# pronunciation of contracted indefinite articles



## merquiades

Hallo!   I encounter more and more frequently contracted indefinite articles in the spoken language.  Yes, I know you all are going to say this is atrocious German or some kind of dialect, but it seems they're a reality I have to deal with.  How are these contractions supposed to be pronounced?  Honestly people gloss over them so quickly I can hardly hear anything.  Does the apostrophe mean there is no vowel at all before the n?

Ich habe 'n Buch.
Ich sehe 'nen Hund.
Ich habe 'ne Wohnung.
Spechen mit 'nem Arzt oder 'ner Ärtzin.

Vielen Dank!


----------



## Frank78

They are pronounced exactly like the endings of the respective articles. What causes trouble? Consonant clusters?

It's nothing dialectical by the way, just colloquial language.


----------



## Dymn

merquiades said:


> Ich habe 'ne Wohnung.


Doesn't this look weird? Probably the first two examples too. I would expect the final _-e_ of the 1st person singular to be dropped in a colloquial register where we contract the indefinite article. _Ich hab ne Wohnung._


----------



## Demiurg

merquiades said:


> Does the apostrophe mean there is no vowel at all before the n?


Exactly. It's called "Auslassungszeichen"  (lit.  _omission sign_) in German.



merquiades said:


> Yes, I know you all are going to say this is atrocious German or some kind of dialect ...


As Frank said, it's not dialectal.   In my local dialect they would say "Ich hab *e* Hund".


----------



## Hutschi

merquiades said:


> Ich habe 'n Buch.
> Ich sehe 'nen Hund.
> Ich habe 'ne Wohnung.
> Spechen mit 'nem Arzt oder 'ner Ärtzin.
> 
> Vielen Dank!



These are forms in coll. language.

I would not really say "Ich habe'n Buch". This sounds strange to me. I could not separate it from "Ich haben Buch."

I would say: Ich hab'n Buch. - I would say here often "Ich hab'm Buch" - but I did not see this in written language.

If I understand it well, it is a kind of assimilation. This is not written here.
Assimilation (phonology) - Wikipedia


> *Assimilation* is a sound change in which some phonemes (typically consonants or vowels) change to become more similar to other nearby sounds. A common type of phonological process across languages, assimilation can occur either within a word or between words.
> 
> It occurs in normal speech but becomes more common in more rapid speech.



Another (assimilation) form to speak it in coll. language is:
"Ich hab' en Buch" - I did not see this in written form either. ("En" is a spoken coll. form of "ein". It is very similar to English "an" and has the same meaning.)


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> I would say: Ich hab'n Buch. - I would say here often "Ich hab'm Buch" - but I did not see this in written language.


I agree. If we use contractions in colloquial standard language, then the -e is omitted as well:

_ Ich hab'n Buch._

I further agree that most speakers realise the consonant with -m. This assimilation of "bn > bm" is very common, both in colloquial standard as well as in many dialects.

_Le:ben > Le:bn > Le:bm _(dialects: _> Le:m_)



merquiades said:


> Yes, I know you all are going to say this is atrocious German or some kind of dialect, but it seems they're a reality I have to deal with.


I strictly recommend not to try to do it yourself. It should develop naturally when speaking fast and fluently and then results in a natural contraction. Artificial, conscious contractions usually sounds exactly like that: artificial.



merquiades said:


> How are these contractions supposed to be pronounced? Honestly people gloss over them so quickly I can hardly hear anything.


Exactly. As long as your eras are not trained you should not intentionally produce it either.

Second-language German sounds much better and easier to understand when spoken properly. You need to reach a pretty high level of idiomatic pronunciation before you should try to do so. Note that English-sounding R, L, N, M, most diphthongs and the like make it difficult enough to understand learners, so do try to pronounce properly.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

merquiades said:


> Ich habe 'n Buch.


 Ich hab’ ’n Buch.
… wäre auch meiner Meinung nach die übliche Form.

Aussprache:
(Meine Aussprache, Region: Westfalen)
Schnell:
Ich hapn Buch.
›p‹ statt ›b‹ wegen Auslautverhärtung.

Langsamer
Ich hap hn Buch.
Auch bei der schnellen Aussprache gäbe es eine Aspirierung. Aber bei langsamerer Aussprache ist die Aspirierung stärker.

Vgl. Pronunciation of -nden as [nʔn̩]

Edit:
Das ›a‹ wird dabei kurz ausgesprochen:
Ich happn Buch.
Ich happ hn Buch.


----------



## Hutschi

Es 


Schlabberlatz said:


> Ich hapn Buch.
> ›p‹ statt ›b‹ wegen Auslautverhärtung.


Ich habe versucht, das zu sprechen, es gelingt mir nicht. Ich schaffe es nur ohne Behauchung von "b".
Das "b" ist mit "m" verbunden.
Eigentlich ist es ein merkwürdiger nasaler "innerer" Knacklaut zusammen mit "m", ich kann es aber nicht richtig beschreiben.
Nach dem "b" öffne ich den Mund nicht mehr, kann also gar nicht aspirieren. Mit "n" (hab' 'n") würde es funktionieren. Da aspiriere ich das "p".


----------



## merquiades

Frank78 said:


> They are pronounced exactly like the endings of the respective articles. What causes trouble? Consonant clusters?
> 
> It's nothing dialectical by the way, just colloquial language.


I identify the indefinite article by the _ein_- part of the word.  Dropping the most important part is like leaving out a key element for me.  But I know now that for Germans it is not important.  I hardly hear anything, just an _n_, as if every vowel is dropped.  This means I cannot even get the gender and case sometimes.  _'nen_ is like _'nn_.  So I wondered how it was possible to even articulate such a thing with no support from any vowel, _en_ or _ne_.  Given your response _habe_ _'n Buch_ is probably _habneBuch_.


Dymn said:


> Doesn't this look weird? Probably the first two examples too. I would expect the final _-e_ of the 1st person singular to be dropped in a colloquial register where we contract the indefinite article. _Ich hab ne Wohnung._


Yes, it does, but that's how they write it _'ne _with apostrophe.


Demiurg said:


> Exactly. It's called "Auslassungszeichen"  (lit.  _omission sign_) in German.
> As Frank said, it's not dialectal.   In my local dialect they would say "Ich hab *e* Hund".


Yes, makes sense.  It seems quite a bit easier to pronounce it in your dialect!



Hutschi said:


> These are forms in coll. language.
> 
> I would not really say "Ich habe'n Buch". This sounds strange to me. I could not separate it from "Ich haben Buch."
> 
> I would say: Ich hab'n Buch. - I would say here often "Ich hab'm Buch" - but I did not see this in written language.
> 
> If I understand it well, it is a kind of assimilation. This is not written here.
> Assimilation (phonology) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Another (assimilation) form to speak it in coll. language is:
> "Ich hab' en Buch" - I did not see this in written form either. ("En" is a spoken coll. form of "ein". It is very similar to English "an" and has the same meaning.)


Interesting information.  Maybe these speakers are assimilating to -m at times. This might create the illusion it is spoken as fast as possible.
_'n Buch_ pronounced _an Buch_ would also make it easier but I don't think I have heard much of that.


Kajjo said:


> I strictly recommend not to try to do it yourself. It should develop naturally when speaking fast and fluently and then results in a natural contraction. Artificial, conscious contractions usually sounds exactly like that: artificial.
> 
> Exactly. As long as your eras are not trained you should not intentionally produce it either.
> 
> Second-language German sounds much better and easier to understand when spoken properly. You need to reach a pretty high level of idiomatic pronunciation before you should try to do so. Note that English-sounding R, L, N, M, most diphthongs and the like make it difficult enough to understand learners, so do try to pronounce properly.


I'm not trying to adopt this pronunciation, but I do need to understand it.  I'm an audio learner, so the way I learn languages is by listening.  So I have to feel how it is articulated so I can then understand people.  I don't have problems with German R, L or the diphthongs, but just maybe N and M.  It seems like they take on vowel qualities at times...   _-en, -n, -nen, -ne_ endings which are very common in verbs, articles, adjectives and nouns seem to be reduced as much as possible, almost to nothing in some speakers. This is very difficult for learners because we are taught that these endings are of great importance in German to mark verb forms, articles, cases, gender, number....   Actually we are taught nothing is reduced in German and every vowel and syllable needs to be clearly articulated.  This is clearly not the case, and the main reason why people cannot understand normal spoken German.
Someone asked me once _Möchten Sie einen Kaffee?_   and it sounded like_ Möchn S 'nn Kaffee?  _Sometimes I venture there is no difference between _ihn_ and _ihnen_, just some kind of nnnn.   _Gut'n Mor-'n_!
Hutshi's comment about n assmilating to the next consonant of the next word is interesting in deciphering the articles. _'nen Kaffee_ might be _ngKaffee_.



Schlabberlatz said:


> Ich hap hn Buch.
> Auch bei der schnellen Aussprache gäbe es eine Aspirierung. Aber bei langsamerer Aussprache ist die Aspirierung stärker.
> 
> Vgl. Pronunciation of -nden as [nʔn̩]


Ja, diese Aussprache habe ich schon gehört!  Ich hap Hn Buch g'kauft.


----------



## Hutschi

merquiades said:


> Yes, makes sense. It seems quite a bit easier to pronounce it in your dialect!


This is because Ich hab e Hund is very similar to I have a hound. (I know that hound and Hund are different in some respect, so are dog and Dogge. But concerning "a" it does not matter.)


> _'n Buch_ pronounced _an Buch_ would also make it easier but I don't think I have heard much of that.


Maybe this is more local. But _ein _becomes _en (spoken like English "an")_ is not seldom in my area.


----------



## Demiurg

merquiades said:


> I hardly hear anything, just an _n_, as if every vowel is dropped. This means I cannot even get the gender and case sometimes.


Gender ist still marked (at least theoretically):
_
Ich hab 'nen Mann.
Ich hab 'ne Frau.
Ich hab 'n Kind._


----------



## merquiades

Demiurg said:


> Gender ist still marked (at least theoretically):
> 
> _Ich hab 'nen Mann.
> Ich hab 'ne Frau.
> Ich hab 'n Kind._


Yes, no problem for written German. 
What would you contract in the plural?

Sie habn 'nen Mann.  _Sie hapn nm Mann_
Sie habn 'ne Frau.     _Sie hapn ne Frau_
Sie habn 'n Kind.       _Sie hapn n Kind_




Hutschi said:


> This is because Ich hab e Hund is very similar to I have a hound. (I know that hound and Hund are different in some respect, so are dog and Dogge. But concerning "a" it does not matter.)
> 
> Maybe this is more local. But _ein _becomes _en (spoken like English "an")_ is not seldom in my area.


From what you say it does seem like the Dresden norm behaves quite a bit like English, a and an are certainly easy to use.


----------



## Hutschi

Here I know additionally the "m" form:

Sie ham 'nen Mann.
Sie ham 'ne Frau
Sie ham än Kind. (än like English "an")

Haben wir = hammer -- Da hammer unsre Freude dran. (Sachsen und Thüringen -- und andere Gegenden?)

Hamm'se? = Haben Sie?
Stand Altpapieraktion 2020/21

Lied: „Hamm se nich noch Altpapier…“

---
Hier schließe ich mich Kajjo an: Verstehen - aber nicht aktiv lernen, zumindest nicht am Anfang.


----------



## merquiades

Hutschi said:


> Here I know additionally the "m" form:
> 
> Sie ham 'nen Mann.
> Sie ham 'ne Frau
> Sie ham än Kind. (än like English "an")
> 
> Haben wir = hammer -- Da hammer unsre Freude dran. (Sachsen und Thüringen -- und andere Gegenden?)
> 
> Hamm'se? = Haben Sie?
> Stand Altpapieraktion 2020/21
> 
> Lied: „Hamm se nich noch Altpapier…“


Vielen Dank, Hutschi.  Deine Erklärungen sind mir sehr nützlich


----------



## Dymn

I think the ending _-en _is regularly pronounced [n̩] in natural-speech German. This is a distinct syllable with a consonant as its nucleus, not unlike English _litt*le*_. It then may assimilate to the previous consonant: _leben _[leːbm̩], _mögen _[møːɡŋ̩]. At least with /b/ and /g/, I don't know if this also happens with /m p/ and /ŋ k/ respectively. I think on the other hand _-len_ and _-ren_ are regularly pronounced as if they were -_ln _and -_rn: wollen _[vɔln], _blamieren _[blamiːɐn]. In that case there is indeed one syllable less.

I don't know whether the _-en_ ending can be dropped entirely in any context, but in this video this guy says _zusammen_ can become just _zusam, _so... Also I don't like how he says double consonants are pronounced simply as if it were just relaxed speech, there are simply no geminates in Standard German


----------



## Hutschi

Dymn said:


> this guy says _zusammen_ can become just _zusam _



This is possible. Endings are often omitted. I remember my mother said "Verschluck nich immer die Endungen!"

Examples (out of their context, words only out of sentences.)
Ist es? - Isses?
Wisst ihr? - Wista?
Weißt du? Weißte?
Kennst du? - Kennste?
Gibt es? - Gibbs?
Kommt ihr? - Kommta?
Haben Sie? - Hammse?
Kommst du? - Kommsde?

Some centuries ago they even tried to bring this into standard orthography, but it was not done in the end.


----------



## JClaudeK

merquiades said:


> Given your response _habe_ _'n Buch_ is probably _habneBuch_.


No it is not, "ne" is the feminine ending: Ich hab' 'ne Frau, 'ne Blume, ....

"_habe_ _'n Buch"_ doesn't exist (and is very difficult to pronounce).


----------



## anahiseri

I agree with the above posters that the contractions we are talking about are neither atrocious nor dialectal, but just common spoken German. And I don't think they are more difficult to pronounce than English equivalents like  *wouldn't   /* *what 'n end /   let's work 'n  it *(an, on)


----------



## elroy

merquiades said:


> Ich habe 'n Buch.
> Ich sehe 'nen Hund.
> Ich habe 'ne Wohnung.
> Spechen Sie mit 'nem Arzt oder 'ner Ärtzin.


Here's how I would say these.


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> Here's how I would say these.


_Ich hab 'n Buch.
Ich seh 'nen Hund.
Ich hab 'ne Wohnung.
Sprechen Sie mit 'nem Arzt oder 'ner Ärtzin._

Ja, deine Aussprache ist OK. Du sprichst aber richtig "hab" und nicht "habe".



> _Sprechen Sie mit 'nem Arzt oder 'ner Ärtzin._


At least in Northern Germany we would contract one more step like "mit'm Arzt". This "mit 'nem" sounds a bit strange to my ears.


----------



## elroy

Kajjo said:


> "mit'm Arzt"


Wouldn't this be "mit dem" rather than "mit einem"?


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> Wouldn't this be "mit dem" rather than "mit einem"?


Can be both, but mostly "mit einem". If the "dem" is important (demonstrative), we would probably not contract.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

elroy said:


> Here's how I would say these.


Vor allem „Ich happ ne Wohnung“ finde ich sehr gelungen  Ich hatte meinen Post weiter oben noch ergänzt. Ein Doppel-p passt besser:


Schlabberlatz said:


> Edit:
> Das ›a‹ wird dabei kurz ausgesprochen:
> Ich happn Buch.
> Ich happ hn Buch.



„ mit ’nem Arzt“ finde ich unauffällig. Ich glaube, so würde ich das auch sagen. „mit’m Arzt“ finde ich auch OK, würde das aber auch so deuten, dass hier ein bestimmter Artikel abgekürzt wurde. Was ja auch unproblematisch ist, oder? Man sagt auch eher „Ich gehe (morgen) zum Arzt“ als „Ich gehe (morgen) zu einem Arzt“. Gemeint ist dann meistens der eigene Hausarzt.


----------



## Hutschi

Schlabberlatz said:


> „mit’m Arzt“


Without context I would understand it like Kajjo: mostly as indefinite article.




Schlabberlatz said:


> „Ich happ ne Wohnung“


Do you aspirate "happ" or do you just speak it voiceless? I speak it voiceless but do not aspirate it.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Hutschi said:


> Do you aspirate "happ" or do you just speak it voiceless?


I’d say yes (I aspirate it), but less so than the "happ" in "Ich happn Buch". I think "Ich happne" can be pronounced more smoothly than "Ich happn", so the aspiration is (much) less prominent. I’d say: voiceless and slightly aspirated. But I’m no expert on this topic.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Can be both, but mostly "mit einem". If the "dem" is important (demonstrative), we would probably not contract.


Really? _Mit'm_ is almost always_ mit dem_ for me. I contract _mit einem_ to _mit 'nem_.


----------



## Hutschi

I do not see a demonstrative here.
"Dem" as article can be contracted. But "mit'm" does not mean "mit diesem/mit dem" as demonstrative.
Is it possible in your area?

It may be definite but not demonstrative.

Wie würdest Du verstehen: "Mit'm Appel und 'm Ei"?


----------



## berndf

Any contracted form would be an article for me and never a demonstrative pronoun. On this I agree with @Kajjo. My disagreement with what he wrote is solely if _mit'm_ could mean _mit einem_ (he says mostly yes and I say almost never).


----------

