# pronunciation of adjectives in -ich and -ig



## merquiades

Hallo,
I have another pronunciation question. Is the adjective ending -ig (traurig, langweilig, neugierig) pronounced exactly the same as -ich (glücklich, freundlich, höfflich)?  If so, does the /ç/ sound carry through when the adjective is declined to match feminine and neuter nouns?
For example:  Eine traurige Frau, Ein neugiriges Kind, Die langweilige Arbeit.

Vielen dank!


----------



## Kajjo

Yes, "-ig" word ending is pronounced exactly as in "ich".
Examples: _traurig, ledig, König, langweilig_

However, "-ige" is pronounced as "-ige". Thus, the pronunciation changes with declination.
Examples: _langweilige, traurige, ledige_; also the same with other ending: _Königin, Könige_

There are some exceptions in so far as usually no two "ich"-Sounds follow each other:

_könig_ /-ich/
_königlich_ /ik-lich/

_ledig_ /-ich/
_lediglich_ /-ik lich/


----------



## merquiades

Thank you so much for your detailed explanation, Kajjo.   All is super clear.  It's just really an end of the word anomaly.


----------



## ablativ

merquiades said:


> I have another pronunciation question. Is the adjective ending -ig (traurig, langweilig, neugierig) pronounced exactly the same as -ich (glücklich, freundlich, höfflich)?


Yes, indeed, that's correct for the German standard language. The southern part of Germany, however, (Switzerland and Austria included), doesn't keep to that rule.


merquiades said:


> If so, does the /ç/ sound carry through when the adjective is declined to match feminine and neuter nouns?
> For example:  Eine traurige Frau, Ein neugi*e*riges Kind, Die langweilige Arb*eit*.


Except for some dialects, the pronunciation of declined adjectives (or other words), originally ending on 'ig', now ending on vowels, becomes "g" (as in '*g*ood') again.

Edit: crossed with Kajjo


----------



## merquiades

ablativ said:


> Yes, indeed, that's correct for the German standard language. The southern part of Germany, however, (Switzerland and Austria included), doesn't keep to that rule.


 Thanks.  So what goes on in the south?  That might interest me since I usually go to southern places.


----------



## Kajjo

merquiades said:


> Thanks.  So what goes on in the south?  That might interest me since I usually go to southern places.


It's not so much about South vs North, but about standard vs. dialect. Please learn standard German.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> It's not so much about South vs North, but about standard vs. dialect.


It has a regional roots and the standard is not clear on this. In the traditional standard, e.g., the <g> in _König _is palatalized and in stage pronunciation not. Southern speakers never palatalize it, independent of register.


Kajjo said:


> Please learn standard German.


Why is that for you to say? Can't he choose his interests himself?


merquiades said:


> o what goes on in the south?


In Middle and Low German _g_ is spirantized in final position and intervocalically, i.e. [ɣ]. This can be heard in words like _fragen _with the traditional pronunciation [fraɣən], a pronunciation that was until the mid 20th century very frequent is standard pronunciation (not in stage pronunciation). Today it occurs mainly in regional accents.

Middle German (not Low German) extends this spirantization to initial g, example _Gold _= [jɔlt] or [ʝɔlt]. In this example [j]~[ʝ] is the result of palatalization of [ɣ], a phenomenon you should know from English as it, e.g., explains why _gestern _is _*y*esterda*y*_ in English. Palatalization of [ɣ] to [j]~[ʝ] is obviously the voiced counterpart to palatalization of [x] to [ç]. The conditions under which this happens is similar for [ɣ] and [x], but not identical and dependent on dialect.

At the end of a syllable, [ɣ] and [j]~[ʝ] undergo terminal obstruent devoicing, yielding [x] and [ç] respectively. Devoiced [ɣ], example _ich frag' dich_ = [ɪç fʁa:x dɪç] or [ɪç fra:x dɪç], has become rare and counts as archaic in standard but is still going strong in regional accents In Saarbücken, Maiz or Frankfurt you would expect [ɪʃ fʁa:x dɪʃ] or [ɪʃ fra:x dɪʃ].

Devoiced [j]~[ʝ] is still alive in standard pronunciation and explains _-ig_ = [-ɪç]. But it is also on the retreat in standard pronunciation (see Kajjo's example _königlich_ /ik-lich/; 50 years ago, the pronunciation _könichlich _was not unusual even for standard speakers).

In Upper German, /g/ is completely de-spirantized to [g] or, if devoiced, [k] ([k] is a complex matter in Upper German; I would like to ignore this topic here) independent of position and independent of register. The only exception is that some (not all) speaker pronounce _-ig_ = [-ɪç] when and if using standard register but, e.g., _König_ with [ç] in unheard of.

With the expansion of a fairly neutral standard into colloquial use (much like in France), a kind of mix of northern and southern (that is what Kajjo described) has established itself with significantly fewer spirantizations then in the traditional northern standard but more than is the traditional southern standard.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> Why is that for you to say? Can't he choose his interests himself?


Of course he can chosse himself. Indeed, you are right, that there might be several good reasons to learn a certain dialect.

However, if he wished to learn a certain dialect, I am sure, he would have told us. I just felt sure, he wanted to learn standard pronunciation.

Personally, I am opposed to statements like "North vs South" if the correct statement is "standard vs. dialect". There are some cases with several standard versions really varying between North and South or West and East, and do not depend on dialect. However, this case is about dialectal pronunciation and that should have been be pointed out more clearly, in my feeling at least.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> However, this case is about dialectal pronunciation and that should have been be pointed out more clearly, in my feeling at least.


I can't agree. This is a point with considerable variation within the standard register as function of region, age and social background of the speaker.


Kajjo said:


> I am opposed to statements like "North vs South" if the correct statement is "standard vs. dialect".


There isn't such a thing as "the" dialect. Whenever you talk about about dialects you have to specify which one.


----------



## merquiades

I am learning standard German, Kajjo, and your post #2 is good enough for me to know how to pronounce these -ig words.  However, it is not just about me pronouncing a word. I need to understand people talking to me which I don't.  I have discovered that when I travel people speak to me with local accents, for example they don't pronounce the endings that were insisted upon in my classes. The things Berndt is talking about like pronouncing "jehn" for "gehen", of ich "frach" dich for "frage" are insightful.  I'll be on the lookout for full scale palatalization and devoicing of /g/ beyond the -ig endings.
It's interesting that the southern accents are slowly effecting the northern norm and /ç/ is retreating in favor of /g/. I wonder if the spelling of "g" might also play a role.  It would mean speech is matching more closely the way words are spelled.


----------



## bearded

merquiades said:


> It's interesting that the southern accents are slowly effecting the northern norm and /ç/ is retreating in favor of /g/. I wonder if the spelling of "g" might also play a role.  It would mean speech is matching more closely the way words are spelled.


Actually, Southern speakers usually pronounce the -ig ending as -ik, like with any final -g (pron. Könik like Kruk<Krug) unless -ig is followed by a vowel in declension, of course. And the spelling certainly has to do with pronunciation: do not forget that _Hochdeutsch _is mainly derived from _oberdeutschen _Mundarten/dialects, and its spelling was determined/fixed on the basis of the pronunciation of those dialects, and consequently the northern pronunciation -iç (although nowadays accepted as standard) represents a deviation with respect to an original norm existing both in speech and writing.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> I wonder if the spelling of "g" might also play a role.


You mean spelling-pronunciation? It may very well play a role.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> and consequently the northern pronunciation -iç (although nowadays accepted as standard) represents a deviation with respect to an original norm existing both in speech and writing


It is the other way. The original Germanic /g/ was a fricative and not a stop. The re-development into a stop was a gradual process that just happened earlier in Upper German.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, in  local language the "g" is like a chameleon. It changes.
In some areas it is spoken very different, influenced by the local dialect.
So it might sound even as German "j" (lustije). (Without changing the meaning.)
g->j in some positions is typical for Berrlin, Magdeburg, Rheinische Dialekte, maybe others.

Könige-> Könije

In local colloquial language also g->sch is possible: "Kön'sche" (some parts of Saxony) Here additionally the "i" of König" is omitted.

You should stick to standard, I wrote this only because of: "when I travel people speak to me with local accents,"

The point is that they are thinking to speak standard high German. The dialect is much more different than just consonant shift.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> It is the other way. The original Germanic /g/ was a fricative and not a stop. The re-development into a stop was a gradual process that just happened earlier in Upper German.


Well, I was talking about developments that occurred in Hochdeutsch, and did not take ''the original Germanic g'' into consideration. If at the moment of fixing the _hochdeutsche _spelling, the pronunciation -iç had been predominant, why would -ig have been chosen as the correct writing?


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Well, I was talking about developments that occurred in Hochdeutsch, and did not take ''the original Germanic g'' into consideration. If at the moment of fixing the _hochdeutsche _spelling, the pronunciation -iç had been predominant, why would -ig have been chosen as the correct writing?


The letter <g> has always been used to represent the sound [ɣ], as it was in Old English as well. In Dutch this is still the case (Dutch doesn't have the sound [g]).

What time scale are you thinking of, if you mean Upper German determined the spelling standard? This was maybe until ca. 1400. The modern German standard is based in the Middle German standard (Sächsische Kanzleisprache) and not on the Upper German standard (Maximilianische Kanzleisprache). Maria Theresia introduced the Middle German standard in the Habsburg ruled areas. That killed the Upper German standard.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> The letter <g> has always been used to represent the sound [ɣ].


Do you mean also _im Oberdeutschen?_


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Do you mean also _im Oberdeutschen?_


Most likely. Depends how far you go back. Developments like _ich seh' > I sig_ indicates that a de-spirantization process must have taken place after OHG as it affects also original /h/ and not only original /g/ phonemes.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> What time scale are you thinking of, if you mean Upper German determined the spelling standard? This was maybe until ca. 1400. The modern German standard is based in the Middle German standard (Sächsische Kanzleisprache) and not on the Upper German standard (Maximilianische Kanzleisprache). Maria Theresia introduced the Middle German standard in the Habsburg ruled areas. That killed the Upper German standard


You are right, berndf. I stand corrected.


----------



## Kajjo

merquiades said:


> I am learning standard German, Kajjo, and your post #2 is good enough for me to know how to pronounce these -ig words.


Yes, fine.



> However, it is not just about me pronouncing a word. I need to understand people talking to me which I don't.


Yes, I know the feeling very well. When I learned English we were always trained ont he correct pronunciation, only to discover that very many English dialects pronounce it differently. Nonetheless, for me it worked best to try to speak standard English, not to imitate dialects -- that way I was understood best by native speakers.



> I wonder if the spelling of "g" might also play a role.  It would mean speech is matching more closely the way words are spelled.


Of course, yes. Many dialect speaker simply do not know that these words are pronounced /-ich/ and over-correct themselves to /-ik/ or /-ig/. You observe the same over-correction for thre last syllable of verbs like "fragen, glauben" (standard with /-gn/, /-bn/). Spelling can be misleading.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Of course, yes. Many dialect speaker simply do not know that these words are pronounced /-ich/ and over-correct themselves to /-ik/ or /-ig/. You observe the same over-correction for thre last syllable of verbs like "fragen, glauben" (standard with /-gn/, /-bn/). Spelling can be misleading.


Hyper-correction (that is the technical term for this phenomenon) probably played a role in this development. But it is only one of several contributing factors. Pronouncing _ewig or freudig _with a [-k] at the end has always been perfectly standard in a considerable part of the German language area and there the pronunciation with [-ç] has always been regarded as exclusively stage pronunciation (like the trilled [r] in English). I am convinced the main factor is accent convergence as a result of higher mobility and of electronic media. E.g., the effect of the introduction of cable and satellite TV on the Austrian standard register is enormous and can easily be pinpointed. And I am convinced this also applies to the German standard register (though it is less clear-cut).


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> I have another pronunciation question. Is the adjective ending -ig (traurig, langweilig, neugierig) pronounced exactly the same as -ich (glücklich, freundlich, höfflich)?


It is maybe interesting to note that the rhymes of the suffixes also converged in English. See the following cognates:
_traur*ig* - drer*y*
freundl*ich* - friendl*y*
_
The fact that in German it did not converge in spelling is probably due to the influence of Upper German on the standard in medieval times, as bearded man correctly noted. The MHG spellings _trure*c* _and _vriuntli*ch*_ is a strong indication that they did not rhyme in MHG (i.e. the back formation to a plosive had already occurred). The modern spelling is a mixture of the Upper German based MHG spelling and the Middle German based modern standard.


----------



## eamp

berndf said:


> Most likely. Depends how far you go back. Developments like _ich seh' > I sig_ indicates that a de-spirantization process must have taken place after OHG as it affects also original /h/ and not only original /g/ phonemes.


I really don't think so, in the oldest Upper German texts /g/ is most often represented by k or c in writing. I am not aware of any evidence that it was a spirant in those dialects from the eighth century on at least...
Though I remember for the Bavarian dialect of OHG final /g/ seems to have developed into a spirant in late OHG, but only after passing through a stage with /k/.
Modern Middle-Bavarian dialects then actually dropped all originally final -ch, as far as I know, though in many inflected words it was later restored.
As for "I sig", I doubt this form is very old. There also exists "I sich" as well as "I siach" (some dialects show breaking of i before germanic /h/) anyway. The g might might come from Forms like "segn" or "du sigst", (which do show de-spirantization but only before consonants) or an earlier leveling of alternating Verner variants (like ziehen - zogen).


----------



## berndf

eamp said:


> I really don't think so, in the oldest Upper German texts /g/ is most often represented by k or c in writing.


Yes, I have done a bit more reading and it is quite clear that the /ɣ/>/g/ shift in Upper German must have preceded the Bavarian "Medienverschiebung" (I don't know the English term) and must therefore have taken place earlier, completed by the 8th century latest.


----------

