Very interesting to see how very distantly related languages can share features.
In Norwegian we have tones (two in our case), just like many African and Asian languages. But tonal languages are very uncommon in Europe, only found in Norwegian, Swedish, Scottish Gaelic, Lithuanian, Serbian, Croatian, and Limburgs.
The two tones often differentiates between words with different meanings:
tone 1 - fryser /'fryser/ = freezes
tone 2 - fryser /'fry-'ser/ = freezer
Another strange feature of Norwegian phonology:
Quote:
The word ja "yes" is sometimes pronounced with inhaled breath (pulmonic ingressive) in Norwegian — and this can be rather confusing for foreigners.
Similar to its Scandinavian neighbour languages, Norwegian places the definite article behind the noun, in all thre genders:
artikkelen = the article
meninga = the meaning
systemet = the system
This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table
den lille hunden min = the little dog the mine = my little dog
Normal "European" determination can also be used in Norwegian:
min lille hund = my little dog
but this sounds Danish / posh / poetical.
And just as in German, Nynorsk Norwegian uses gender-specific pronouns:
Kor er boka? Har du sett henne?. = Where is the book? Have you seen her?
Deborah wrote:
Quote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.
Perhaps an outsider can help you guys with a very distinct feature of English: The absence of "clear", undiphtongized vowels, something which makes any English-language pronounciation guide to any other foreign languages rather cumbersome. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
[quote="Fredrik"]Another strange feature of Norwegian phonology:
Quote:
The word ja "yes" is sometimes pronounced with inhaled breath (pulmonic ingressive) in Norwegian — and this can be rather confusing for foreigners.
Yes, there are some languages (although, very few) in the world that are pulmonic ingressive, such as Sindhi, a language of India.
Fredrik wrote:
This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table
den lille hunden min = the little dog the mine = my little dog
Normal "European" determination can also be used in Norwegian:
min lille hund = my little dog
but this sounds Danish / posh / poetical.
This also occurs in Scottish Gaelic except that it the determiners are used with the definite articles:
an bord seo = this table [literally: the table this]
am balach siud = that boy over there [literally: the boy that over there]
a' bho sin = that cow [literally: the cow that]
Tagalog is even stranger because it uses the same determiner twice.
Frederik wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Quote:
Let's see...peculiarities of the English language...nope, there are none. English is the most regular and logical language in the world.
Perhaps an outsider can help you guys with a very distinct feature of English: The absence of "clear", undiphtongized vowels, something which makes any English-language pronounciation guide to any other foreign languages rather cumbersome.
I can think of a few English peculiarities:
No other languages form their question like the English - Do you do that?
Does he know how to write?
Don't they have it?
And these too:
He did see her.
We did do this.
English does have many diphthongs. Even if a word is composed of just one vowel letter, the speaker tends to pronounce it as if it is a diphthong. Although, not in Scotland.
The basque is considering isolate, but some similarities can be observed with other isolate as japanese, Turkish, Native-American languages:
exemple:
Saldu(english Sold)
GORA (serbo-croatian GORE): at the top.
BI (latin BIS): Two.
EGUN (sanscrit AHAN): day.
ERDI (sanscrit ARDHA), half.
LAPUR (serbo-croatian LOPOV), thief .
ETCHE (greek OIKIA), house.
ELKAR (dutch, ELKAAR, ELKANDER): together, mutually
TCHAR, TXAR (armenian TCHAR): bad
HIRU (hungarian HAROM; finland KOLME), three.
HILTZE (hungarian HALNI; turkish EULMEK; finland KUOLLA), to die.
HORA (finland KOIRA), dog.
ATE (hungarian AJTO), door.
AITA (hungarian ATYA), door.
BOST (turkish BECH; finlandais VIISI), bost.
BESTE (turkish BACHKA), other.
NORA (turkish NEREYE), where, (lat. QUO).
BARATZE (turkish BAKHTCHE): garden.
DIRA (turkish DIRLER): they are.
TOKI (japonais TOKOR): location
NAGUSI (japanese NUSHI), lord.
HORI (japanese KORE), this.
HAGUIN (japanese HA): tooth.
GARE (basque sp. GERA; japanese ARU), we are.
ZARE (basque sp. ZERA; japanese ARU), you are.
Basque: MUTIKO ( M from P latin) ETA (or TA) MIRABEARI.
Japanese: MUSUKO TO MUSUME NI: To the boys and to the girls.
EGUN, day (to EG-UN), compare to the turc GUN, day; in ESKAR, thanks (to ESK-AR), compare to the arabic CHUKR, thanks, and in BAKARIK (to BAT-GARIK), only, compare to the japanese BAKARI, only, juste.
This opens for a lot of determination, often double determination, just as in Daniel's Tagalog example:
dette bordet = this table the = this table
Ew, that exists in some Swedish dialects... it's det här bordet!
Särskrivning is a mistake in written Swedish that I can't stand. It's when composite words are written in two or more words. It looks extremely uneducated and ugly. Composite words is something you should know when you're in school but särskriving (apart writing) is still a rather common phenomenon. Sometimes the meaning changes into something totally different when you don't put words together like you're supposed to.
Here's a rather extreme example I found on wikipedia.
Brunhårig sjuksköterska = Brown-haired nurse
Brun hårig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse
Brun hårig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse
I don't speak swedish and didn't hear it, but I'm surprised that there aren't some declensions as adjective suffixes. This would prevent the change of significance as well.
For example, if it would be: brunhårige sjuksköterska / brun hårige sjuksköterska then it would be evidently not a brown, hairy but brown-haired nurse But, if it would be sjuke sköterska, this would make it to be more like sick nurse, so this words must remain always one word: there's not an alternative
I'm wondering why's there not adjective agreement. Is sjuksköterska neutral, like in german Mädchen?
Brun hårig sjuk sköterska = Brown hairy sick nurse
I don't speak swedish and didn't hear it, but I'm surprised that there aren't some declensions as adjective suffixes. This would prevent the change of significance as well.
For example, if it would be: brunhårige sjuksköterska / brun hårige sjuksköterska then it would be evidently not a brown, hairy but brown-haired nurse But, if it would be sjuke sköterska, this would make it to be more like sick nurse, so this words must remain always one word: there's not an alternative
Actually, brunhårige and hårige are already taken: when you're talking about a brown-haired or hairy male and involve the definite article you get the e at the end. "The brown-haired man" is den brunhårige mannen. Furthermore, "the brown-haired woman" is den brunhåriga kvinnan. More examples:
En hårig man - a hairy man. Man is an utrum-word i.e. the indefinite article is en.
Ett hårigt barn - a hairy child. Barn is a neutrum-word i.e. the indefinite article is ett, which affects the adjective, as you can see.
In plural the adjective is the same regardless of utrum, neutrum and in/definite article:
I'm wondering why's there not adjective agreement. Is sjuksköterska neutral, like in german Mädchen?
The -erska part implies that it's a female you're talking about. The masculine ending is -are. However, male nurses are usually called sjuksköterska as well. There was no adjective agreement because there was no article. Had there been one...
The brown-haired nurse - den brunhåriga sjuksköterskan.
Am I making any sense?
Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?
Yes thanks for explaining, I think that I understand it well.
So the m/f words (utrum) indefinite article is en and for neutral words ett This is exactly like ducth definite articles , where there's de and het although this is definite (not indef) the concept it's the same one.
Quote:
Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?
But, in your reply it's evident that there are suffixes, but that in the example there wasn't. It's because it wasn't after the definite article, no?
I don't undertsand why was it brunharig sjuksköterska After I've read your explication I would expect: brunhariga. Is this because it didn't have the definite article i.e. den brunhariga sj.....
Then it's bit the inverse of german in which the adjective agreement is lesser after the def article!!! swedish doesn't like to be the same as german!!! in dutch, the suffix remain the same if it's with the both (either) of article, but anyway dutch is *much* less complicated grammar than german. How comlicated is swedish? (I don't want to learn it, but it's inetresting to learn somethings)
LOL!! I've read your reply agian and this time with more concentration so I've seen that you've answered the questions i've posed in my preceding message. Silly me, I don't pay sufficient attention!!!!
Bye.
Yes thanks for explaining, I think that I understand it well.
So the m/f words (utrum) indefinite article is en and for neutral words ett This is exactly like ducth definite articles , where there's de and het although this is definite (not indef) the concept it's the same one.
You're most welcome!
Pauline wrote:
Walker wrote:
Why complicate things by adding suffixes to words when you can just put them together (and sometimes put an 's' inbetween them) to change their meaning?
But, in your reply it's evident that there are suffixes, but that in the example there wasn't. It's because it wasn't after the definite article, no?
Correct, and you're right, there are suffixes. I just meant that it's easier to put brun and hårig together than to write brunhårige or brun hårige like you suggested.
Quote:
I don't undertsand why was it brunharig sjuksköterska After I've read your explication I would expect: brunhariga. Is this because it didn't have the definite article i.e. den brunhariga sj.....
Correct again!
Quote:
Then it's bit the inverse of german in which the adjective agreement is lesser after the def article!!! swedish doesn't like to be the same as german!!!
Damn straight!
Quote:
in dutch, the suffix remain the same if it's with the both (either) of article, but anyway dutch is *much* less complicated grammar than german. How comlicated is swedish? (I don't want to learn it, but it's inetresting to learn somethings)
You don't? Swedish is not very complicated. We do inflect adjectives, as you've seen, but we don't conjugate verbs according to personal pronoun.
Pauline wrote:
LOL!! I've read your reply agian and this time with more concentration so I've seen that you've answered the questions i've posed in my preceding message. Silly me, I don't pay sufficient attention!!!!
Bye.
Don't worry about it. If you have more questions just throw them my way.
The verb "to do" is used quite a bit in English, while you won't find this in any other languages. In fact, I've never encountered another language that does.
English has the peculiarity of being the only IE language without grammatical gender. It also lost its formal pronouns and its plural "you" form which used to be "ye". That's why one has to add qualifiers to the word you when meaning a collective. In the US, examples are you all or y'all, yous, yinz (Pittsburgh PA) yous guys etc.
English has the peculiarity of being the only IE language without grammatical gender. It also lost its formal pronouns and its plural "you" form which used to be "ye". That's why one has to add qualifiers to the word you when meaning a collective. In the US, examples are you all or y'all, yous, yinz (Pittsburgh PA) yous guys etc.
I think Afrikaans is also without gender. Where I come from, if we are talking to a group of people we tend to say 'you lot'.
Hungarian is completely devoid of grammatical gender. What's more, there is no distinction of and he and she - the elegant and convenient umbrella term ő suffices. We use az when referring to inanimate (thus gender-neutral) beings, though. So, we have a hard time getting those gender pronouns right when speaking other languages.
However, I know that no-one cares... (maybe Bashar) _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
However, I know that no-one cares... (maybe Bashar)
Of course, I care. With an air of philosophical detatchment, of course. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
The Swedish fricatives /ɕ/ and /ɧ/ are often considered to be one of the most difficult aspects of Swedish pronunciation for foreign students. The combination of two such similar and fairly unique sounds as well as the large variety of partly overlapping allophones often presents difficulties for non-natives in telling the two apart. The existence of a third sibilant in the form of /s/ tends to confuse matters even more, and in some cases realizations that are labiodental can also be confused with /f/. /ɕ/ is in most dialects realized as [ɕ] and occasionally [ç], in this case almost identical to the German "ich"-sound. The exception is Finland Swedish, where the phoneme is affricated into [t͡ɕ] or [t͡ʃ].
The Swedish phoneme /ɧ/ (the "sje-sound" or voiceless palatal-velar fricative) and its allegedly double places of articulation is a difficult and complex issue that is still debated among phoneticians.[1] Though the acoustic properties of its [ɧ] allophones are fairly similar, the realizations can vary considerably according to geography, social status, age, gender as well as social context and are notoriously difficult to describe and transcribe accurately. Most common are various [ɧ]-like sounds, with [ʂ] occurring mainly in northern Sweden and [ɕ] in Finland. A voiceless uvular fricative, [χ], can sometimes be used in the varieties influenced by major immigrant languages like Arabic and Kurdish. The different realizations can be divided roughly into the following categories:
"Dark sounds" - [ɧ], and [x], most commonly used in the Southern Swedish Standard. Some of the varieties specific, but not exclusive, to areas with large percentage of immigrant population very commonly realize the phoneme as a voiceless uvular fricative [χ].
"Light sounds" - [ʂ], used in the northern varieties and [ʃ], and [ɕ] (or something in between) in Finland Swedish.
Combination of "light" and "dark" - darker sounds are used as morpheme initials preceding stressed vowels (sjuk, station; "sick", "station"), while the lighter sounds are used before unstressed vowels and at the end of morphemes (bagage, dusch; "baggage", "shower").
I don't know how much you can make out of this mumbo jumbo, but for the record, I use the "combination of light and dark". It's funny sometimes when non-natives try to pronounce the "darker sounds" as in "sjuksköterska", for example.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
But, if it would be sjuke sköterska, this would make it to be more like sick nurse, so this words must remain always one word: there's not an alternative 
If you have more questions just throw them my way.