4 ms·
No, English "u" (as in under, burn, us) is not correct here. Both "a" sounds in "matpakke" have the same pronunciation. The closest you get to Norwegian "a" in
by atombender 8y ago
No, English "u" (as in under, burn, us) is not correct here.
Both "a" sounds in "matpakke" have the same pronunciation. The closest you get to Norwegian "a" in "typical" American English is the "o"
in "hot". Or indeed just "ah" (as in the exclamation; "ah" or "a-ha" or "ha"). In English, "a" (as in "hat" or "ask") is very different.
- ricardobeat 8y agoThe 'u' in this configuration is voiced somewhere in between the 'ʌ' and 'ə' phonetic sounds. 'Pah-keh' will be read as 'paki' very often. I guess asking some native english speakers around you to read both will resolve the matter :)
- atombender 8y ago"Eh" is pseudo-phonetic for the e in "lend" (IPA ɛ), not as in "he" (i). It's also worth nothing that in Norwegian, a double consonant indicates a short preceding vowel. FWIW, my comments were vetted by my American girlfriend, who's sitting next to me. :-)
- Kiro 8y ago> as in under, burn, us No, think "duck". That would be "dack" in Norwegian.
- atombender 8y agoWhat dialect of English do you speak? American English "duck" is IPA /dʌck/, same vowel as "us" /ʌs/, for example. The "a" sound is IPA /a/, as in "far".
- mort96 8y agoThe "u" in "duck" sounds the same as our letter "ø", and nowhere near our "a". The english "duck" would be "døck" (or "døkk", since we usually don't use "ck") in norwegian, not "dack".
- Kiro 8y agoFor "burn" it would be "børn" but the pronunciation of "u" in "duck" is different.