# Italian: pronunciation of "nr"



## francisgranada

Hello!

The "historical" solution of _*n+r*_ in Italian in some cases is _*rr*_, e.g. _verrà _(<ve*nr*à <venirà), while in Spanish and French we have rather _*ndr*_, e.g. _vendrá_/_viendra_. In Italian this tendency (at least partially) exists even today, for example _Enrico _or _San Remo_ is sometimes spontaneousely pronounced [erriko] and [sarremo].   

Now, I've heard in the Italian TV to pronounce _San Remo_ as [sandremo] by native Italians (not more than 3 or 4 times, so I absolutely don't want to generalize anything) . My question is, if such phenomenon _really _exists (at least on a regional level) or this is rather an "individual pronountiation" of some persons ...  

Thnaks in advance


----------



## berndf

[nr]>[ndr] is an almost inevitable phonetic artefact in any language if you want to pronounce the sequence without a hiatus in between.


----------



## Kevin Beach

berndf said:


> [nr]>[ndr] is an almost inevitable phonetic artefact in any language if you want to pronounce the sequence without a hiatus in between.



I'm sorry, but I can say, for example, "Green room" and "Lone Ranger" without adding anything or introducing a hiatus. Maybe it's because the standard BrE "r" is lighter than in most other places, but it is audible nonetheless.


----------



## berndf

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm sorry, but I can say, for example, "Green room" and "Lone Ranger" without adding anything or introducing a hiatus. Maybe it's because the standard BrE "r" is lighter than in most other places, but it is audible nonetheless.


Your language doesn't have an [r] (unless you speak Scots). In your examples you say [nɹ] and not [nr].


----------



## Ёж!

berndf said:


> Your language doesn't have an [r] (unless you speak Scots). In your examples you say [nɹ] and not [nr].


  Therefore, [nr] > [ndr] is not inevitable. The [r] sound can change; or, nothing at all probably can happen. In Russian, the combination /nr/ is very common, both inside words and on the borders, although the /r/ is seldom a real trill.

 It seems like there are always options, nothing is inevitable, nothing in development of languages is governed by laws, and so no change can be really 'explained', it can only be described: how long did it take to happen, what events accompanied the changes, what happened earlier, what happened afterwards, etc.


----------



## berndf

Ёж! said:


> Therefore, [nr] > [ndr] is not inevitable.


I am not sure what you mean. [ɹ] is not the same sound as [r] and we are talking about [r] here because that is the sound of the letter <r> in Italian. If in a different language this letter is pronounced differently then this has simply nothing to do with it. My argument is about the sound [r], not about the phoneme /r/ and certainly not about the letter <r>.


----------



## marrish

As *Ёж! *said, it is common in Russian as in *нр*авиться, по*нр*авиться and it is not the case of the letter only but the phoneme [r], also in Urdu چُنری [t͡ ʃʊnriː]


----------



## berndf

marrish said:


> As *Ёж! *said, it is common in Russian as in *нр*авиться, по*нр*авиться and it is not the case of the letter only but the phoneme [r], also in Urdu چُنری [t͡ ʃʊnriː]


And it exists there too: нравиться. The artefact of a voiced alveolar plosive is quite clear. [n] and [d] share the same alveolar closure, they differ in that [n] allows airflow through the nose by lowering the velum. An alveolar [r] starts with the tongue in the same position. If the velum is raised, thereby producing a stop, a bit before the trill or flap of the alveolar [r] starts, the voiced alveolar stop is produced. This is a pure artefact of way the transition from [n] to [r] is produced, not a consciously produced sound. In the sample pronunciation of нравиться above, the airflow through the velum is blocked 30ms before the alveolar closure is released. This produces a nice [d] with VOT=-30ms.

In the attached graph of the beginning of the recording, I marked the [n], the [r] and the beginning of the [a]. In between [n] and [r] you can clearly see the transition phase of 30 ms that produces, if you want to call it so, "illusion" of a [d].


----------



## Ёж!

Even if it exists, it cannot be heard. . Or is my native ear deluding me? Sorry for misunderstanding; now I see what you meant by "phonetic artefact".


----------



## berndf

Ёж! said:


> Even if it exists, it cannot be heard. . Or is my native ear deluding me?


Of course, as literate native speaker who knows what it is supposed to mean you correct for such effects. But in purely spoken languages like Proto-Romance it is quite conceivable that when a vernacular is finally written that some authors opt for <ndr> and others for <nrr> or <nr>.

By the way, I as a non-Russian speaker heard the [d] loud and clear but needed to listen twice more to hear the [n].


----------



## marrish

berndf said:


> And it exists there too: нравиться. The artefact of a voiced alveolar plosive is quite clear. [n] and [d] share the same alveolar closure, they differ in that [n] allows airflow through the nose by lowering the velum. An alveolar [r] starts with the tongue in the same position. If the velum is raised, thereby producing a stop, a bit before the trill or flap of the alveolar [r] starts, the voiced alveolar stop is produced. This is a pure artefact of way the transition from [n] to [r] is produced, not a consciously produced sound. In the sample pronunciation of нравиться above, the airflow through the velum is blocked 30ms before the alveolar closure is released. This produces a nice [d] with VOT=-30ms.
> 
> In the attached graph of the beginning of the recording, I marked the [n], the [r] and the beginning of the [a]. In between [n] and [r] you can clearly see the transition phase of 30 ms that produces, if you want to call it so, "illusion" of a [d].
> View attachment 12124


I have to pass on this! Thank you for the elaboration but I'm not an expert on phonology and I don't understand it, frankly speaking. Would it be possible for you to share with me, possibly by PM, in which way it is possible to analyze recordings as you did?


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> [nr]>[ndr] is an almost inevitable phonetic artefact in any language if you want to pronounce the sequence without a hiatus in between.


Yes, the reason is clear to me, but I "normally" hear rather [rr] in my examples, which seems to be a more typical solution to resolve "the problem" of articulating n+r in Italian, that's why my question.

As to *нр*авиться, the graph you have provided is interesting, and I confirm that I _can _hear this short [d].


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> Yes, the reason is clear to me, but I "normally" hear rather [rr] in my examples, which seems to be a more typical solution to resolve "the problem" of articulating n+r in Italian, that's why my question.


This _solution_ is unavailable, if _-n_ and _r-_ from different words join.


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> The "historical" solution of _*n+r*_ in Italian in some cases is _*rr*_, e.g. _verrà _(<ve*nr*à <venirà), while in Spanish and French we have rather _*ndr*_, e.g. _vendrá_/_viendra_.


Old Spanish also had assimilated forms (_te*rr*á_, _ve*rr*á_, _po*rr*á_; mod. _ten*d*rá_, _ven*d*rá_, _pon*d*rá_). And there were two other solutions for resolving _nr_:

reinforcement of _r_ to _rr_: _venrán_ pronounced as _ven*rr*án_
metathesis: _tenré_ > _te*rn*é_, _venrie_ > _ve*rn*ie_, _ponrá_ > _po*rn*á_


----------



## Dan2

marrish said:


> As *Ёж! *said, it is common in Russian as in *нр*авиться, по*нр*авиться





berndf said:


> And (the [d]) exists there too: нравиться.  The artefact of a voiced alveolar plosive (= [d]) is quite clear.
> ...
> In the attached graph of the beginning of the recording, I marked the  [n], the [r] and the beginning of the [a]. In between [n] and [r] you  can clearly see the transition phase of 30 ms that produces, if you want  to call it so, "illusion" of a [d].
> View attachment 12124





Ёж! said:


> Even if it exists, it cannot be heard. .





berndf said:


> Of course, as literate native speaker who knows what it is supposed to mean you correct for such effects.


The facts are not as clear to me as they are to you, berndf.

In your waveform display, the [n] is very clear, and I agree with your labeling of the [n].  Under your analysis, if we remove this [n], and _only _the [n], we should hear "dravitsa", since you've identified the unlabeled segment that remains as a [d] or at least as producing the perception of a [d].  On the other hand, if Ёж is correct and there is no [d] to be heard in the word as normally spoken, then we should hear "ravitsa" after removing the [n].  View attachment ravitsa.mp3 is the original word with the [n] removed.  What I hear, listening purely phonetically, seems more like "ravitsa", but I would like to know how Ёж (and any other Russians) hear it.

Furthermore, if we remove both the [n] and the unlabeled portion of the waveform, what's left is what you have labeled as [r] plus the rest of the word.  However without the segment you identify as [d]-like we do not hear a convincing Russian /r/; it is necessary to include the unlabeled segment to get a good Russian [r].  This would seem to be an additional argument that that unlabeled segment is simply part of the [r], not a "linking [d]" introduced by the adjacent [n] and [r].  (berndf of course knows this, but for anyone who might not: the Russian /r/ is very different from the German and English "r"'s (which are again different from each other).)


berndf said:


> By the way, I as a non-Russian speaker heard the [d] loud and clear but needed to listen twice more to hear the [n].


And I, also a non-Russian, but with a substantial knowledge of Russian, heard, from first listening, the [n] loud and clear, but no [d].  I say this not to claim that I'm "right" and you're "wrong" but rather just as one more example of how people with different linguistic backgrounds can hear the same thing very differently.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> ... as one more example of how people with different linguistic backgrounds can hear the same thing very differently.


Quite so.


----------



## Maroseika

berndf said:


> By the way, I as a non-Russian speaker heard the [d] loud and clear but needed to listen twice more to hear the [n].



Looks like you are quite right here. In general, -нр- is very untypical for Russian and is mostly encountered in the adopted words. Probably, the only Russian root with нр is нрав-, which was loaned from Church Slavonic instead of proper Russin норов.
But the variants *ндрав *instead of нрав and *ндравиться *instead of нравиться were widely spread in low colloquial Russian even in the recent times:

Генерал, зная «ндрав» раненых вообще, ничего не сказал на такую вольность и остановил офицера, хотевшего дать заметить солдату его бесцеремонность. [В. В. Верещагин. Литератор (1894)]

В Матёре не до болезней было, тут и фельдшерицы не усиживали: приедут, поглядят, что кругом вода, а народ занятой, не хворый, и назад. ― Как там ― ндравится? ― осторожно спросила у Сони Дарья. [Валентин Распутин. Прощание с Матёрой (1976)]

Мало добиться того, чтобы люди не говорили выборá или мне ндравится. [К. И. Чуковский. Живой как жизнь (разговор о русском языке) (1962)]

Probably, another example is тундра < Fin. tunturi (tundra).


----------



## Ёж!

Maroseika said:


> Looks like you are quite right here. In general, -нр- is very untypical for Russian and is mostly encountered in the adopted words. Probably, the only Russian root with нр is нрав-, which was loaned from Church Slavonic instead of proper Russin норов.


     I do not think it makes much difference, whether the words like Монро (Monroe) are taken from a different language or not, if their pronunciation does not cause difficulties to Russians. In addition, -нр- occurs often enough on word boundaries, such as «мне был прода*н р*ом». The fact that the forms with the [d] inside exist, but are not used often, speaks rather to the assertion that the insertion of hearable [d] is not necessary as the language evolves (which I think *berndf* never contested, I think I got him wrong at first; he rather meant that there is always something between [n] and [r] when they are pronounced together).


----------



## francisgranada

Ёж! said:


> ... In addition, -нр- occurs often enough on word boundaries, such as «мне был прода*н р*емень»...


I have the impression that in this case there is a little pause (stop) between прода*н *and *р*емень. I.e. it is not pronounced as e.g. San Remo in Italian (as if it were *_sanremo_, one word). But correct me if I'm wrong ...


----------



## Ёж!

In _fast speech_, the [n] simply disappears. Otherwise, possibly. (Note I corrected my mistake; I took the word with the wrong sound first).


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> I do not think it makes much difference, whether the words like Монро (Monroe) are taken from a different language or not, if their pronunciation does not cause difficulties to Russians. In addition, -нр- occurs often enough on word boundaries, such as «мне был прода*н р*емень». The fact that the forms with the [d] inside exist, but are not used often, speaks rather to the assertion that the insertion of hearable [d] is not necessary.



I think it makes very big difference, as indigenous roots represent language patterns better than the words loaned thru literature. Words like жанр, Монро, генри were loaned from the languages where "r" had quite different nature than Russian "р", which is therefore nothing more than Russian adaptation of those foreign phonemes. The fact there is no one indigenous Russian word with -нр- means that for some reasons Russian language tends to avoid this combination (and not only Russian, as we can see from the previous discussion).
Literary language limits to some extent the natural language, that is why Russian ндрав is not standard since long ago. However this cannot change the fact that pronouncing -нр- needs some additional effort, and phoneme analysis demonstrates that normally this effort is not sufficent to eliminate "d" in "nr" completely. Orthography influences on the pronunciation but cannot fully overcome some natural obstacles.
As for the word boundaries, this is quite normal that unsuitable sounds combination appear sometimes in these places; the sensitive native usually tries to avoid it.


----------



## Ёж!

As for the word «жанр», I personally pronounce it with a vowel between [n] and the sound that should be [r], but is voiceless in my pronunciation. Again, no [d].  And I do not argue that pronouncing [nr], or, probably to the lesser degree, [nr'], does need effort, I only say that inserting [d] is not the only way to avoid it; one could manage in different ways, or simply live with it if it is common enough (the word «нравиться», as it expresses very common emotional reaction (to like), by itself is common), but does not cause unmanageable difficulties.


----------



## Maroseika

francisgranada said:


> I have the impression that in this case there is a little pause (stop) between прода*н *and *р*емень. I.e. it is not pronounced as e.g. San Remo in Italian (as if it were *_sanremo_, one word). But correct me if I'm wrong ...



I'd say, in slow distinct enunciation there is reduced vowel between продан and ремень. In fast speech it looks more like nazal n. But of course no "d" in between..


----------



## Maroseika

Ёж! said:


> I do not argue that pronouncing [нр] does need effort, I only say that inserting [d] is not the only way to avoid it.



Agree.


----------



## francisgranada

Maroseika said:


> ... In fast speech it looks more like nazal n. But of course no "d" in between..


I agree. This may be the case also in _Monro _and some other foreign words (reinforced/influenced by the French pronounciation).


----------



## Ёж!

francisgranada said:


> I agree. This may be the case also in _Monro _and some other foreign words too (reinforced/influenced by the French pronounciation).


 I don't think so. In the case of Monroe, both [n] and [r] are heard not much worse than in _не по нраву_. We are not exposed to French pronunciation nowadays, so it does not affect the processes. But maybe the stress on the second syllable does make [n] _somewhat_ less distinct (unlike in Генри).


----------



## bo-marco

Let's see this video: 
http://www.dizionario.rai.it/poplemma.aspx?lid=10040&r=39977
It seems like [saŋ'rɛmo] or [san'rɛmo].


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> Your language doesn't have an [r] (unless you speak Scots). In your examples you say [nɹ] and not [nr].


Norwegians pronounce _Henrik _without a "d" or a hiatus.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Norwegians pronounce _Henrik _without a "d" or a hiatus.


Yes, I agree. But sometimes artefacts happen in Norwegian as well. E.g. here (by "norsken") there is an inserted [ð].


----------



## إسكندراني

In Arabic - at least the classical sort - nr becomes rr, I can think of no examples where this doesn't happen.


----------



## Nino83

Hi *francisgranada*. 
As an native speaker I'd say that I pronunce the words "San Remo" and "Enrico" nasalizing the vowel before the "n" (dropping the "n"). 
In IPA I'd write it so: [sã remo] [ẽrico]


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino. Yes, that's probably the most "natural" way to pronouce nr in Italian. However, sometimes I hear [sarremo] and [errico]. As to "ndr", it was e.g. Dr Vespa in his program "Porta a porta" whom I heard to pronounce San Remo as [sandremo]. I've found it a bit unusual in Italian, that's why my question.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, you probably can hear [sarremo] and [errico] because the nasalization is very soft (or it can be totally absent). 
Is a way to say something without stopping the sound while speaking. 
You're right, [sarremo] is more natural to say than [sandremo]. (Bruno Vespa comes from Abruzzo that is far from France or Spain). 
There are other cases in which we double the consonant. 
For example after the preposition "a" when we say: "vado a casa" (I go home) we say [vado akkasa]. 
You can also note that in Italian there isn't [np] and [nb], you'll find only [mp] and [mb]. 
When we say: un bicchiere d'acqua we say [umbikkiere d'akkua].


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ...There are other cases in which we double the consonant. For example after the preposition "a" when we say: "vado a casa" (I go home) we say [vado akkasa].


Yes, but this phenomenon is not due to the articulation of two consecutive consonants, rather to the so called "raddoppiamento fonositattico": [akkasa] < [ad kasa]. Though, historically there _are _two consonants (d+k) ...


----------



## Nino83

Yes, you're right. 
In the case of "un bicchiere d'acqua" we change the "n" with an "m" because it's difficult to pronunce [nb] or [np] unless stopping the sound (like [nr]).


----------



## Ёж!

Nino83 said:


> In the case of "un bicchiere d'acqua" we change the "n" with an "m" because it's difficult to pronunce [nb] or [np] unless stopping the sound (like [nr]).


 Direi, [nr] è più difficile di [nb], perché il primo collegamento richiede di combinare usi differenti dello stesso spazio dietro i denti, invece di usare questo spazio per producere il primo suono, e poi usare le labbra per producere il secondo suono, come lo fa il collegamento [nb].


----------



## Nino83

Ёж! said:


> Direi, [nr] è più difficile di [nb], perché il primo collegamento richiede di combinare usi differenti dello stesso spazio dietro i denti, invece di usare questo spazio per producere *produrre* il primo suono, e poi usare le labbra per producere* produrre* il secondo suono, come lo fa il collegamento [nb].



Yes, the first is more difficult but if we're not speaking slowly and if we don't take a pause between _un_ e _bicchiere_ o _panino_, we say [umbikkiere] or [umpanino] all the time.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Maroseika said:


> ... The fact there is no one indigenous Russian word with -нр- .....



And what about нравиться?


----------



## Nino83

Hi, Francis. 
Some night ago I saw Porta a Porta and, it's true, Bruno Vespa says "sandremo"!  
I think that his pronunciation is quite unique and not so widespread.


----------



## francisgranada

Ciao Nino. Yes, due to the Festival all the nuances/variants of the pronunciation of San Remo could be heard on TV in the recent period. Quindi Bruno Vespa continua ad essere fedele alla sua pronuncia "sandremo" , invece p.e. Carlo Conti pronuncia una forte "rr" (_rremo_) e la "n" di _San_ diventa molto debole, a volte quasi non si sente (> come se dicesse  _sarremo_).


----------



## hadronic

إسكندراني said:


> In Arabic - at least the classical sort - nr becomes rr, I can think of no examples where this doesn't happen.



Can you cite one where it does?


----------



## sumelic

I found this: Assimilation in Classical Arabic: A phonological study.
It gives the example /min rabbikum/ --> [mirrabbikum] "from your lord" (p. 96). On this page and the following you can find some discussion about the assimilation of /n/ in Classical Arabic. A word-final /n/ (I think all cases of /n/ occuring completely word-finally without a following vowel in Classical Arabic are either in short function words or are the result of grammatical inflection, "nunation", rather than coming from the triliteral root of a content word) assimilates completely to a following /r/ across word boundaries. It also assimilates completely to w, y, m, and l though, as well as assimilating to the place of a following plosive, so I don't know if this says anything special about the "nr" cluster in particular. Also, I don't know if some of these assimilations might be optional rather than required—there are some assimilations that are used in tajwid, the recitation of the Qur'an, but are optional in ordinary speech.

The author of the paper writes on p. 99:


> This type of assimilation (complete regressive assimilation) is found only across word boundaries as in the above mentioned examples. Indeed, there are no such combinations of n+l or n+r in one word. To quote Slbawayh' statement: " We do not know of the occurrence of voweless /n/ before /r/ or /l/ in the same word; it would be difficult to pronounce it without assimilations and the result would be confused with similar geminated words when pronounced with assimilation.



Arabic triliteral roots have a lot of restrictions on which consonants can coexist and in what order; the restriction against /nr/ clusters suggests that these are phonologically sub-optimal.


----------



## hadronic

I never heard of this phenomenon in Arabic. In Hebrew,  it's a very classical phenomenon : most of vowel-less "n" fell, and the following consonant became geminated. 
Doesn't Arabic have "infa3ala" forms of roots beginning with n or l ?


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> Ciao Nino. Yes, due to the Festival all the nuances/variants of the pronunciation of San Remo could be heard on TV in the recent period. Quindi Bruno Vespa continua ad essere fedele alla sua pronuncia "sandremo" , invece p.e. Carlo Conti pronuncia una forte "rr" (_rremo_) e la "n" di _San_ diventa molto debole, a volte quasi non si sente (> come se dicesse  _sarremo_).



Si, Vespa lo dice sempre a modo suo  
La pronuncia di Carlo Conti è quella più comune.


----------

