Talk:Danish phonology

Similar to Norwegian and Swedish?

The phonology of Danish is similar to that of the other closely related Scandinavian languages, Swedish and Norwegian, but it also has distinct features setting it apart.

How is Danish phonology similar to those of the other two languages? In a meaningful way, of course … yeah, all three of them have consonants and vowels and lexical stress, but, you know … 2A02:3030:808:A8D1:5E4:87DB:152B:494B (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that there should be sources comparing those languages more explicitly which could be worked into the article. However, it's an unfortunate first sentence for other reasons, as that's not where comparison is most relevant. Replayful (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Capital letters?

In the “Vowel” section, under the “Morphophoneme–phoneme–phone correspondence” chart, there are the following: |ɛ| after |r| and before |∅, D| means /ɛ/ or /ɑ/ – phonetically [æ⁓ɑ], which are reälised [a⁓ɑ̈]. eg: “r**æ**kke”. ⸨[ɑ] (⟦ɑ̈⟧) are in innovative variëties⸩ … and … |a| after ≠ |r| and before |A| means /a/ – phonetically [æ], which is reälised [æ]. eg: “m**a**lle”

Under typical (archi)phonemic or natural class capital letter usage (as wildcards) (see http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Capital_letters), ⫽D⫽ means {alveölar consonant} and ⫽A⫽ means {open vowel}; however, the examples given do not concur with the listed tautosyllabic environment

So what do |D| and |A| mean in this article? Anterrobang (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"D" is for dorsal (palatal, velar or uvular), "A" for alveolar. On a device with a mouse pointer, the {{abbr}}-template creates a tootip, but it is not visible on mobile devices. @Nardog: We might have an accessibility problem here. –Austronesier (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Why there are two different phonetic symbols pointing to the same IPA symbol?

I made a change which got reverted: http://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Danish_phonology&oldid=1138081032

To my knowledge, Danish distinguishes these two sounds (ɔ and ɒ). Why are they pointing to the same IPA symbol article then? Radrow (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't have articles about IPA symbols, only ones about sounds. Symbols representing phonemes often don't match their values on the IPA chart because the IPA has only so many letters and because languages change. /ɔ/ is described to be [ɒ̽] so Open back rounded vowel is about the closest article to point to. Nardog (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

/ɒ/ is a marginal phoneme that occurs in about 5 words, if I remember correctly. If you ignore those words, /ɔ/ is the only short (phonetic) open back vowel in Danish, which is also true from the historical viewpoint (both /ɒ/ and /ɒː/ ultimately come from /ɔ(ː)r/). Sol505000 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The phoneme table is full of WP:easter eggs, since we link to the (default) phonetic value of these phonemes. While technically correct (I mean, we could even link Mark Hale's infamous Marshallese wingdings to their associated unmarked phones), is this actually a good idea? I'd suggest to remove the links in the phoneme table, and add them in the narrow IPA column of the following table. –Austronesier (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Danish soft d is clearly a mandibular (not alveolar) consonant!

I watched several Youtube videos from native Danish speakers, each of whom pointed out and showed where the "soft d" is being produced in their mouth. Clearly this is a mandibular (lower teeth) consonant. Not alveolar!

Specifically, the tongue blade is pressed flat into the lower teeth, to make a "voiced linguo-mandibular approximant."

We all agree it's not a sibilant, but whether it's a flat/laminal or lateral is debatable, since the tongue tip is so shmooshed flat into the lower teeth. However, it appears to me that it's more lateral than laminal, since so much of the tongue is pressed hard into the lower teeth, leaving only the sides to resonate. So I'd say it's more lateral than laminal. In fact, multiple Danish Youtubes went out of their way to contrast /l/ and "soft d", pointing to the upper teeth-alveolar ridge for /l/ and the lower teeth for "soft d". But commenting on their very similar sounds, otherwise.

There's also a velar coloring, approximately [ɤ]. (The alveolar /l/ phoneme is likewise velarized.)

So: "voiced lateral linguo-mandibular approximant with [ɤ]-coloring".

It's pretty annoying that the professional linguists sourced in the article (including native Danish linguists!) seem to all mis-characterize it as alveolar! What madness is this?

I don't know of any official IPA diacritic for mandibular articulations. But if no such diacritic exists, I'd suggest a double stacked dental sign beneath the [l]. Like this: [l◌̪◌̪ ɤ] (incorrectly rendered) or [ɫ◌̪◌̪ ], but with both dental diacritics stacked directly below, and superscript [ɤ]. Traversetravis (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You should read more about passive and active articulators. The passive articulator is the alveolar ridge, not the lower teeth. I think only interdental consonants involve the lower teeth at all. The active articulator is the tongue blade, not the tip (therefore, the sound is much different from the English [ɹ], which is apical postalveolar, or a velar bunched approximant which is different still). The easiest way to transcribe the Danish soft D is [ɹ̻ˠ] - a velarized laminal alveolar approximant. It is not dental, the teeth play no role in articulating the sound. The reason they can feel the tip of the tongue pressing against the lower teeth is because it has to go somewhere - it just rests there. If you ask a Polish person how to produce Polish /s, z/, they will also tell you to "press the tip of the tongue against your lower teeth". It's a sound non-expert advice on how to produce the sound, nothing more.

/l/ is not velarized in Danish, I don't know where you got that from. Sol505000 (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Did someone just "should" on me? :) You should listen and view Danish speakers saying the "soft d" in slow motion. (In this Talk post, I tried to link to several Youtube videos, but Wikipedia blocks Youtube links.)

The prominence of the stiff tongue-tip against the lower teeth (or even sometimes spilling over the lower teeth to become a "linguo-protruded inter-dental lateral approximant") is especially visible in one speaker.)

You say: "The passive articulator is the alveolar ridge, not the lower teeth."

Okay, I'm sure we both at least agree that that active articulator is the corona.

As for the passive articulator, our disagreement is whether the primary place of articulation and resonance is between the corona and the alveolar ridge (as you say), or whether the primary place of articulation and resonance is between the corona and the lower teeth.

I don't doubt that there's also some alveolar or (maxilliary) denti-alveolar "resonance" going on. Because basically, a resonant chamber is being formed between where the blade nears the alveolar ridge (at the top) and also (at the bottom), where the tongue-tip is pressed into the lower teeth. But it appears to me that the resonance could definitely be validly interpreted to be more prominently linguo-mandibular than laminal-alveolar. And, also importantly, it appears the main thrust of the articulation, as physiologically experienced by the speakers themselves, is the tongue thrusting against the lower teeth.

You are saying the lamino-alveolar resonant is more important, but my perception of those speakers suggests that the lateral linguo-mandibular resonance is more important.

You say: >> It is not dental, the teeth play no role in articulating the sound.

>>I think only interdental and labiodental consonants involve the lower teeth at all.

>>It's a sound non-expert advice on how to produce the sound, nothing more.

Have you watched an actual Danish speaker pronounce this sound?

You say: >>The reason they can feel the tip of the tongue pressing against the lower teeth is because it has to go somewhere - it just rests there.

You gave an example of Polish /s/ and /z/, and I can't speak to that, since I haven't watched a Polish speaker up close. But I do speak Mandarin -- and, like you say, the front-dorsal alveo-palatal sounds (ɕ t͡ɕ, etc.) do just passively rest the tongue tip down near the lower teeth.

However, if we watch the videos of Danish speakers, unlike in Chinese, the tongue tip is not just passively resting down there -- it is pressing hard against the lower teeth -- apparently as hard as a normal /l/ sound would press against the alveolar ridge or upper teeth.

Look, if hypothetically, we were to pronounce a voiced interdental approximant (a softened Spanish ð), and listen to it in slow motion, it too will have some sort of muddy incidental resonance near the alveolar ridge, since the tongue blade has to go so close to the alveolar ridge in order for the tongue-tip to reach the inter-dental area. But we wouldn't usually notate the alveolar resonance as primary. Not: **[ɹ̻⁀ð̪͆].

Similar, given the stiff pressing of the tongue against the lower teeth in Danish "soft d", I do feel it is actually not only scientifically valid to transcribe it as a mandibular lateral approximant [l◌̪◌̪ ˠ]--but also, such a notation would provide a graspable, comprehensible target for language-learners, in a way that the more abstract [ɹ̻ˠ] or [ð̠˕ˠ] do not.

However, if a true notation of this sound has eluded professional Danish linguists for decades, I don't expect a Lithuanian amateur and an American amateur to solve this issue. Thank you sir.

(P.S. You asked: >>:/l/ is not velarized in Danish, I don't know where you got that from.

In this regard, I may be mistaken; and that is not the point of my post. I saw sseveral examples in the videos, where a speaker would contrast final /-l/ and final "soft d", and the /-l/ in those words did display a centralized or velarized /l/, even after front vowels. But that might've just been sort of schwa off-glide at the end of the vowel. IDK, but that's not my point. Apologies for any confusion or ignorance on my part with regard to this.) Traversetravis (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're questioning scientific literature on the basis of a bunch of Youtube videos. Ask yourself what's more reliable. Being a native speaker of Danish does not suddenly make one's claims about the Danish pronunciation more credible, especially in the context of replacing an already-sourced information in a Wikipedia article (see WP:RS). They have to do their research and read the literature just like the rest of us. You wouldn't expect an average native speaker of Danish to be able to write a book on Danish grammar, would you? It's a good analogy.

See e.g. [1]. You need more than to see the lips, teeth and tongue to determine the exact place of articulation. Feeling your tongue is also not enough, at least not if you're not a trained phonetician.

Spanish [ð] is dental because the tip of the tongue touches the upper teeth, which makes them the passive articulator. Also, the Spanish sound varies between an approximant and a fricative. It's definitely dental because that's where the narrow channel (needed to produce the fricative) is created, and the approximant version is just a relaxed version of that. There's no question about this in the literature, not that I'm aware of.

However, if a true notation of this sound has eluded professional Danish linguists for decades, I don't expect a Lithuanian amateur and an American amateur to solve this issue. Thank you sir. For an amateur you sure do make a lot of definite claims going against the literature. Turn off Youtube for a change and read some books. Sol505000 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to see if there were x-ray, ultrasound, or MRI images of the articulation of Danish /ð/, but I couldn't find any. This 2020 paper said "We are considering conducting ultrasound and palatography studies", so hopefully there will be. But until then, there's nothing to do to the article, even if we agreed that the current description was inaccurate, because we go by what's verifiable in reliable sources, not original research. Nardog (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's already evolved into a vowel of an [ɤ] type, see e.g. [2]. But that still doesn't involve the lower teeth in any way. In fact, the articulation would move away from the teeth in this case, becoming fully velar (rather then velarized). Sol505000 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's impossible to articulate a laminal alveolar approximant with the tongue tip approaching or even touching the lower front teeth, but what Traversetravis seems to be missing is that even if that were the case we wouldn't call it a mandibular (or whatever) consonant, because the place of articulation is determined by where the constriction occurs (I don't even know how one can direct pumonic airflow so it's constricted between the tongue tip and the lower teeth, without at least first constricting it further back in the oral cavity). Nardog (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Using [ɤ] for the ‘soft d’ is by far the most controversial part of Ruben’s notation, precisely because it misrepresents the sound as being primarily velar, rather than alveolar.

By far the most common pronunciation has the main constriction at the alveolar ridge, with a lesser constriction further back (velar and/or pharyngeal) and either the tip of the tongue resting against the inner ‘wall’ of the lower teeth or the bottom of the blade of the tongue resting on the lower incisal edge (the two are, I would say, in completely free variation and vary randomly even within the same speaker).

Traversetravis’ claim that the tongue tip “is not just passively resting down there -- it is pressing hard against the lower teeth” is plain false. I’m sure it’s possible to do that, but it is absolutely not the norm. Kokoshneta (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am Dane. My tongue doesn't touch the lower teeth. --Madglad (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yours may not, but it is completely standard for the tongue to be resting on the lower teeth when producing /ð/. As a fellow Dane, I cannot pronounce /ð/ without my tongue touching the lower teeth – if I move my tongue away from the lower teeth, it becomes an entirely different, /ɹ/-like sound. Kokoshneta (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)