# Icelandic: sj-, tj- etc.



## Gavril

As I understand it, Icelandic _sj- _and (-)_tj- _(as in _sjón, __tjald, __setja_ etc.) are pronounced [sj] and [tj]. This is a different situation from (e.g.) American English, where these consonant clusters would normally be pronounced "sh" and "tch" respectively: cf. the words _issue _and _future_.

Is there any tendency in actual (or historical) Icelandic pronunciation to pronounce _sj_ as "sh" or _tj_ as "tch"?

Thanks


----------



## Alxmrphi

I'm not sure about historical Icelandic but in the modern pronunciation I don't think there is a connection. The sounds [ʧ] and [ʃ] don't exist in Icelandic, just like we don't have words in English that start with the [sj] sound, they are independent characteristics of certain languages.

These sounds are part of a family of sounds called sibilants, and Icelandic doesn't have many sibilants in comparison with English, there's an interesting article written in English but aimed at Icelanders learning English that contains some useful information here. That article mentions that Icelanders regularly pronounce them all the same and it's a problem for them to get over.

This confirms my previous suspicion, if these sounds exist in the language this problem wouldn't occur, there would be a linking reference to an example to illustrate how to pronounce the word, but without that sound in the language it then creates a problem.I found another link to some information on sibilants in Icelandic but it's written in a form I can't even follow, maybe you might have some luck 

Like I said I can't speak for Old Icelandic, because I don't know anything about it, but I would be surprised if these sounds existed and then dropped out of the language so I don't expect they ever existed historically.
Sorry if this wasn't the answer you were looking for! 
I hope I was able to answer your question.


----------



## Gavril

This was very helpful -- thanks.

Still, I'm curious if there is a statistical tend toward the pronunciation I described (_sj _as [ʃ] / _tj _as [ʧ]), even if [ʃ] and [ʧ] are not part of standard, codified Icelandic. For the sake of comparison: in some forms of Spanish (I can't remember what region; this is based on personal observation), there is a tendency to voice [s] between vowels (thus _casa _= [kaza]), even though no textbook of standard Spanish (perhaps not even a textbook of Spanish dialects; I don't know enough to say) would mention this pronunciation.

The reason I asked about historical Icelandic is that sometimes palatalization is "reversed". 19th-century Danish showed a tendency (I'm not sure how strong or widespread a tendency) to pronounce _k _as [kj] before front vowels, so that _København _would have sounded like "Kjøbenhavn". At some point, this pronunciation became "unpopular" for whatever reason, and non-palatal [k] was restored. Perhaps an earlier trend toward pronouncing Icelandic _-sj-/-tj- _as [ʃ] / [ʧ] has been similarly reversed?




Alxmrphi said:


> I'm not sure about historical Icelandic but in the modern pronunciation I don't think there is a connection. The sounds [ʧ] and [ʃ] don't exist in Icelandic, just like we don't have words in English that start with the [sj] sound, they are independent characteristics of certain languages.
> 
> These sounds are part of a family of sounds called sibilants, and Icelandic doesn't have many sibilants in comparison with English, there's an interesting article written in English but aimed at Icelanders learning English that contains some useful information here. That article mentions that Icelanders regularly pronounce them all the same and it's a problem for them to get over.
> 
> This confirms my previous suspicion, if these sounds exist in the language this problem wouldn't occur, there would be a linking reference to an example to illustrate how to pronounce the word, but without that sound in the language it then creates a problem.I found another link to some information on sibilants in Icelandic but it's written in a form I can't even follow, maybe you might have some luck
> 
> Like I said I can't speak for Old Icelandic, because I don't know anything about it, but I would be surprised if these sounds existed and then dropped out of the language so I don't expect they ever existed historically.
> Sorry if this wasn't the answer you were looking for!
> I hope I was able to answer your question.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok I see what you mean a bit better.
With the Danish and Spanish examples, those sounds already exist in the language and this was a reordering, or a change between voicings, of syllables.

With the Icelandic part of the question, I'd understand if there was something that led you to believe this pronunciation is used, but there's nothing, your query could say, is there a tendancy for the -sj- in spelling to reflect the sound [sö] or [si:] instead of [ʃ].

An example relating to English doesn't support logic for this to be the case in Icelandic. Have you heard this pronunciation (it could certainly be true I'm not saying that it doesn't exist) I am only speaking on behalf of my experience with the language and I haven't heard it, but I can't see any reason to suggest why this pronunciation might even exist?
Talking about changes in sound values with current sounds that exist is one thing, where we'd probably need a native to confirm, but when it comes to bringing in suggestions about completely new sounds to the language, I would need to see at least a hypothesis of why it was believed to be the case before going in and researching it.

I remain of the opinion that, if it existed, those notes about Icelanders having the trouble replicating our sibilant sounds wouldn't exist.


----------



## Södertjej

On a side note, there's no such thing as a voice s in Spanish even if it's true it can be heard in some dialects. So it's not a tendency, just a local variation. The Royal Academy states very clearly in its dictionary the s is voiceless.


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> Ok I see what you mean a bit better.
> With the Danish and Spanish examples, those sounds already exist in the language and this was a reordering, or a change between voicings, of syllables.



[z] doesn't exist in standard Spanish -- what already-existing sound are you referring to in that case?



> With the Icelandic part of the question, I'd understand if there was something that led you to believe this pronunciation is used, but there's nothing, your query could say, is there a tendancy for the -sj- in spelling to reflect the sound [sö] or [si:] instead of [ʃ].
> 
> An example relating to English doesn't support logic for this to be the case in Icelandic. Have you heard this pronunciation (it could certainly be true I'm not saying that it doesn't exist) I am only speaking on behalf of my experience with the language and I haven't heard it, but I can't see any reason to suggest why this pronunciation might even exist?


I don't recall hearing the pronunciation in Icelandic (which I have very little experience with). However, from the limited number of languages I've studied, I can't think of any case where [sj] and [tj] have stably remained as such, except where (as in Slavic languages) they coexist with already-present [(t)ʃ] and help to maintain grammatical distinctions.

I'm not saying that this pattern must hold for all languages; I'm just trying to determine whether or not (and to what degree) it applies to Icelandic.



> Talking about changes in sound values with current sounds that exist is one thing, where we'd probably need a native to confirm, but when it comes to bringing in suggestions about completely new sounds to the language, I would need to see at least a hypothesis of why it was believed to be the case before going in and researching it.
> 
> I remain of the opinion that, if it existed, those notes about Icelanders having the trouble replicating our sibilant sounds wouldn't exist.



You may be right, but not every speaker of a language finds it equally difficult to pronounce certain foreign (or rare) sounds. I think we should wait for Icelandic speakers to contribute to this thread.


----------



## Gavril

Södertjej said:


> On a side note, there's no such thing as a voice s in Spanish even if it's true it can be heard in some dialects. So it's not a tendency, just a local variation.



Are you saying that it's a standard feature of a dialect, rather than a tendency within a dialect? You could be right, but I don't know how one would be sure of this (especially since, again, I'm not sure which dialect I heard this in).


----------



## Alxmrphi

Apologies for my comment about Spanish, I don't know anything about it but I know Italian quite well and there is a distinction there so I (without thinking) assumed it applied to Spanish as well.



> from the limited number of languages I've studied, I can't think of any case where [sj] and [tj] have stably remained as such, except where (as in Slavic languages) they coexist with already-present [(t)ʃ] and help to maintain grammatical distinctions.


 
Right, I'm glad you said this, I can see how you formed your question regarding Icelandic, usually some people ask questions and make wild assumptions that have no basis and I wrongly assumed this possibly was one of those cases, but you have a sound logical basis for having an assumption there might be a change and I completely see where you're coming from now.



> You may be right, but not every speaker of a language finds it equally difficult to pronounce certain foreign (or rare) sounds. I think we should wait for Icelandic speakers to contribute to this thread.


 
Also, good point, I can trill my r's with no problem, I have friends that can't.
I know people that can pronounce French phonemes while I can't, so I agree, I think we have to accept a generalisation about specific native peoples and their _general_ ability to reproduce sounds. For example there are books for English teachers that express common difficulties for speakers of certain languages with concepts of English (whether in sounds or grammar) so that's what I meant, though of course there will be many an exception.

I think I've inputted as much as I can on this issue, we need a native speaker now.
They've gone quite quiet in the last month though, so hopefully it won't be that long before you can get some native help! 

[Edit]: Coincidently I am watching a lecture on phonetics now from a lecturer at the University of Iceland (lesson in English) and in a passing comment (he is fluent in Icelandic, has lived there for 45 years) the words _shell / sell_ pop up and he comments (to the Icelandic students) that 'sh' [ʃ] is not an Icelandic sound and hence it's a problem with learners of English, particularly with Icelandic learners. I know that still doesn't answer our question, but it was another relevant comment about the topic so thought I'd add it in here.


----------



## Södertjej

Gavril said:


> [z] doesn't exist in standard Spanish -- what already-existing sound are you referring to in that case?


Me? I'm not referring to any. You mentioned a voiced s in Spanish, I just wanted to clarify there isn't such, we have just simple voiceless s.  It's true there's a voiced s in Italian, but not in Spanish.

I never said standard Spanish, as there isn't such, but s is voiceless in all its varieties, even if it can be voiced in some local dialects. In other cases the s is simply aspired. I meant voiced s, which in English can be written as s or sometimes z. In Spain (most of Spain) these letters are pronounced with two clearly different sounds (/s/ and /  θ/), not in America where it simply becomes s.

I simply wanted to clarify this as there was a comparison with an inexistent Spanish sound which may be misleading for future readers.



Gavril said:


> Are you saying that it's a standard feature of a dialect, rather than a tendency within a dialect? You could be right, but I don't know how one would be sure of this (especially since, again, I'm not sure which dialect I heard this in).


I'm just saying it can be heard in some dialects; the distinction between standard feature and tendency is not something I've mentioned. I can confirm the voiced s is used because I've heard it and reacted to it. 

For further info, please have a look at some of the threads about it on the Spanish forum. As I said, I just clarified that to avoid confusion, but this is not the place to discuss Spanish.


----------



## Gavril

Södertjej said:


> I'm just saying it can be heard in some dialects; the distinction between standard feature and tendency is not something I've mentioned.



Here is what you wrote:



> On a side note, there's no such thing as a voice s in Spanish even if it's true it can be heard in some dialects. So it's not a tendency, just a local variation.


So you seem to be saying that the use of [z] in (some dialects of) Spanish is not a tendency. If it's not a tendency, what do you think it is? I'm just trying to understand your position.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I understood it to mean a local variation, like he mentioned, a tendency would suggest an innate disposition to pronounce this sound for all speakers, however in one local variation of the language this can be heard.

What he mentioned is "a distinction between a tendency _and a standard feature_", this wasn't mentioned, only that it was not a tendency (therefore for all speakers), but just for a variation in a local district.
At least I hope I understood this conversation so far.

@ Gavril: I'm trying to get in touch with an Icelander through MSN and ask them to give this thread a read and add his opinion, hopefully won't be long!


----------



## Södertjej

Gavril said:


> So you seem to be saying that the use of [z] in (some dialects of) Spanish is not a tendency. If it's not a tendency, what do you think it is? I'm just trying to understand your position.


You talked about "tendencies" and to me that is something that is more or less common and expanding. Not the case of voiced s in Spanish. I don't seem to be saying anything but the fact that the Spanish s is voiceless, as you can read here. Even if some people may use a voiced s in their dialect,  it's not the common pronunciation either in Europe or America. Aspiring the s is common, voicing it is not. Whether it's an influence of their local language (quechua or whatever) or anything else, this is not the places to discuss it, since this is the Scandinavian forum. I just clarified that to avoid confusion for future readers.


----------



## Gavril

Södertjej said:


> You talked about "tendencies" and to me that is something that is more or less common and expanding.



A tendency can be strong or weak. I didn't mean to say that this particular tendency was a strong one (it isn't, in my experience).


----------



## Södertjej

In this case so weak that's not the standard pronunciation in any variety of Spanish.


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> I understood it to mean a local variation, like he mentioned, a tendency would suggest an innate disposition to pronounce this sound for all speakers, however in one local variation of the language this can be heard.
> 
> What he mentioned is "a distinction between a tendency _and a standard feature_", this wasn't mentioned, only that it was not a tendency (therefore for all speakers), but just for a variation in a local district.
> At least I hope I understood this conversation so far.
> 
> @ Gavril: I'm trying to get in touch with an Icelander through MSN and ask them to give this thread a read and add his opinion, hopefully won't be long!



If you do get in touch with the person, I'd like to add another question: 

In words such as _tjald, sjón _etc., is the glide pronounced more like a vowel (thus [tijald], [sijon])? If so, it might help explain why the glide has persisted as such.


----------



## kepulauan

Gavril said:


> As I understand it, Icelandic _sj- _and (-)_tj- _(as in _sjón, __tjald, __setja_ etc.) are pronounced [sj] and [tj]. This is a different situation from (e.g.) American English, where these consonant clusters would normally be pronounced "sh" and "tch" respectively: cf. the words _issue _and _future_.
> 
> Is there any tendency in actual (or historical) Icelandic pronunciation to pronounce _sj_ as "sh" or _tj_ as "tch"?
> 
> Thanks



I don't know IPA but I assume you mean something like palato-alveolar pronounciation of "sh".

All I can think of are some "non-words" like_ a-tshoo, choo choo, cheuuung_. Maybe when someone jokingly tries to deepen his voice (as for sj). Loanwords go completely alveolar for most people. 

I can't recall any regional accents either, neither past nor present.



Gavril said:


> If you do get in touch with the person, I'd like to add another question:
> 
> In words such as _tjald, sjón _etc., is the glide pronounced more like a vowel (thus [tijald], [sijon])? If so, it might help explain why the glide has persisted as such.



It is not. However a "thj" sound is possible.


----------



## Pont neuf

The sj sound in 'sjón' is pronunced in exactly the same way as the sj sound in the English verb 'show'.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Pont neuf said:


> The sj sound in 'sjón' is pronunced in exactly the same way as the sj sound in the English verb 'show'.


 
I really don't think it is. Did you look at the article Alex linked to about the differences between the numbers of sibilants in Icelandic and English? One part says:


> Here it's important to make an articulatory distinction between s and sh. Try not to use the Icelandic method of putting *j* (as in *y*ellow) after the s, and saying *sjopp* for *shop*.


As far as I can see, *sjón* has a _y_ sound that is completely absent from *show*. The Icelandic _s_ does sound more _sh_-y than the English _s_ to me, when followed by _j_, but it's definitely not the same as the English _sh_.

*sjón* sounds to me like s(h)ee-yone collapsed into one syllable and with the initial sound produced with the tongue forward near to the teeth.

*show* has no _y_ or _i_ sound. The initial sound is produced further back, by passing air between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, and is softer than the initial sound of *sjón*.


----------



## Gavril

Silver_Biscuit said:


> I really don't think it is. Did you look at the article Alex linked to about the differences between the numbers of sibilants in Icelandic and English? One part says:
> 
> As far as I can see, *sjón* has a _y_ sound that is completely absent from *show*. The Icelandic _s_ does sound more _sh_-y than the English _s_ to me, when followed by _j_, but it's definitely not the same as the English _sh_.
> 
> *sjón* sounds to me like s(h)ee-yone collapsed into one syllable and with the initial sound produced with the tongue forward near to the teeth.
> 
> *show* has no _y_ or _i_ sound. The initial sound is produced further back, by passing air between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, and is softer than the initial sound of *sjón*.



Would you say that the _tj- _of _tjald_ is pronounced like the _sj- _of _sjón_ with a [t] at the beginning?


----------



## kepulauan

This seems to be going in circles. These sounds could possibly be used by young unintelligent males trying to be cool or funny, but that would not be a tendency or variation. Of course they would fail at the funny/cool goal because they are just idiots. It is also possible if you speak slowly but i'ts even rare then.

_Tch_ can be written as _tsj_ (and would be alveolar) but there are simply no words that use it if i'm not mistaken. 

As for _sj_, I don't understand how _Køben _(a very hollow sound) gives an evidence towards _sj_ which is completely alveolar. If the tip of the tongue is positioned for _s_ it never leaves that position. The shape of the tongue only needs to move a couple of millimeters in order to reach _j_ so there is hardly any space for free-flowing air in between. This is different for _sh_ which can render _shio_ in the process. 

The people of Copenhagen use unusually soft pronounciation and I would not be surprised to hear someone say _Kjøben_, but I can't figure out how that might be the case in Iceland, a place where everyone denies the existence _sh_ in English!


----------



## Gavril

pollodia said:


> As for _sj_, I don't understand how _Køben _(a very hollow sound)



Could you explain what you mean by "hollow"?



> gives an evidence towards _sj_ which is completely alveolar. If the tip of the tongue is positioned for _s_ it never leaves that position. The shape of the tongue only needs to move a couple of millimeters in order to reach _j_ so there is hardly any space for free-flowing air in between.



Based on the languages I've studied or know something about, it's not at all uncommon for [sj]/[tj] to become "sh"/"tsh" or something close. I know that this change hasn't happened in standard Icelandic, but Silver_Biscuit said above that there is at least some tendency toward it.



> The people of Copenhagen use unusually soft pronounciation and I would not be surprised to hear someone say _Kjøben_



Again, could you explain what you mean by "soft"? 

I now realize that my Danish example was not a very good one in this case, because it involves the insertion of the sound [j] (which is already there in _sjón _etc.), rather than the influence of [j] on a preceding consonant.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Gavril said:


> Silver_Biscuit said above that there is at least some tendency toward it.


 
Don't listen to me! I am _not_ a native, or even fluent, speaker, nor do I live in Iceland, so I have no real idea about this question. I was just saying how *sjón* sounded to me, when I have heard it in films, etc. If Icelanders can't recognise the English *sh* sound properly, then it is quite possible that my foreign ears misinterpret the sounds of Icelandic.
To me, for example, the 'r' at the end of words like 'hundur' has a hint of the 'sh' sound as well, but I'm sure Icelanders would completely disagree.
The only things I'm sure about are that *sj* is not the same as *sh*, and that if I tried to speak Icelandic to a native, I would sound very English.


----------



## kepulauan

> Could you explain what you mean by "hollow"?



This example is not a closed vowel. But yes it was just a bad example and it doesn't invalidate your argument. So moving on...



> Again, could you explain what you mean by "soft"?



It is very soft as opposed to sharp or clear. Many consonants turn into soft g or j and  vowels are not very stable. But I'm no expert on that matter.



> I know that this change hasn't happened in standard Icelandic, but Silver_Biscuit said above that there is at least some tendency toward it.



Well, depends on what "tendency toward it" means. If it has been recently observed live then it's just something I've missed and I stand corrected. If it means that the glide is easy to make then it is very much true. But I can only imagine it happening on some person-specific occasions like:

1. You lose your place mid-sentence or otherwise prompt to spek slowly.
2. You are trying to be cool somehow.
3. You are sick in bed or coming from a dentist's appointment.
4. You have been reading Silver Biscuit's example repeatedly.

But as a regional variation or temporary fashion wave I find it unlikely though I can't rule it out. I don't remember any accent being described this way.
Perhaps _skæri_ vs _skjæri _makes sense. I don't know.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Perhaps _skæri_ vs _skjæri _makes sense. I don't know.


 
"K" before Ash (æ) takes on a gliding j-like sound anyway even if it's not written that way, doesn't it? I saw a professor from Háskoli Íslands mention this, the way you say "skæri" would be like it is spelt "skjæri".


----------



## Pont neuf

Silver_Biscuit said:


> I really don't think it is. Did you look at the article Alex linked to about the differences between the numbers of sibilants in Icelandic and English? One part says:
> 
> As far as I can see, *sjón* has a _y_ sound that is completely absent from *show*. The Icelandic _s_ does sound more _sh_-y than the English _s_ to me, when followed by _j_, but it's definitely not the same as the English _sh_.
> 
> *sjón* sounds to me like s(h)ee-yone collapsed into one syllable and with the initial sound produced with the tongue forward near to the teeth.
> 
> *show* has no _y_ or _i_ sound. The initial sound is produced further back, by passing air between the tongue and the roof of the mouth, and is softer than the initial sound of *sjón*.



I have to disagree with you but admit I could be wrong although I find that difficult to believe. There is no difference in pronunciation of the sh- in show and the sj- in sjón as far as I can see. I have just sat here for ten minutes pronouncing both words interchangeably and find no difference in the initial sound or location of tongue. There is one other possibility, though, that has not been mentioned here. What do we mean by 'English'? Is it British English, with all of its dozens of strongly different dialects (Look for example at the difference in pronunciation between Sunderland and Shropshire), American English (where strong dialects also occur, for example people from New England have a markedly different accent from those living in the Mid West or the Deep South) or Australian English, which is also markedly different from the other two. English is, in my opinion, not one, but several languages - although much has been made out of it being a single  "world" language by Oxford, Cambridge etc. That image has totally fallen apart, in my opinion, the differences in pronunciation are so marked, and spelling is also different in many cases, not to mention idioms. In Los Angeles, for example, "pulling the pin" means, if the speaker is a policeman, that he is soon going to retire from the job. I know this sounds a bit off-track but how can we talk about "correct" pronunciation when the differences are so huge?


----------



## hanne

I think what is happening here is very similar to a recent discussion we had regarding the Danish soft d. Basically, being a native isn't a "sufficient qualification" to answer this question "correctly", so my guess is that you _are_ actually wrong, Pont neuf.

There are differences that are completely irrelevant to a native speaker, because you never need to distinguish between those two sounds (one only occurs in one language and the other only in another). Whereas some people with a "trained ear" (or whatever it is they use), can actually describe and agree on this difference. (that doesn't mean "describe" in a way that makes the rest of us understand or hear the difference!).

This is a difficult thing to explain, but I guess it's the kind of thing you get used to accepting after you've been around here for some time. I hope it was helpful...


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Pont neuf said:


> I know this sounds a bit off-track but how can we talk about "correct" pronunciation when the differences are so huge?


 
There are _no_ English accents or dialects that pronounce *show* as *sjó*. Variations in accent will only change the vowel sound in that word; *sh *is pronounced exactly the same by all native English speakers. *Sj* seems to be *s* immediately followed by *j* (or *y* in English terms). *Sh* has nothing really to do with *s*, just as *th* has nothing to do with *t* nor *ch* with *c*. It could easily have its own letter, like how Icelandic has *þ* and *ð* instead of expressing those sounds by consonant combinations.
When I hear an Icelander saying *sjón* or something with the same sound in it, I may not be able to reproduce it perfectly myself, but I can definitely hear that it isn't *sh*, which we do produce with the tongue further back than for *s*. 
Imagine saying the two English words *bass* and *yoke* in quick succession. If you are saying that the same as you would say *bash* *oak* then you are not getting *sh* quite right.
I tend to pronounce *sj* in Icelandic as I would the middle sound in *bass-yoke*, but I don't know whether that's exactly right. I think I would probably sound ridiculous if I tried to say *shown* for *sjón*. Listen to the little clip on this page, does it sound like *sjón* to you? I'm just curious.


----------



## Gavril

Silver_Biscuit said:


> There are _no_ English accents or dialects that pronounce *show* as *sjó*.



Though, correct me if I'm wrong, there is a secondary "sh"/"tch" in British English that shows this alternation: for example, isn't the word _tune _pronounced "choon"/ "tyoon"?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Gavril said:


> Though, correct me if I'm wrong, there is a secondary "sh"/"tch" in British English that shows this alternation: for example, isn't the word _tune _pronounced "choon"/ "tyoon"?


 
I'd say that was very rare pronunciation, but true nontheless.
Also, it doesn't back up the comment about the relevant question, this is related to how a minute proportion of Brits pronounce the word 'tune', it doesn't reflect the 'sh' pronunciation, as this is 'tch' we're talking about.

The point raised by the variation you mentioned has zero connection with 'sjó / show', the application of the [j] after [t] does not mean that in these same dialects that the pronounciation of [s] / [ʃ] includes a [j] sound.

In the word 'show', we would all be united by using [ʃ] and not including a [j] sound.
What example did you have in mind for an alternative pronunciation of "sh" ?


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> I'd say that was very rare pronunciation, but true nontheless.
> Also, it in no way backs up any comment about the relevant question, this is related to how a minute proportion of Brits pronounce the word 'tune', it doesn't reflect the 'sh' pronunciation, as this is 'tch' we're talking about.
> 
> The point raised by the variation you mentioned has zero connection with 'sjó / show', the application of the [j] after [t] does not mean that in these same dialects that the pronounciation of [s] / [ʃ] includes a [j] sound.
> 
> In the word 'show', we would all be united by using [ʃ] and not including a [j] sound.
> What example did you have in mind for an alternative pronunciation of "sh" ?



None: I agree that the older English [ʃ] (from Germanic _*sk_) is not pronounced as [sj] anywhere (in the English-speaking world), at least that I've heard of. I was talking about newer English [(t)ʃ], which usually comes from earlier [tj]/[sj]. We should probably move to an English discussion group if we're going to discuss this any further.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ah ok so what you were talking about wasn't as a result of the discussions based on "sh" / "sjó" ? It seemed to me that what you were saying affected the discussion but now I see it was a separate point, but on the same lines of your question (my apologies).

We do have a rare pronunciation of "tyoon" without the "ch" sound, but it's quite rare, really rare I'd say, did you want a confirmation of the variation?
Discussions further would probably be better in Etymology & History of Languages, since we're talking about developments of sounds.


----------



## Pont neuf

I think what has happened here is that people are getting defensive regarding their (theoretical) position. A question is asked and answers are given, if somebody does not like the answer or answers well then so be it. If a difference in pronunciation is so small that only a handful of specially trained people can hear it, then my question is: does the difference really exist? Just because somebody published an article, does that make the article a final truth? What I ask is people keep an open mind, that is all.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Pont neuf said:


> I think what has happened here is that people are getting defensive regarding their (theoretical) position. A question is asked and answers are given, if somebody does not like the answer or answers well then so be it. If a difference in pronunciation is so small that only a handful of specially trained people can hear it, then my question is: does the difference really exist? Just because somebody published an article, does that make the article a final truth? What I ask is people keep an open mind, that is all.


 
Very wise statement!


----------



## Södertjej

Couldn't it be that what a native Icelandic speaker considers just one sound is clearly perceived as two sounds in another? We know examples from other languages where natives of one produce one single sound that to them is just the same as two different ones in the other. Natives speakers of the other language immediately tell apart one from the other.


----------



## Silver_Biscuit

Södertjej said:


> Couldn't it be that what a native Icelandic speaker considers just one sound is clearly perceived as two sounds in another? We know examples from other languages where natives of one produce one single sound that to them is just the same as two different ones in the other. Natives speakers of the other language immediately tell apart one from the other.


 
I think that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Pont neuf

Thanks for the positive replies. It would be interesting to follow this matter to any sort of  conclusion, if possible. 

I wonder if a phonetic transcription of sjón and show would be helpful here? I do not have the resources for this immediately available, but I am sure somebody has access to them here. 

I have been away for a few days but this question has kind of stuck with me. Another possibility is, could it be that we are talking about a difference in tone level?
Such as exists in some Asian languages where a word seems to be pronounced in exactly the same way to non-native speakers, but the difference in pitch makes all the difference. Thus a noun (that sounds the same to an outsider, or almost the same) can have five totally different meanings in Thai according to the pitch or tone level of high-low-middle-rising or falling sounds? Just a thought.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yeah, this also got me thinking about a phonetics lesson I watched recently, where French / Italian speakers can't hear a difference between "sheep / ship" (well, with training they can but it's an extremely common mistake) so in _that case_, it's the natives that hear the difference and the foreigners that can't... so in theory that could (I'm not saying it is) be applicable here (where Icelanders hear it and we don't), but I am of the believe *sjón* and *show* are different.

@ Pont, I'll get my dictionary:

*Sjón*, -ar, -ir [sjou:n, naṛ, nIṛ] f.2 sight; vision; _koma e-m fyrir sjónir_ appear to sbdy.
*show* /ʃ'oʊ/


----------



## Södertjej

Alxmrphi said:


> it's the natives that hear the difference and the foreigners that can't...


Exactly my point. Another typical example: Suedes speak with voiceless s so ice and eyes sound exactly the same when they pronounce it (except if it's Wilma) and most of them are not aware it should be a different sound.


----------



## kepulauan

I don't want to spoil the party but [sjou:n] and /ʃ'oʊ/ are both standard and normal as perceived by the majority and I believe Gavril has been trying to ask us whether there is a tendency for these sounds to deviate away from the standard.

In that case it doesn't matter if the natives can or can not tell the difference between two, three or six different _s_ sounds, the phonetics are intact. And personally I don't think that pitch difference between two persons alters their pronounciation that much, the consonants are more or less the same for the same word.

So to Gavril I just say the following:
_Sj-sh: unlikely
Tj-tsh: very very unlikely
_And that's probably the most accurate answer you can get without talking to someone who actually possesses recordings of several people saying these things.



Pont neuf said:


> I think what has happened here is that people are getting defensive regarding their (theoretical) position. A question is asked and answers are given, if somebody does not like the answer or answers well then so be it. If a difference in pronunciation is so small that only a handful of specially trained people can hear it, then my question is: does the difference really exist? Just because somebody published an article, does that make the article a final truth? What I ask is people keep an open mind, that is all.



Yup, and we are all guilty.


----------



## Gavril

Alxmrphi said:


> Yeah, this also got me thinking about a phonetics lesson I watched recently, where French / Italian speakers can't hear a difference between "sheep / ship" (well, with training they can but it's an extremely common mistake) so in _that case_, it's the natives that hear the difference and the foreigners that can't... so in theory that could (I'm not saying it is) be applicable here (where Icelanders hear it and we don't), but I am of the believe *sjón* and *show* are different.



This would be a case where only native speakers can tell that two sounds _aren't _different, which I've never heard of happening (which doesn't mean it can't happen).

Thanks to everyone who responded. The other day, I thought I heard a "sh"-like pronunciation of (I think)_ sjá _in an Icelandic song, but (especially after this thread) I don't think my ears alone can be trusted here.


----------

