Learning Swedish?

[Svarthjärtad]

Yeah... I got soo lost in this message and confused. I quit reading after a while - I just know it about Italian or Italy. But it is all good that we all get along or now understand eachother.
GREAT SUCCESS! *thumbs up & big smile like Borat - minus mustash and rediculous clothes*

 

[lefay82]

Yeah... I got soo lost in this message and confused. I quit reading after a while - I just know it about Italian or Italy. But it is all good that we all get along or now understand eachother.
GREAT SUCCESS! *thumbs up & big smile like Borat - minus mustash and rediculous clothes*

my messages????


anyway i discovered two nice things about my dialect, especially about the dialect spoken in Toscana's coast.

first: in italian we use to say QUESTO for this and QUELLO for that.
in my city we replace the QU with a V so we say VESTO and VELLO.
the possible origin is that we took from Latin, which used the V instead of the U after the Q like in POSTQVAM, so using the latin alphabet QUESTO becomes QVESTO and QUELLO becomes QVELLO, so G got lost and V is the only to be pronounced.

second: in italian the first and the second plural persons are NOI (we) and VOI (you).
we on the coast usually say NOARTRI, NOIALTRI, NOIARTRI which traslated would be something like "we others".
this brings back to spanish NOSOTROS
same thing with VOIALTRI = VOSOTROS

 

[Thidrek]

first: in italian we use to say QUESTO for this and QUELLO for that.
in my city we replace the QU with a V so we say VESTO and VELLO.
the possible origin is that we took from Latin, which used the V instead of the U after the Q like in POSTQVAM, so using the latin alphabet QUESTO becomes QVESTO and QUELLO becomes QVELLO, so G got lost and V is the only to be pronounced.

Sorry, but thats not right. Spoken and written language are different things, but get often confused nowadays, but one must not do that!

The Latin letter "V" was pronounced both and [w], depending on the context. [w] is spoken like "w" in English. Via Vulgar Latin -- the rural version of Latin spoken in the colonies, the modern Romanic languages derived from in the end -- [w] changed to [v] but with one exception: if it appeared after [k]. So "quod" remained [kwod] at first.

I presume that in your dialect the [k] (or [g]) got lost and [w] changed to [v] afterwards or directly, since there is no free [w] in Italian.

But due to low facts I just cannot say when it happened or what happened exactly.

 

[lefay82]

Sorry, but thats not right. Spoken and written language are different things, but get often confused nowadays, but one must not do that!

The Latin letter "V" was pronounced both and [w], depending on the context. [w] is spoken like "w" in English. Via Vulgar Latin -- the rural version of Latin spoken in the colonies, the modern Romanic languages derived from in the end -- [w] changed to [v] but with one exception: if it appeared after [k]. So "quod" remained [kwod] at first.

I presume that in your dialect the [k] (or [g]) got lost and [w] changed to [v] afterwards or directly, since there is no free [w] in Italian.

But due to low facts I just cannot say when it happened or what happened exactly.

i haven't understood what you wanted to say exactly, with all those W and K, which we don't have in our alphabet.
i know that the V was read like an U in words like quod or quam, but they were written qvod and qvam, so what i've read says that probably in the past we used the latin alphabet to write qvesto and then somebody mistaked the right pronounce of the V, pronouncing it V and not U, so we had first QVESTO and then 'VESTO.
but i just read it somewhere, don't know if it's exactly

 

[Defiance]

Sorry, but thats not right. Spoken and written language are different things, but get often confused nowadays, but one must not do that!

The Latin letter "V" was pronounced both and [w], depending on the context. [w] is spoken like "w" in English. Via Vulgar Latin -- the rural version of Latin spoken in the colonies, the modern Romanic languages derived from in the end -- [w] changed to [v] but with one exception: if it appeared after [k]. So "quod" remained [kwod] at first.

I presume that in your dialect the [k] (or [g]) got lost and [w] changed to [v] afterwards or directly, since there is no free [w] in Italian.

But due to low facts I just cannot say when it happened or what happened exactly.

Interesting , so the [w] became but was always written as "v"?

 

[Thidrek]

i haven't understood what you wanted to say exactly, with all those W and K, which we don't have in our alphabet.
i know that the V was read like an U in words like quod or quam, but they were written qvod and qvam, so what i've read says that probably in the past we used the latin alphabet to write qvesto and then somebody mistaked the right pronounce of the V, pronouncing it V and not U, so we had first QVESTO and then 'VESTO.
but i just read it somewhere, don't know if it's exactly

Excuse me, I thought it was kinda self-explenatory. Perhaps it's not ^^' Those letters in the brackets are phonetic letters. To understand my text, you only have to know that [k, w, v] are pronounced as the English letters "k, w, v" and the vowels like in Italian. Probably you've seen this kinda writing in dictionaries.

Now what I wanted to say: It is very unlikely that you say "vesto" because someone read it the wrong way. That's just not how language used to change back then. Especially concerning very essential words like pronouns and the like. They are quite conservative in most languages.

In vulgar latin (the step between ancient Latin and the coming up of the Roman languages) the sound [w], represented by "V" in the Latin alphabet, changed to [v] unless it was connected to [k], as in the letters "QV" in Latin alphabet.

So my theory is the following: The [k] or [g] sound in Italian, respectively, in front of [w] in words like "questo" just disappeared (that might happen, nothing special) and because a free-standing [w] is not part of the Italian language system, it changed to [v] coevally.

Do you get it now? ^^


@Defiance: No, [w] did not become . Both sounds were represented by the letter "V" in Latin alphabet and how you pronounced it was just a matter of context. So "via" was spoken [wia] (vs [via] in modern Italian) but "vt" was spoken [ut].

 

[lefay82]

Excuse me, I thought it was kinda self-explenatory. Perhaps it's not ^^' Those letters in the brackets are phonetic letters. To understand my text, you only have to know that [k, w, v] are pronounced as the English letters "k, w, v" and the vowels like in Italian. Probably you've seen this kinda writing in dictionaries.

Now what I wanted to say: It is very unlikely that you say "vesto" because someone read it the wrong way. That's just not how language used to change back then. Especially concerning very essential words like pronouns and the like. They are quite conservative in most languages.

In vulgar latin (the step between ancient Latin and the coming up of the Roman languages) the sound [w], represented by "V" in the Latin alphabet, changed to [v] unless it was connected to [k], as in the letters "QV" in Latin alphabet.

So my theory is the following: The [k] or [g] sound in Italian, respectively, in front of [w] in words like "questo" just disappeared (that might happen, nothing special) and because a free-standing [w] is not part of the Italian language system, it changed to [v] coevally.

Do you get it now? ^^


@Defiance: No, [w] did not become . Both sounds were represented by the letter "V" in Latin alphabet and how you pronounced it was just a matter of context. So "via" was spoken [wia] (vs [via] in modern Italian) but "vt" was spoken [ut].

the thing i still don't get is the difference between the sound of [w] and ....we only have one type of U in italian....so for me exists only one type of U.
i'm not good in phonetics sorry, i've learned english mostly by listening, and not at every obligatory school you're taught to read the phonetics on the dictionary, and also in english there are only few rules of pronounce, so when you learn them you're quite ready to read everything, with some exceptions of course...
when you speak of [w] i suppose you refer the w-sound like in "way", "waste" or "weather" , while when you speak about the to the sound of "use" or "utility" and not to the sound of "up" or "under"
the chaos generates from different phonetics between languages....so if should write those sounds in a figurated way, following my own language sound-rules, i would write (in the right order as above) uei, ueist, ueather, ius, iutility, ap, ander...so for me W is U and U is IU or A...what a chaos ahahahah

and last question.... what do you exactly mean with freestanding U? alone??? at the beginning of a word?
because there are words in italian that begin with the U
we have only few words with u followed by a vowel which is o like uomo (man) or uopo (necessity) or uovo (egg)
but a lot of words that begin with u followed by a consonant, like umanità (humanitity), uva (grapes) utile (usefull) and so on...

sorry for getting you mad :zombie:
i'm quite stubborn

mantis who is italian like me, maybe will understand of what i'm speaking about...at least i hope

 

[Thidrek]

the thing i still don't get is the difference between the sound of [w] and ....we only have one type of U in italian....so for me exists only one type of U.
i'm not good in phonetics sorry, i've learned english mostly by listening, and not at every obligatory school you're taught to read the phonetics on the dictionary, and also in english there are only few rules of pronounce, so when you learn them you're quite ready to read everything, with some exceptions of course...
when you speak of [w] i suppose you refer the w-sound like in "way", "waste" or "weather" , while when you speak about the to the sound of "use" or "utility" and not to the sound of "up" or "under"
the chaos generates from different phonetics between languages....so if should write those sounds in a figurated way, following my own language sound-rules, i would write (in the right order as above) uei, ueist, ueather, ius, iutility, ap, ander...so for me W is U and U is IU or A...what a chaos ahahahah

and last question.... what do you exactly mean with freestanding U? alone??? at the beginning of a word?
because there are words in italian that begin with the U
we have only few words with u followed by a vowel which is o like uomo (man) or uopo (necessity) or uovo (egg)
but a lot of words that begin with u followed by a consonant, like umanità (humanitity), uva (grapes) utile (usefull) and so on...

sorry for getting you mad :zombie:
i'm quite stubborn

mantis who is italian like me, maybe will understand of what i'm speaking about...at least i hope

I understand, what you mean. In a way and [w] are the same, since [w] is a so-called semi-vowel or semi-consonant and thus the consonantal version of . and yes, I mean the w-sound of weather. And is "u" like in Italian "gusto". No linguist will ever use for example for "u" in English "but" or something, cause those are standards. I just wanted to introduce this system, cause it makes things easier when interferring between languages.
The chaos generates from different orthographies!

And, well, I did not know there can be a "u" in front of a vowel. Seems to be a later development. So I suppose, "questo" -> "vesto" took place between the development from [w] to [v] and from whatever to "u" before o in the beginning of the word. Maybe I find something out using Wikipedia or Google. My knowledge about historical linguistics regarding Romanic languages is not that broad.

 

[lefay82]

I understand, what you mean. In a way and [w] are the same, since [w] is a so-called semi-vowel or semi-consonant and thus the consonantal version of . and yes, I mean the w-sound of weather. And is "u" like in Italian "gusto". No linguist will ever use for example for "u" in English "but" or something, cause those are standards. I just wanted to introduce this system, cause it makes things easier when interferring between languages.
The chaos generates from different orthographies!

And, well, I did not know there can be a "u" in front of a vowel. Seems to be a later development. So I suppose, "questo" -> "vesto" took place between the development from [w] to [v] and from whatever to "u" before o in the beginning of the word. Maybe I find something out using Wikipedia or Google. My knowledge about historical linguistics regarding Romanic languages is not that broad.

ok!!!
the important thing is that we have understood each other

and yes, you can find the u at the beginning of a word but only together with the o in those 3 cases (as far i remember now without checking the dictionary) but no words starting with ue or ua or ui.
of course you can find the u with other vowels in the middle of a word...a nice example is the word aiuola (4 vowels and only 1 consonant)

 

[Gaunerin]

Holy crap, what's going on in here?

 

[Thidrek]

ok!!!
the important thing is that we have understood each other

and yes, you can find the u at the beginning of a word but only together with the o in those 3 cases (as far i remember now without checking the dictionary) but no words starting with ue or ua or ui.
of course you can find the u with other vowels in the middle of a word...a nice example is the word aiuola (4 vowels and only 1 consonant)

I wonder where "uopo" is from. "uovo" stems from "ōvo" and "uomo" of course from "hōmo". The development of "ō" -> "uo" is quite common among Southern Romanic languages, c.f. Spanish "bueno".
But I've read on Wikipedia that in the Toscani dialects this change did not happen. So "buono" is still "bono". Can you prove that?


@Gaunerin: We went completely off-topic, but I like the way it changed^^

 

[lefay82]

Holy crap, what's going on in here?

a tornado has passed, me

 

[lefay82]

I wonder where "uopo" is from. "uovo" stems from "ōvo" and "uomo" of course from "hōmo". The development of "ō" -> "uo" is quite common among Southern Romanic languages, c.f. Spanish "bueno".
But I've read on Wikipedia that in the Toscani dialects this change did not happen. So "buono" is still "bono". Can you prove that?

complimenti!!!!!!

yes we use to cut the U in nearly every word with the uo-diphthong...
some examples:
ruota = rota (pronouced with an open O) -> wheel
nuovo = novo (same as above) -> new
tuono = tono and tuonare= tonare -> thunder, to thunder
fuoco = foco -> fire

but foco will be most probably pronounced fo'o, with an inhaled C (first O open, second closed)

another particularity is that we always cut the end of the verb at the infinite form, and then we put an accent on the last vowel
giocare = giocà (to play)
andare = andà (to go)
venire = venì (to come)

and i was forgetting..... i don't know where uopo comes from, but sincerily it is quite archaic, is still used but not so often, more in litterature than in spoken language....
funny that i found a Canto from Dante's Purgatory where some of those words i've written above can be found together (i was only searching for uopo):

"....e se, rivolto, inver' di lei si piega,
quel piegare è amor, quell'è natura
che per piacer di novo in voi si lega.

Poi, come 'l foco movesi in altura (muovesi in italian)
per la sua forma ch'è nata a salire
là dove più in sua matera dura...."

......


"E quei che m'era ad ogne uopo soccorso
disse: «Volgiti qua: vedine due
venir dando a l'accidia di morso»."


mantis said that is proud of speaking the dialect of his ancestors....and he is totally right!
but i'm proud too, to speak a similar dialect to Dante or Machiavelli or Petrarca or Boccaccio.....
i'm also proud that important persons like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Puccini (he lived in my city), Botticelli, Donatello and Giotto were born in Tuscany

 

[Disgustipated]

If I could be bothered reading them, the last few pages look like they would be vastly interesting.

 

[Thidrek]

That's interesting! But in spite of those dissimilarities the Tuscan dialects seemed to be the shape for modern standard Italian.

It's interesting anyway that in Italy the dialects are so damn different, that some even are considered to be languages of their own. But classifying is not that easy since there is a continuum from Italian to French for instance.

 

[lefay82]

That's interesting! But in spite of those dissimilarities the Tuscan dialects seemed to be the shape for modern standard Italian.

It's interesting anyway that in Italy the dialects are so damn different, that some even are considered to be languages of their own. But classifying is not that easy since there is a continuum from Italian to French for instance.

yes, it is because of litterature that tuscan became a model for creating the new italian language....read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolce_Stil_Novo

one of the most important italian writers, whether if a person could like it or not, is Manzoni. Manzoni was from Milan and he wrote is famous roman in his native language....after that he wasn't totally satisfied with his work so he came to Tuscany to "risciacquare i panni in Arno" (wash the laundry in Arno, which is the river that passes through Florence), that means he lived there for a while and rewrote the roman using our dialect.


we have tons of dialects. even in my region i'm able to say from where a person comes from listening to her. we have a lot of Vernacoli (a sort of dialects but softer) and even if we can undestand each other, is the phrase intonation that changes from a part of tuscany to another, and sometimes also some words.
but i can assure that i'm not able to understand dialects spoken in the north or in the south, and if i say that i cannot understand i want to mean that for me are like foreign languages....maybe i can catch one word or two in a entire speech.

 

[Gaunerin]

@Gaunerin: We went completely off-topic, but I like the way it changed^^

Yeah, I see that I always thought I was interested in linguistics (sort of) but this is too much of an advanced level for me

 

[Mantis]

Again, instead of complaining so much, try to explain the situation. Also, when my girl talked to her classmates that were from the south, they were very friendly at first, but when they heard her family was/is from the north they went like "Uh....oh....well... ciao, we gotta go!" How are people supposed to react to that?

Again, the situation is not easy to explain, being something 200 years long lasting (again I suggest you to look for questione meridionale where you'll surely find also something about your spanish "forefathers"), you're supposed to be a teacher so you should know that some matters cannot be explained in one page......, about your girlfriend complaining, it's also the other way around so I don't see all this bitching about southerns, that's how the world goes, a New Yorker will call redneck a guy from southern, and a southern would label a New Yorker as a snotty, she should be more open minded, for her sake....

 

[Mantis]

back (hopefully) to the point, speaking about german, how is this thing that before you had "th" and now only "t" for ex. in 1800 sturm und drang poets I read things like "thodt" instead of modern "Tod", is the same process underwent from old norse to modern scandinavian languages (for ex. Thorr -> Tor)?

 

[Thidrek]

Yeah, I see that I always thought I was interested in linguistics (sort of) but this is too much of an advanced level for me

don't wanna dispirit you, but those were just basics. "real" linguistics is far more complicated. especially when it comes to syntax or semantics.

but for me, linguistics is the most beautiful science in the world. it unites almost every other scientific discipline: the humanities, mathematics, psychology, physics, informatics, medicine, history, ethnology, etc.

i just love it <3

back (hopefully) to the point, speaking about german, how is this thing that before you had "th" and now only "t" for ex. in 1800 sturm und drang poets I read things like "thodt" instead of modern "Tod", is the same process underwent from old norse to modern scandinavian languages (for ex. Thorr -> Tor)?

Oh, "th" did not represent one or both of the English "th"-sounds [&#952;, ð] as in Old Norse. Those disappeared in the early 8th century, afaik. I don't really know, why they did that back then. Maybe just a habit. Or perhaps it should mark where there is a "d" instead in the North German dialects.
In the past there where really strange developements in German orthography. For example the so-called "barocke Konsonantenhäufung" (baroque consonant accumulation) with doubled consonants at unusual positions, like in "starck" instead of "stark". I don't know that much about it but I suppose that was kinda "cool" back then, like writing "cuz" instead of "cause" today!