be held as that makes it a fricative and forces it to become voiced. In other words an English "v". I think of it as Norwegian "v"s being unvoiced. 

Another thing. The post about being able to pronounce "f" without the teeth and lower lip touching had me confused. I don't see how this is possible at all. I've been trying for a good 10 minutes now


----------



## mezzoforte

It's easy... you pretend you are a 1-year old blowing out a birthday candle.


----------



## Pteppic

Well, I'm with Cerb - I can only detect one Norwegian v, which is a voiced, labiodental approximant. The Norwegian example from the fricative article does, in my opinion, not belong there - the fricative v does not appear in the article about Norwegian phonology, and this Norwegian wikipedia article on labiodentals uses an English example for the voiced labiodental fricative ("van" - which seems an odd choice if a word like "vann" is available in Norwegian).


----------



## mezzoforte

Well, I don't disagree with a Norwegian.  But I will disagree about "van" and "vann".  "van" _does _use the approximant.... and Wiki says that "vann" uses the fricative.  So at least Wiki is consistent!

I'm really just interested in knowing what I have to learn to fix my "natural English choice" of which "v" to use (though I guess you say there is only one).... i.e. the environment that determines which allophone of "v" to use.


----------



## Mons_17

I've all but given up trying to replicate the native pronunciation, so now I'm just trying to make myself understood.

So, I can pronounce something like "gavn" two ways: "gan", with the "v" totally removed, or "gavin", with a _slight_ vowel in between the v and the n to accommodate for the awkward double-consonant. 

Which one of these, if either, would be understood by a Norwegian-speaker?


----------



## kirsitn

Mons_17 said:


> So, I can pronounce something like "gavn" two ways: "gan", with the "v" totally removed, or "gavin", with a _slight_ vowel in between the v and the n to accommodate for the awkward double-consonant.
> 
> Which one of these, if either, would be understood by a Norwegian-speaker?



Try saying it with a slight "e" (Norwegian style e, not the English "ee") in between instead of an "i". Leaving out the v altogether often turns it into a completely different word. 

havn (port, harbour) -> han (he, him) 
gavne (be good for) -> ganne (curse in the Saami way) 
ravn (raven) -> ran (robbery)

If you speak French, you can think of the Norwegian "vn" as an equivalent to the beginning of "fenêtre", only with a v instead of an f.


----------



## mezzoforte

Are there Norwegian words ending with with "*fn*", or "*fen*" with a very short "*e*"?  It would be interesting if the answer is "_no_", so maybe I can say "_*naffen*_" instead of "*navn*", and I'd still be understood?

Would I be understood if I used the English "_*w*_", and said "_*nawwen*_" (pretend it's a Norwegian word, but said with an English "_*w*_").


----------



## Outsider

mezzoforte said:


> Well, I don't disagree with a Norwegian.  But I will disagree about "van" and "vann".  "van" _does _use the approximant....


In English? That's not what I see in these dictionary transcriptions!

"V" is always a fricative in normal English, the voiced counterpart of IPA [f].


----------



## mezzoforte

Okay.... the thing is that the IPA usually gives a *phonemic* transcription.  It means that "_*v*_" means the _*phoneme [v]*_.  The _*allophone*_ that is actually used in the word is determined by the environment.

I might drop this discussion for now.


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> Are there Norwegian words ending with with "*fn*", or "*fen*" with a very short "*e*"?  It would be interesting if the answer is "_no_", so maybe I can say "_*naffen*_" instead of "*navn*", and I'd still be understood?
> 
> Would I be understood if I used the English "_*w*_", and said "_*nawwen*_" (pretend it's a Norwegian word, but said with an English "_*w*_").



I don't think there are any Norwegian words ending with "fn", but if you're able to say "fn" it should be just as easy to say "vn"...

Pronouncing "v" like English "w" would sound very weird, but I suppose it might still be understandable.


----------



## mezzoforte

I hope this is related: in "*noen*", is there an English "*w*" hidden inside?? 

In that case, perhaps I should not pronounce "*vn*" as "_*wwen*_".

Also.... is the Norwegian "*avn*", the same as in the English: _*oven*_... well, maybe the "_*v*_" is different, but otherwise is it the same?  (I have heard two different pronunciations of this word... but I meant the one that sounds like "*avn*". )

_P.S. Can someone confirm that some English speakers sometimes say *nuffin'* when they mean __*nothing*_?


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> I hope this is related: in "*noen*", is there an English "*w*" hidden inside??



Kind of, but not quite... The English "w" would be written something like "åu" in Norwegian, so if you say "noen" with a w it becomes "nåuen" where the "åu" is a diphtong which is not used in Norwegian, whereas the standard pronunciation of "noen" is "no-en" with the o and e as separate vowels.


----------



## basslop

mezzoforte said:


> Are there Norwegian words ending with with "*fn*", or "*fen*" with a very short "*e*"?  It would be interesting if the answer is "_no_", so maybe I can say "_*naffen*_" instead of "*navn*", and I'd still be understood?
> 
> Would I be understood if I used the English "_*w*_", and said "_*nawwen*_" (pretend it's a Norwegian word, but said with an English "_*w*_").



I think it would hardly be understood by Norwegians when exchanging  *vn* by *fn/ffen*. 

Interesting though that historically *fn* existed in the old norse language but have changed to *vn[/B. I am not an expert on language history but in school I had some lessons in old norse and think that is what we learned. However old Norse is so far away from today's language that it's not directly understanable for us. Perhaps anyone with more knowledge would confirm?*


----------



## mezzoforte

kirsitn said:


> Kind of, but not quite... The English "w" would be written something like "åu" in Norwegian, so if you say "noen" with a w it becomes "nåuen" where the "åu" is a diphtong which is not used in Norwegian, whereas the standard pronunciation of "noen" is "no-en" with the o and e as separate vowels.



So since "*åu*" is not in the language, could saying *nåuen *be understood as *noen*?


----------



## basslop

mezzoforte said:


> So since "*åu*" is not in the language, could saying *nåuen *be understood as *noen*?



Understood by *noen*, but not at once. I have experienced myself that it is hard for native Norwegians to understand when English native speakers pronounce Norwegian like that. I think it is because we do not immediately know how to interpret sounds that are not a part of our language. I suppose you experience the same when foreigners use some of their native pronunciation instead of your language's pronunciation.


----------



## kirsitn

mezzoforte said:


> So since "*åu*" is not in the language, could saying *nåuen *be understood as *noen*?



Possibly, but both the Irish girl in my department and the English girl at another department can pronounce noen pretty well, so I don't think that should pose any problem to native English speakers. They both pronounce the "o" a bit like "u" (the Norwegian one, not the English "ju"), but still perfectly understandable.


----------



## mezzoforte

I think I say *noen* well, so it's not a problem for me.

So finally, is it okay  to say *navn* like _*navven*?_  Is there a vowel sound between *v* and *n*?  (I don't think these were answered a;ready.)


----------



## basslop

mezzoforte said:


> I think I say *noen* well, so it's not a problem for me.
> 
> So finally, is it okay  to say *navn* like _*navven*?_  Is there a vowel sound between *v* and *n*?  (I don't think these were answered a;ready.)



No, there is not a vowel sound between v and n. If you make the *e* not too accented this would easier be understood than the nåuen case.


----------

