# Norwegian: Pronunciation differences: skal vs. shkal



## TrampGuy

Norwegian sure gives its learners a "hard time" when it come to both of its forms, and its many different dialects. I see people complain about these issues all the time, though personally, I've always welcomed them as a challenge. But how come no one ever seems to be bothered with the very noticeable pronunciation differences within a specific dialect? - I've noticed that even neighboring Norwegians, speaking the same dialect, could speak quite differently from each other.
The two main "ways of speaking" I encountered are the "fast and flowy" : swallowing words, using very weak 'r' (and 'g') and switching certain words pronunciation to create a better flow of speech. And the second being more "textbook-ish" where the words are separated nicely, the 'r' is much stronger (sometimes guttural even) and the speaking is 'closer' to the written form.

Some examples : 'skal' - could be sounded as 'skal' or 'shkal', same goes for 'så', 'meg' - where the g is usually silent but sometimes is actually heard. Kind of hard to to explain for words with 'r', but there is a difference indeed.

Anyway, I kind of grown accustomed to the different ways of speaking, although I really can't compare it with any other language's simple speech distinctions between different people.
It must be something else, and I was interested to know how it came to be? if there is a reason behind it. 

I got a bit messed up trying to explain it, I hope you got what I was trying to say.

Thanks.


----------



## Cerb

Just to (potentially) make this easier to answer; did you have any particular dialect in mind or just Norwegian in general?


----------



## TrampGuy

Well I'm currently still studying Bokmål, and mostly exposed to materials designed for foreigners - so it's probably one of the east Norwegian dialects that caught my attention on the matter.
On the other hand, I also watch Norwegian tv online from all over Norway. I can't tell which dialect I'm hearing as long as I understand what is said. That is, only when I don't get something, I know that it must be in a very different dialect.


----------



## Dan2

TrampGuy said:


> But how come no one ever seems to be bothered with the very noticeable pronunciation differences *within a specific dialect*?


No one?   This is a very common complaint of language learners - whether of Norwegian or any other language.


TrampGuy said:


> I've noticed that even neighboring Norwegians, speaking the  same dialect, could speak quite differently from each other.
> The two main "ways of speaking" I encountered are the "fast and flowy" :  swallowing words, using very weak 'r' (and 'g') and switching certain  words pronunciation to create a better flow of speech. And the second  being more "textbook-ish" where the words are separated nicely, the 'r'  is much stronger (sometimes guttural even) and the speaking is 'closer'  to the written form.


You could be talking about English or any other language. Examples, first your "close to the written form" (then your "fast and flowy" in parentheses):

seei*ng* (seei*n'*)
I see *you* (I see *ya*)
I see *them* (I see *'em*)
name *of* the book (name *a *the book)
*going to* do (*gonna* do)
Where *did you* go? (Where*'d* *you* go?)  ((Where'*ja* go?))
French: Je *ne* vois pas (Je vois pas)
Spanish: Do*s *mujere*s* (Do*h *mujere*h*)
German: Ich hab*e* *einen *Freund(Ich hab*' 'nen* Freund)

I could continue at will.  These differences are seen not only between speakers of the same dialect, but even _for the same speaker_, depending on circumstances.  You simply don't notice these things in your own language because you've grown so accustomed to them!


----------



## TrampGuy

*@Dan2 *- I actually thought of what you said as an option, but I'm not completely sure that is the case for Norwegian. Take notice that most of the examples you presented are comparing the correct way of speaking vs. a more informal-slang way of speaking. Whereas in Norwegian, none of the two ways I've mentioned are considered informal or incorrect.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

TrampGuy - the number one rule here is that there is no standard spoken version of Norwegian. There is no authoritative accent, no elevated dialect, and sociolects are very rare. Norwegians tend to speak their own dialect whether they are on the street, on TV, at the pub or addressing the parliament. No one speaks bokmål (with the exception of certain places in Finnmark), but if you are a Norwegian learner, you might have heard sound files where they "speak" a sort of artificial Norwegian for the sake of clarity and teaching.

Kudos to Dan2 for being spot on when it comes to the idiosyncrasies of spoken language. Norwegian is not particularly prone to quirky pronunciation, and I dare say if any language is, English is a more likely candidate.

However, you point out a couple things that I know from my own students can be tricky. No, Norwegians do not pronounce the word itself "shkal". What happens when you hear "shkal", is that "skal" it is preceded by a word ending in -r. In the Eastern, Central, Mid-Norwegian and Northern Norwegian dialect groups, a sound mutation takes place when an -r precedes certain consonants - either within the word, or in between words. This is not sloppy pronunciation - these are simply sound laws.

You know the language is called "norsk", but that is pronounced "noshk" for that very reason. An r + s combination creates an sh-sound. This also happens between words, such as "sikker" (=sure), which is pronounced the way it looks, and "jeg er sikker" (= I am sure), which is pronounced "jeg eh shikker". So you see- both the r and the s 'disappears', or sooner mutates into sh.

Norwegian also has three retroflexes. They are r+n, r+t and r+d (not in all cases). The r+n in "barn" is pronounced as a single sound, and the same happens with r+n in "jeg har noen" (= I have some). Likewise, the r+t in "hjerte" creates a single retroflex sound where the r and the t morphs. Compare this with "jeg går til byen", and you will hear the r and the t merging.


----------



## osemnais

r+l er også retroflex, ikke sant?


----------



## TrampGuy

*@NorwegianNYC *- ha! now it all makes sense, and what I thought to be a pronunciation difference is actually an elusive sound law. I just rechecked my beginner books to make sure I didn't simply miss it, and although most of the other stuff you've mentioned are covered, the "r + certain consonant" law is no where to be found. Not only that, but I can't find any law that speaks of two consecutive words, and how one might affect the other. The books I'm referring to are : "Teach Yourself Norwegian" and "På vei", which are the two books I've started with, in that order. 

Anyway, Thanks a lot for your help!


----------



## frugihoyi

I also think Dan2 is talking about a different thing because I learned Danish first. Now I'm living in Oslo and I'm dumbfounded at all of the different dialects I hear. The difference is nowhere near as big in the different ways people speak Danish in Copenhagen; I never really thought any of it like I do hearing the different Norwegian dialects.


----------



## frugihoyi

NorwegianNYC said:


> However, you point out a couple things that I know from my own students can be tricky. No, Norwegians do not pronounce the word itself "shkal". What happens when you hear "shkal", is that "skal" it is preceded by a word ending in -r. In the Eastern, Central, Mid-Norwegian and Northern Norwegian dialect groups, a sound mutation takes place when an -r precedes certain consonants - either within the word, or in between words. This is not sloppy pronunciation - these are simply sound laws.


My girlfriend is Norwegian and she says that rs only turns into sh when it happens in one word. As in "Jeg er sikker" does not become "Jeg er kigger (see the trouble there)"? But she probably just never noticed this in other dialects.


----------



## TrampGuy

frugihoyi said:


> My girlfriend is Norwegian and she says that rs only turns into sh when it happens in one word. As in "Jeg er sikker" does not become "Jeg er kigger (see the trouble there)"? But she probably just never noticed this in other dialects.



I also heard it as "Jeg er sikker" (with an 's' sound), and as I mentioned - I've never seen any sound modification rules regarding a combination of two (or more?) words. 
I have heard it though (ex. var så god). 

*NorwegianNYC* is a native speaker and seems to be teaching the language, so I'll have to take his word for it. Hopefully, he could clarify further on this matter.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi TrampGuy - "Teach yourself Norwegian" is rubbish, but "På Vei" is a decent book. In "På vei" (Chapter 3, I believe)(I have obviously used the book long enough to know it by heart...) the woman's last line is the first reading piece is: "Å! Du er så dum!" Listen to the recording. She clearly says: "Å! Du eh shå dum"

Frugihoyi - Yes, I can see your girlfriend's point - 'sikker' is not the best example. When your girlfriend says that the r+s combination only works within the same word, have her say: "Du er så dum". Chances are she will use an -sh- sound there. Also, have her pronounce "Tor skal kjøpe kaffi for noen når han går til byen og etter det skal han hjem" and ask her if there is not an -sh- and THREE retroflexes in that sentence - ALL in separate words ("To*r s*kal kjøpe kaffi fo*r n*oen når han gå*r t*il byen og ette*r d*et skal han hjem").


----------



## TrampGuy

Actually, I couldn't have used "På Vei" if I haven't gone through "Teach yourself Norwegian" first. For a self learner it's a good place to start.

And again, as I already mentioned several times, I've heard the sound differences in countless occasions and variations, but haven't seen any formal rules describing it.

Thanks again.


----------



## Cerb

Any formal grammar or linguistical analyzis is descriptive at the end of the day and at least to me this a case were learning the "rules" becomes more of a hindrance than actually helpful. While people have different approaches to learning language, I feel things like these are better learnt listening to and mimicking everyday speech. There would just be too much ground to cover if every peculiarity at this level was to be learnt from a book.

That being said, if it's stopping you from understanding what's being said it's obviously a problem that needs looking into and it is the type of question these forums are great for. It's of course also a question of what purpose you're studying a language for. If you're getting a degree at a university these things will be relevant in a completely different way than if you just want to be able to understand and use the language in question.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Well said, Cerb!
Let me add that the r+s=sh and the retroflexes generated by r (the l-retroflex is different) is not a phenomenon found all over Norway. A few kilometers south of Molde it disappears, and is absent for most of the West and South coast, including the inland, and does not reappear until you get to Skien/Porsgrunn.


----------



## TrampGuy

Cerb said:


> Any formal grammar or linguistical analyzis is descriptive at the end of the day and at least to me this a case were learning the "rules" becomes more of a hindrance than actually helpful. While people have different approaches to learning language, I feel things like these are better learnt listening to and mimicking everyday speech. There would just be too much ground to cover if every peculiarity at this level was to be learnt from a book.
> 
> That being said, if it's stopping you from understanding what's being said it's obviously a problem that needs looking into and it is the type of question these forums are great for. It's of course also a question of what purpose you're studying a language for. If you're getting a degree at a university these things will be relevant in a completely different way than if you just want to be able to understand and use the language in question.



I've been studying Norwegian for a while now, and been doing it for myself. I can say that I've developed a pretty good understanding of the language, both for reading and hearing. These "sound rules" described by NorwegianNYC are obviously something I noticed, but couldn't pick the pattern behind them. That is why I asked this question to begin with and that is why I confused it with something else (pronunciation). I think I could have skipped many grammar rules and still understand how they work, and yet, this little "sound rule" is something I couldn't completely pick up, even though I'm quite advanced in my studies. At one point I just thought that some words pronunciation is flexible, to make for a more natural flow in the stream of speech (which is basically right). But, not knowing there's an actual "rule" for it, made it a lot hard to decide where, or where not, to use it. 
My point is, this is something that should be included as any other basic information about Norwegian. As in this specific case, the rules could help a lot, even though language learning is not about strict rules.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi,

The sound law/phenomenon in question is called 'sandhi' (a Sanskrit word), and Am.Herit.Dict. gives this definition: "Modification of the sound of a word or syllable when juxtaposed with another, especially in fluent speech, such as the modification of the pronunciation of don't in don't you from its pronunciation in isolation or in a phrase like don't we.

[Sanskrit saṃdhiḥ, union, sandhi : sam, together + dadhāti, dhī-, he places.]"

I like the example - the don't part in don't you is different from the don't in don't we. That is exactly what happens in Norwegian in r + s/n/t/d combinations.


----------



## Cerb

TrampGuy said:


> I've been studying Norwegian for a while now, and been doing it for myself. I can say that I've developed a pretty good understanding of the language, both for reading and hearing. These "sound rules" described by NorwegianNYC are obviously something I noticed, but couldn't pick the pattern behind them. That is why I asked this question to begin with and that is why I confused it with something else (pronunciation). I think I could have skipped many grammar rules and still understand how they work, and yet, this little "sound rule" is something I couldn't completely pick up, even though I'm quite advanced in my studies. At one point I just thought that some words pronunciation is flexible, to make for a more natural flow in the stream of speech (which is basically right). But, not knowing there's an actual "rule" for it, made it a lot hard to decide where, or where not, to use it.
> My point is, this is something that should be included as any other basic information about Norwegian. As in this specific case, the rules could help a lot, even though language learning is not about strict rules.



I hope I didn't come across as trying to criticise your question. I think it's an excellent question for these forums. 

As you pointed out, it's simply a consequence of how hard it is to pronounce these sounds in succession which leads to the "r"+"s" turning into "sh". I guess the tricky part here is to "think like a Norwegian" as native speakers will have a natural affinity for pronouncing certain sounds and again have difficulties with others which is the cause of phenomena like this. 

It's of course also described formally in linguistics as NorwegianNYC showed, and I don't mean to discredit how useful it can be to describe these things as rules. I just personally prefer understanding why and how it occurs rather than learning the formalised rule by heart.

Tricking a native speaker into reading out some common phrases with sandhi might help  You probably won't even get consistent results depending on how hard the speaker focuses on diction.


----------



## perevoditel

<...>

And now something I wouldn't agree with:



NorwegianNYC said:


> the woman's last line is the first reading piece is: "Å! Du er så dum!" Listen to the recording. She clearly says: "Å! Du eh shå dum"



It highly depends on dialect. While you're in souther Norway, you will hear people saying først just like English "first" (_sandhi_) doesn't appear. I think connecting r and s to "sj-lyd" is common in Midt-Norge (not sure about North, actually never been there, but you can hear splitting between those consonants in movies). And in my region (east part of Sør-Trøndelag) it's usual to substitute most of "s" with "sj" - slik, se (if not changed to _sjå_), svart, svær all got extra "j" after "s".



			
				Dan2 said:
			
		

> TrampGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how come no one ever seems to be bothered with the very noticeable pronunciation differences within a specific dialect?
> 
> 
> 
> No one?  This is a very common complaint of language learners - whether of Norwegian or any other language.
Click to expand...



Learners, yes. But people, who live here from birth, just accept it. I can see differences between Trøndersk from land and from 3 islands in the same _kommune_ - frequency of using "sj-lyd", "skal" or "ska" and different "jeg"-pronoun: æ or æg...


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi perevoditel,

Yes, dialect is definitely a part of it, but the r+s=sh sandhi is pretty widespread in Norway. Eastern, Central and Northern dialects have it. From beyond Molde/Ålesund and down and around the West and South coast, you will not find it. Only when you get to Telemark/Vestfold will it reappear. The point is that the vast majority of Norwegians speak forms of Norwegian where this phenomenon takes place.

When it comes to certain Mid-Norwegian dialects, you are right when you say that s- turns to sh- also in words not preceded by and -r. This however is more a localized dialect treat, and French has the same thing in the Gascony-dialect, and in US English it associated with Alabama and Mississippi. It is not the same as the sandhi discussed above.


----------



## TrampGuy

*@Cerb *- I completely agree with you about the learning approach, I did not mean to sound defensive on my last reply . what I did say is, if you're going to teach grammar rules, you might as well want to add some of "sandhi" rules, especially if they are highly in use.

*@NorwegianNYC* - Thanks, now I can stop describing it ambiguously as "sound rules"


----------

