Gn in the word gnatik is pronounced - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

In all of these ‘gn’ words the ‘g’ is silent—not pronounced. They all came into English from French fairly early and have been thoroughly ‘naturalized’.

Words with ‘gn’ which came into English directly from Latin, such pugnacious, preserve the /g/ sound. But some of these have French-mediated cognates without the /g/—impugn is one such. Signature, although it came into English from French in the 14th century, was at some point reinterpreted as if it came directly from Latin signatus, and is pronounced with the /g/. Your magnolia is even more curious—it derives from the name of the French botanist Magnol, but by way of the Latinized botanical name of the plant (which was conferred upon it by an English admirer), so it pronounces the /g/.

There are some ‘gn’ words from Greek; these preserve the /g/ when it follows a vowel (agnostic, anagnorosis), but not at the beginning of a word (gnostic, gnome).

There are many more recent words from both French and Italian which are so to speak ‘permanently resident aliens’; these retain their native pronunciations (more or less—you might not be very happy with our pronunciation of terms from your own language) with /nj/: cognac, lasagne, carmagnole, bagnio and gnocchi.

Finally there are the words starting with ‘gn’ which descended from Old English. These all retained the /g/ into Middle English down to the period when spelling began to be regularized, but subsequently lost it. ‘gn’ inside OE words lost the /g/ sound much earlier, which is why the letter ‘g’ no longer appears in (for example) rain < OE regn.

ADDED:
And Jim reminds us of gnu. Dictionaries license both /nu:/ and /nju:/; the word is variously said to derive via Dutch gnoe from Khoikoi gnou or Khoikhoi i-ngu repesenting Southern Bushman !nu:.

Источник

Moderator: Johanna

littlepond: Posts: 43; Joined: 2016-01-31, 11:37

pronunciation of «kn» and «gn» in the middle of a word

Hei everyone!

Listening to some dialogues from a textbook that teaches Norwegian, I was struck by the pronunciation of two words: «likner» (to resemble) and «Frognerparken».

About «likner»: The word sounds, in the dialogues I have, something like «liNgner» (with the «Ng» sounding like the English «sing» a bit). I wonder what happened to the «k» sound, and also why the «N» bit before the «k»/»g»? Is there some kind of rule, or do I remember this seeming oddity as just an exception?

About «Frognerparken»: The word comes up a lot in my dialogues, and every time it is being pronounced something like «FroNgnerparken». I wonder, again, where this «N» bit is coming from before the «g», when there is nothing in the spelling to indicate that? Also, doesn’t «gn» behave like «ny» kind of sound, or like the ending of «rain»? But instead of something like «Frognyerparken», I am hearing «FroNgnerparken» (with the «Ng» sounding a bit like the English «sing»).

Thanks a lot in advance!

[flag=]hi[/flag] born in it, [flag=]en[/flag] first love, [flag=]fr[/flag] can discuss philosophy in it, [flag=]gu[/flag] can hear garba all night long, [flag=]it[/flag] can just about manage in it, [flag=]de[/flag] remnants of forgotten basics, [flag=]et[/flag] learning with zest, [flag=]sa[/flag] was in school and now want to re-learn, [flag=]no[/flag][flag=]sv[/flag][flag=]ja[/flag][flag=]ta[/flag] next on radar

Astrum: Posts: 155; Joined: 2015-05-15, 23:30; Gender: male

Re: pronunciation of «kn» and «gn» in the middle of a word

Postby Astrum » 2017-07-07, 10:14

littlepond wrote:I wonder what happened to the «k» sound

The alternative spelling of «likne» is «ligne», and most dialects tend to pronounce it as such.

littlepond wrote:, and also why the «N» bit before the «k»/»g»? Is there some kind of rule, or do I remember this seeming oddity as just an exception?

Yes, unless the word starts with «gn» (as in «gni», «gnage» and «gnu»), «gn» is usually pronounced as «ngn».

littlepond wrote:About «Frognerparken»: The word comes up a lot in my dialogues, and every time it is being pronounced something like «FroNgnerparken». I wonder, again, where this «N» bit is coming from before the «g», when there is nothing in the spelling to indicate that? Also, doesn’t «gn» behave like «ny» kind of sound, or like the ending of «rain»? But instead of something like «Frognyerparken», I am hearing «FroNgnerparken» (with the «Ng» sounding a bit like the English «sing»).

In most dialects the «ng» in «Frognerparken» is pronounced as «ngn», i.e. the «ng» in «sing» + n.

littlepond: Posts: 43; Joined: 2016-01-31, 11:37

Re: pronunciation of «kn» and «gn» in the middle of a word

Postby littlepond » 2017-07-07, 19:16

Thanks so much once again, Astrum!

Return to “Norwegian (Norsk)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Источник

I sometimes think I hear a difference between Parisian and Québécois French in the way the consonant gn is pronounced as in words like montagne, campagne. In Parisian it sounds to me more like the English «onion.» In Québec pronunciation I think I hear something more like ng as in «sing.» I would be very interested in the exact position of the tongue and a phonetic description.

Kelly B

I agree. It is the vowel that sounds different, rather than the consonant, but it is that gn sound that appears when the vowel changes… I think those are old pronunciations for words that actually used to be spelled with ai. For example, if you look up agneau in the TILFi, you’ll find this quote: aigneau ne se dit plus, mais il était encore prononcé par nos grands parents… from a 1930s book called le Patois briard. These prononciations evolved in France, but were retained in Canada even as the spelling changed.

For details on the France version, see the links in the Phonétique, Prononciation / Phonetics, Pronunciation section of the Resources forum. This one in particular has pictures. http://www.unil.ch/ling/page12580.html

This one includes Canadian sound clips (which confirm your impression, I think) http://demo.acapela-group.com/

Thank you Kelly. That’s very helpful. The one with the diagrams is really good.

Landazt

Hi!
I noticed that the the french word digne is phonetically represented by ɲ and the English word ring by ŋ.

They’ve very very similar and I’d like to know the difference between them.

I couldn’t find anything on the internet, maybe because of the phonetic symbols… So I’m really sorry if this has already been discussed!

Thanks!

Edit: I noticed that the «anglicisme» PARKING is represented with ŋ.

Last edited: Oct 27, 2011

The position of the tongue in «digne» is just behind the upper front teeth making the «neeee» sound. In «ring» the tongue is held back and pushed to the top of the mouth making the same sound as «Y» as in yellow. Not very scientific but i hope it helps.

Sorry, timboleicester, but your description with «y» for «yellow» threw me off completely and is likely to be more confusing for learners of pronunciation.

The «ign» of digne is like the ñ in El Niño, España, Espagne… like a «ny(a)» or «ny(e)», which I guess could be roughly also respresented by [nj] in phonetic symbols.

The «ing» of ring doesn’t really have the sounds «n» or «g» in it, but instead is like the throat closing off and the sound escaping through the nose. One cannot properly say «ring» with one’s nose blocked. I’d say it’s close to a nasalised vowel in French, but doesn’t have an equivalent (except for English words in French like «le camping»).

By the way, Wiktionary has recorded pronunciations for masses of words: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ring

ɲ is a palatal nasal, ŋ is a velar nasal. The difference between the two has to do with the shape of the tongue and with the point where the tongue touches the roof of the mouth (and of course the sound which is produced). The velar nasal isn’t really a native French sound, though it can appear in some loanwords like «camping» (but I suspect that many French speakers will actually pronounce such words with a palatal nasal).

For more detailed information, see this site. Choose «Spanish» for the palatal nasal and «English» for the velar nasal.

They’ve very very similar

The two symbols are very similar, but their pronunciations are quite different.

but I suspect that many French speakers will actually pronounce such words with a palatal nasal.

:thumbsdown: I cannot tell for Québec, but definitely not in Europe!

camping (FR) → [kɑ̃piŋ] :tick: , [kɑ̃piɲ] :cross: // camping (EN)
oignon (FR) → [ɔɲɔ̃] ≈ [ɔnjɔ̃] // onion (EN)

EDIT: see also http://www.languageguide.org/french/grammar/pronunciation/consonants.html

Last edited: Oct 27, 2011

Источник

annis wrote:So? I do not dispute that Latin had no separate letter to indicate /N/. So they had to find some other way; we both agree -g- is used to indicate that a nearby «n» is a velar nasal. The -NGN- notation is a passable way to do that. -NN- is less clear on articulation, though does point at the possibility of a consonant cluster, which is consistent with metrics which absolutely point at a cluster, not a single nasal. ‘Signum’ does not scan uu.

Now that is a good point, and a very interesting one. In that case, is it conceivable that the sole velar nasal that I propose could have a doubled quality to it? that is, represent /NN/. I am reminded of the IPA spellings of Italian words; for instance, the preposition-article combination agli (meaning «to the» [masculine plural, before a vowel]), pronounced vaguely like «alyee,» is written like so:

a[size=117]λλ[/size]i

In IPA, the Greek lambda is used to represent the palatal liquid rendered by Italian gli (actually, the real IPA has backwards lambdas, but this is the best I have ). «gli» is spelled «[size=117]λ[/size]i,» while a[size=117]λλ[/size]i has a doubled consonant, merely because of its position between vowels, since its nature is inherently doubled in force when pronounced. It is interesting to wonder if the same could be true with Latin gn being /NN/.

Please explain what you mean by «Germanic orthographic sensibility.»

I mean that Germanic languages like English and German use «ng» to represent the velar nasal, even though the velar nasal is in truth neither letter. Your postulation that the «ng» in the «NGN» of «SINGNIFER» indicates this same sound, then to be followed by the second «N» (a dental nasal), is based on the spelling conventions of an entirely different language group.

And this is where I feel you are misusing the word «theory.» No one point I or others have made is by itself conclusive.

I apologize; I was not using the word «conclusion» so strictly, but more liberally as a general synonym for the word «thought.»

Neither -NN- nor -NGN- argue against the /Nn/ interpretation, nor necessarily for your /N/ idea.

Nor necessarily against my /N/ interpretation, nor necessarily for /Nn/.

Again, so? This is just a «Spanish orthographical sensibility.» This is no sounder an argument than reference to «Germanic orthographical sensibility.»

Ah! so you do know what I mean by «Germanic orthographic sensibility»!

I might be that «Spanish orthographic sensibility» is no sounder, except that Spanish is a Romance language, from Latin, whereas German is not.

I am inclined to agree that there are significant limits to utilizing the daughter languages for understanding Latin, but short of the texts of the Roman grammarians, they are all we have.

Could be. But only if the other evidence support this interpretation.

And it does.

Please do explain to me when laughability became a standard measure of philological soundness. By that standard Armenian isn’t Indo-European at all.

If you read the phrase which immediately follows, I explain how to me it seems absurd to utilize Romanian when it is such a distant dialect, heavily influenced by languages not of a Romantic nature. My word «laughable» came from the fact that I literally laughed outloud upon reading the use of Romanian for justification — not that I don’t think it should be considered, but simply that it is comparatively less informative than … almost any other choice.

The -mn- < -gn- equivalence must still be addressed. As must the development of /ñ/ from /N/ in other Romance languages, which is a bit of stunt to manage in distant languages with no phonological conditioning.

I do not follow what you mean in that last phrase.

The transition from /N/ to /n/ takes you right through /ñ/, however.

I have considered this possibility, yes, and it seems plausible.

Meaningless nativism. Language change operates via language communities, not blood, even if there is often overlap.

And where are the most concentrated remaining language communities descendent from the Romans? That Italian and its dialects are the closest living languages to Latin remains true.

How is this complex?! In an earlier post you say this:

The reason that the «ngn» pronunciation for gn does not make sense to me is because it is two different nasals in succession, a velar nasal and then a dental nasal.

Do you also have a theory about how ‘somnus’ or ‘amnis’ are too difficult because -mn- is two different nasals in succession?

My original emphasis was misleading. The interpolation of «two different nasals rendered by the tongue in succession» would have clarified the matter. ‘m’ is a very particular nasal, as it is the only one which does not require the tongue. Indeed, this gives the opportunity for all the lovely combinations, two of which you mentioned. Forming two nasals with the same tongue one after the other, however, is significantly more challenging.

Points all consistent with the interpretation of -gn- as /Nn/:

metrics: all vowels before -gn- are scanned long

Excepting the possibility of an inherent doubling.

epigraphy: SINGNIFER

I’ve already shown how this is deceptive logic; «ng» in English does not automatically prove the same pronunciation in Latin. Indeed, this epigraphy is as consistent with my theory as with yours.

historical comparative linguistics: both *kn and *gn of the parent language are -gn- in Latin; assimilation of the stop to nasal articulation is common, and is paralleled by other stop+nasal changes: summus < *supmos (cf. ‘super’); summitto < submitto (not sumus or sumitto)

I do not deny this. However, those are all single or double nasals of the same type: namely, ‘m’. This supports my theory.

[*] changes in the daughter languages, Rom. -mn- < L. -gn- is consistent with /Nn/ as is -ñ- < L. -gn- [/list]

You’re still using Romanian. Romanian is ridiculously distant from Latin, Italian, Spanish, even Portuguese and French. It’s so deeply imbued with Slavic pronunciation and vocabulary Stalin tried to prove it was a Slavic language.

The metrical and comparative points undermine the interpretation of -gn- as a single nasal sound.

The metrical point dooms a solitary velar nasal, potentially, unless it always comes doubled.

Источник

English

Pronounce

Collections

Quiz

All Languages

{{app[‘fromLang’][‘value’]}} -> {{app[‘toLang’][‘value’]}}

{{app[‘user_lang_model’]}}

Pronounce
Translate
Collections
Quiz

English

Afrikaans

Albanian

Amharic

Arabic

Armenian

azerbaijan

Basque

Bengali

Bosnian

Bulgarian

Burmese

Catalan

Chinese

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

Esperanto

Estonian

Filipino

Finnish

French

Galician

Georgian

German

Greek

Gujarati

Hebrew

Hindi

Hungarian

Icelandic

Indonesian

Irish

Italian

Japanese

Javanese

Kannada

Kazakh

Khmer

Korean

Laotian

Latin

Latvian

Lithuanian

Macedonian

Malay

Malayalam

Maltese

Marathi

Mongolian

Nepali

Norwegian

Pashto

Persian

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Russian

Serbian

Sinhala

Slovak

Slovenian

Somali

Spanish

Sundanese

Swahili

Swedish

Tamil

Telugu

Thai

Turkish

Ukrainian

Urdu

Uzbek

Vietnamese

Welsh

Zulu

All Languages

English

Arabic

Burmese

Chinese

French

German

Hindi

Indonesian

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Portuguese

Russian

Spanish

Turkish

Источник