Template talk:fi-pronunciation

Phonetic realisation of -uv-

This template renders < uv > as /uʋ/, [u̯ʋ(ː)] (cf. sauva). Anecdotally, such a pronunciation does exist but is quite rare. "Finnish Sound Structure – Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics and prosody" states:

1. 'The allophone [w] of /V/ occurs in e.g. sauva [sAuwA] ‘staff’ and rouva [rouwA] ‘married woman'.

I think we'd do best to keep the phonemic representation as /uʋ/ but changing the phonetic one to [u̯w(ː)].

brittletheories (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There are definitely sources for a long <v> /ʋ/:

• "Näistä [j] ääntyy pitkänä vain i-loppuisen diftongin jälkeen, esim. leija [leijja] ja tuija [tuijja]. Vastaavasti [v] ääntyy pitkänä vain u-loppuisen diftongin jälkeen, esim. vauva [vauvva] ja sauva [sauvva]." Panu Mäkinen: Suomen kielioppi 1999–2004
• "I-loppuista diftongia, jota ei seuraa muu konsonantti, voi seurata pitkä j, mutta se voi myös ääntyä lyhyenä tai jäädä kokonaan ääntymättä. Sama koskee v:tä u-loppuisen diftongin jäljessä, kun tätä diftongia ei seuraa muu konsonantti." Wikibooks (perhaps based on the previous one?)

Anecdotally I definitely pronounce words like sauva, vauva, hauva with a long (or perhaps semi-long) /ʋ/. It'd be interesting to see what Karlsson 1982 says. Regardless, it is probably indeed wrong to show it in the phonemic transcription. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I misunderstood and it doesn't show up in the phonemic transcription anyway, so it's only the phonetic one we're talking about here. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was only about the phonetic transcription. The question was about whether we should render it as 1) [uʋ] not [uw], 2) [uw] not [uʋ], or 3) [uʋ] and [uw]. brittletheories (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a source for [u̯ʋ(ː)] actually being [u̯w(ː)], I think using the latter in the phonetic transcription makes sense. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)