# nächst (pronunciation)



## etcetera999

Hi - I am using the Pimsleur language program to learn German.  One thing that has been bugging me is that one speaker pronounces nächst differently from another.

For example,

nächsten donnerstag

sounds like (not an exact ipa transcription, sorry)

1. naichsten [the correct way, it seems like]

while another says:

2. neesten [ seems different from other pronunciations of ä in other words]

This seems to be the only word that is pronounced differently by two speakers in the Pimsleur program thus far (I am on Level 3).

Question is: Are both these pronunciations correct?  Just different regional pronunciations?

Danke sehr!


----------



## bearded

Hello
I usually heard a pronunciation like in English 'next' (+ ending -en) and think it is the correct pronunciation in standard German.  I understand A with Umlaut should be pronounced like open E (è).


----------



## berndf

etcetera999 said:


> Hi - I am using the Pimsleur language program to learn German.  One thing that has been bugging me is that one speaker pronounces nächst differently from another.
> 
> For example,
> 
> nächsten donnerstag
> 
> sounds like (not an exact ipa transcription, sorry)
> 
> 1. naichsten [the correct way, it seems like]
> 
> while another says:
> 
> 2. neesten [ seems different from other pronunciations of ä in other words]
> 
> This seems to be the only word that is pronounced differently by two speakers in the Pimsleur program thus far (I am on Level 3).
> 
> Question is: Are both these pronunciations correct?  Just different regional pronunciations?
> 
> Danke sehr!


I guess I know which pronunciations you mean. You are right, there are two different pronunciations of the "long ä" (not the "short ä", that is always the same). In IPA your 1. is [nɛ:çst(ə)n] (the vowel of English _bed_, just longer) and your 2. is [ne:çst(ə)n] (the vowel of Scottish English_ day_). The former is the "correct" pronunciation and the latter is what the majority of speakers really say (those speakers merge the "long ä" into the "long e"). People most likely won't even notice which one you are using.



bearded man said:


> Hello
> I usually heard a pronunciation like in English 'next' (+ ending -en) and think it is the correct pronunciation in standard German. I understand A with Umlaut should be pronounced like open E (è).


I am sorry, no, certainly not standard. The vowel of "next" is short but it needs to be long and "next" contains a [k] sound but there is none in the standard pronunciation of "nächst". There is a pronunciation /ne:gstn/ where our (German) /g/ corresponds to your (Italian) /k/, but that is colloquial, if not dialectal.


----------



## bearded

Hello berndf
Do you mean to say that  in 'nächst'  1) the ä must be pronounced long?  But shouldn't a vowel be short when followed by more that one consonant?  Or does it remain long because, being the superlative of 'nah', it retains the original length?  2) the ch-sound should be maintained (if yes, like in 'nach' or like in 'ich' ?).  Thank you.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Hello berndf
> Do you mean to say that  in 'nächst'  1) the ä must be pronounced long?  But shouldn't a vowel be short when followed by more that one consonant?  Or does it remain long because, being the superlative of 'nah', it retains the original length?  2) the ch-sound should be maintained (if yes, like in 'nach' or like in 'ich' ?).  Thank you.


1) You are on the right track. Vowel length is a property of the stem. Adding a morpheme like _-st_ does not shorten the vowel. Also, the word has become monosyllabic only about 150 years ago as a shortening of _nächest_.
2) Yes, it has to be maintained, for the same reason as before, because _-st_ is a different morpheme. <ä> is a front vowel and after front vowels <ch> is always [ç] and after back vowels always [x]; this is unconditional. The only exception is the suffix _-chen_ where <ch> remains [ç] even after a back vowel (compare _Kuhchen_ [kʰu:ç(ə)n] vs. _Kuchen _[kʰu:x(ə)n]).


----------



## bearded

Thank you very much, berndf.


----------



## etcetera999

berndf said:


> I guess I know which pronunciations you mean. You are right, there are two different pronunciations of the "long ä" (not the "short ä", that is always the same). In IPA your 1. is [nɛ:çst(ə)n] (the vowel of English _bed_, just longer) and your 2. is [ne:çst(ə)n] (the vowel of Scottish English_ day_). The former is the "correct" pronunciation and the latter is what the majority of speakers really say (those speakers merge the "long ä" into the "long e"). People most likely won't even notice which one you are using.



Thanks for the response.  The second version rhymes with "beast" in English (the first syllable, that is):

So the IPA would be:

/niːstn/

That seems strange, no?  If I can get a wav of it, maybe that would be useful.  [I guess I can't post links as a new member though...]


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> Hello
> I usually heard a pronunciation like in English 'next' (+ ending -en) and think it is the correct pronunciation in standard German. I understand A with Umlaut should be pronounced like open E (è).


You will hear this especially in the South. Most dialects in the Bavarian dialect family will pronounce it with short, open e and the sequence 'chs' is pronounced like X.
Therefore also the pronunciation of the standard German version from those speakers often sounds close to the English 'next'.
And since this (officially wrong) pronunciation does not collide with any other German word, I'm confident that this mispronunciation will not change there any time soon.


----------



## berndf

etcetera999 said:


> Thanks for the response.  The second version rhymes with "beast" in English


I obviously meant a GERMAN "long e" and not and English "long e". The quality of the vowel in_ beast_ is that of a German "long i" and not a "long e". A "long e" is, as I wrote, the vowel of Scottish English_ day_. Standard English does not have that vowel.


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> You will hear this especially in the South. Most dialects in the Bavarian dialect family will pronounce it with short, open e and the sequence 'chs' is pronounced like X.
> Therefore also the pronunciation of the standard German version from those speakers often sounds close to the English 'next'.
> And since this (officially wrong) pronunciation does not collide with any other German word, I'm confident that this mispronunciation will not change there any time soon.


Very interesting.  As a matter of fact, it was an Austrian teacher with whom I learned German initially.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Very interesting.  As a matter of fact, it was an Austrian teacher with whom I learned German initially.


Yes, from an Austrian I would expect to hear and unaspirated [k] here. I, as a German Standard German speaker, of course hear this as a /g/. I am not entirely sure, if this despirantization of etymological /h/ (or /x/ or /g/ which can all result in the realization [ç], like _i*ch* or Köni*g*_) at the end of a stem is really due to the following /s/: There is an ostensibly similar case in the 2nd. singular of _sehen _where an etymological /h/ is followed by as /s/ and the dialectal form is with [ks] _Sigs'd des? = Siehst du das?_ But the answer features the same despirantization: _Jo, i sig des = Ja, ich sehe das_.

I am not saying Manfy is wrong there _has _to be a different explanation. _I sig_ can be an isolated phenomenon and despirantization of [ç] in words like _heili*g* _and _Köni*g*_ may well be hyper-corrections induced by spelling and behind the polsive pronunciation of <ch> in the Toponyms _Chiemgau_ and _Chiemsee_ (most likely an etymologically /h/ derived from the name _Chiemo~Hiemo_) could be an entirely different story. I am just wondering. This is an aspect of Bavarian historical phonology that is not clear to me.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

> So the IPA would be:
> 
> /niːstn/


Maybe somebody mixed something up. /niːstn/ would be the preterite of "niesen": "Sie niesten", "They sneezed".


----------



## manfy

berndf said:


> I am not entirely sure, if this despirantization of etymological /h/ (or /x/ or /g/ which can all result in the realization [ç], like _i*ch* or Köni*g*_) at the end of a stem is really due to the following /s/: There is an ostensibly similar case in the 2nd. singular of _sehen _where an etymological /h/ is followed by as /s/ and the dialectal form is with [ks] _Sigs'd des? = Siehst du das?_ But the answer features the same despirantization: _Jo, i sig des = Ja, ich sehe das_.


Interesting thought! 
Unfortunately I have no real answer, only some observations:
*) The phenomenon of pronouncing 'siehst du' as 'sigs'd du' seems to be much stronger in the West. Tyrolian dialects do that a lot and also the dialects in Bavaria itself often use a distinctive /g/-sound. You can hear it in other Austrian dialects too but it's less explicit.
In my own dialect (Southeast Austria) it is usually pronounced more like 'siachst du des?', where 'ch' is pronounced like proper German 'ch', but it's very short and flat (almost swallowed and yet clearly audible - if that makes any sense)

*) I doubt that the [ks] pronunciation is based on the sequence 'hs' alone, because we have similar words like 'du gehst/stehst' where the dialect would never change to [ks] pronunciation.

*) And on the other hand we have other words where h is changed to g even without a subsequent s, e.g. "er zieht weiter" = 'ea ziagt weita' (in Tyrol and Bavaria)

*) Another peculiar phenomenon, that might be somehow linked, is the habit in Tyrolean dialects to add a /g/ to the end of some words - most notably to 'schau'.
e.g. the expression "Schau, das stimmt gar nicht!" is pronounced as "Schaug, das ...". Very peculiar! Admittedly, the /g/ is not very strong but it's clearly audible. Maybe the word 'schauen' was spelled as 'schauhen' in the olden days, which might explain this odd language development!?


----------



## etcetera999

berndf said:


> I obviously meant a GERMAN "long e" and not and English "long e". The quality of the vowel in_ beast_ is that of a German "long i" and not a "long e". A "long e" is, as I wrote, the vowel of Scottish English_ day_. Standard English does not have that vowel.



Perhaps I was not clear in my post - the second version_ in the Pimsleur recording _rhymes with beast - that is what is strange to me.


----------



## etcetera999

Schlabberlatz said:


> Maybe somebody mixed something up. /niːstn/ would be the preterite of "niesen": "Sie niesten", "They sneezed".



I don't think they mixed it up - it is used numerous times.  Is there a way for me hyperlink a recording for you to listen to?


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> *) The phenomenon of pronouncing 'siehst du' as 'sigs'd du' seems to be much stronger in the West. Tyrolian dialects do that a lot and also the dialects in Bavaria itself often use a distinctive /g/-sound. You can hear it in other Austrian dialects too but it's less explicit.
> In my own dialect (Southeast Austria) it is usually pronounced more like 'siachst du des?', where 'ch' is pronounced like proper German 'ch', but it's very short and flat (almost swallowed and yet clearly audible - if that makes any sense)


The pronunciation _sigst'd_ is actually quite consistent within the Middle-Bavarian dialect area. Your native dialect (I assume it is Styrian, right?) is South-Bavarian, so it is not an East-West but a North-South issue. The pronunciation _sigst'd_ goes all the way to the east in Middle-Bavarian. The eastern most dialect of the group is Lower Austrian and _sigst'd_ is the regular pronunciation there.


manfy said:


> *) I doubt that the [ks] pronunciation is based on the sequence 'hs' alone, because we have similar words like 'du gehst/stehst' where the dialect would never change to [ks] pronunciation.
> 
> *) And on the other hand we have other words where h is changed to g even without a subsequent s, e.g. "er zieht weiter" = 'ea ziagt weita' (in Tyrol and Bavaria)


The <h> is etymological only in _sehen_ and _ziehen_. In _gehen _and _stehen _it is purely orthographic ("Dehnungs-h").


----------



## Dan2

etcetera999 said:


> The second version rhymes with "beast" in English (the first syllable, that is):
> 
> So the IPA would be:
> 
> /niːstn/


Hi etc.  I listened to the link while it was available.  Of course, what's most important is what the native German speakers have to say about it, but it may be useful to you to know how another American (with no exposure to German while growing up, but a good amount as an adult) hears it.

For me, the first two phonemes are clearly IPA [ne], that is, English "nay", not English "knee"; German "nee", not German "nie".  (The [e] isn't pronounced as most Americans (or Londoners) would pronounce it, but it is clearly in the [e], not _, category.)

I also hear the "ch" ("ich-Laut"), which you seem to be claiming is not there.

Try listening with headphones if you haven't already - that may help._


----------



## etcetera999

Dan2 said:


> Hi etc.  I listened to the link while it was available.  Of course, what's most important is what the native German speakers have to say about it, but it may be useful to you to know how another American (with no exposure to German while growing up, but a good amount as an adult) hears it.
> 
> For me, the first two phonemes are clearly IPA [ne], that is, English "nay", not English "knee"; German "nee", not German "nie".  (The [e] isn't pronounced as most Americans (or Londoners) would pronounce it, but it is clearly in the [e], not _, category.)
> 
> I also hear the "ch" ("ich-Laut"), which you seem to be claiming is not there.
> Try listening with headphones if you haven't already - that may help._


_

Thanks for your time and input - maybe my ability to recognize German sounds is just not very good - it just sounds quite different from the way the other speaker in the recording pronounces it (which I did not provide in that link)._


----------



## berndf

etcetera999 said:


> I don't think they mixed it up - it is used numerous times.  Is there a way for me hyperlink a recording for you to listen to?


I have received your PM. As Sowka pointed out, Youtube links are not allowed here, so we can't post it here. But rest assured, the pronunciation in the recording is exactly the colloquial [ne:çst(ə)n] I explained in my first post. The vowel is [e:] and not [i:]. It is not uncommon to erroneously identify a foreign sound that doesn't exist in your own language with a similar sound in your own language. That must have happened when you identified it as [i:]. In your transcription /niːstn/ you also missed the [ç]. She pronounces it rather weak and short, that's probably why you didn't hear it; but it is there and for a German speaker despite its brevity easy to recognize.

For your reference, here are all three variants we have discussed in this thread: Two samples for _nächster_. The first is the southern variant with /g/ and the standard vowel /ɛ:/. The second is with standard variant with /ɛ:/ and [ç]. This pronunciation of _nächste _features the colloquial northern/central variant with /e:/ and [ç].

EDIT: Crossed with Dan's post and confirming what he said.


----------



## berndf

etcetera999 said:


> it just sounds quite different from the way the other speaker in the recording pronounces it (which I did not provide in that link).


Well /ɛ:/ and /e:/ are quite different. If this is a meaningful comparison to you, they correspond the the French/Italian <è> and <é>, respectively.


----------



## etcetera999

berndf said:


> Well /ɛ:/ and /e:/ are quite different. If this is a meaningful comparison to you, they correspond the the French/Italian <è> and <é>, respectively.



I actually cannot hear the difference between the two French vowels either  .  Once again, thanks for your time.


----------



## berndf

etcetera999 said:


> I actually cannot hear the difference between the two French vowels either  .  Once again, thanks for your time.


Don't worry, it's a matter of practice.

It may help, if you familiarize yourself with the concept of "cardinal vowels" (in IPA ieɛaɑɔou) and learn the systematics of this grid. English is a difficult language to come from in this respect because most of the English vowels are off that grid. But German long vowels are all on this grid (aeiouaöü = IPA aeiouɛøy). With short vowels it is a bit more complicated.

Here is a vowel grid with audio samples (just click on the IPA letters).


----------



## etcetera999

berndf said:


> Don't worry, it a matter of practice.
> 
> It may help, if you familiarize yourself with the concept of "cardinal vowels" (in IPA ieɛaɑɔou) and learn the systematics of this grid. English is a difficult language to come from in this respect because most of the English vowels are off that grid. But German long vowels are all on this grid (aeiouaöü = IPA aeiouɛœy). With short vowels it is a bit more complicated.
> 
> Here is a vowel grid with audio samples (just click on the IPA letters).



Great suggestion - thanks!


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Thank you for the PM. Don't worry too much about your difficulties. Germans also have difficulties with the pronunciation of foreign languages. For example, when I was in school, nobody ever told us about "Auslautverhärtung" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final-obstruent_devoicing
I was told about it only later and had a hard time learning how to pronounce a voiced s at the end of a word. Or a "g" instead of a "k". When a German says "The farmer and his pick", chances are he really means "Der Bauer und sein Schwein", not "Der Bauer und seine Spitzhacke". Another example: someone talked about "lamps" (with a "p" from out of nowhere, so to say). I didn't understand. What he meant was "lambs".


----------

