How natlangs look in the future!

[Systemzwang]

I have some predictions about the future of Colloquial Hebrew:

• The sound [h] (I am not sure if it could be called a phoneme anymore) will finally disappear; today it is hardly used anyway.
• The future 1PS marker will change from the today correct א to more commonly used י: ani yileḥ instead of ani eleḥ "I will go".
• Gender agreement (at least with numerals) will die slowly and painfully. Today many speakers use "wrong" agreement, especially with numerals: incorrect šaloš sfarim vs. correct šloša sfarim "three books".

This is not all, of course, but, basicly, Colloquial Hebrew and Correct Hebrew are two very different entities.

The incorrect gender with numerals thing could easily be a result of analogy though - keep in mind that it's a family feature of all Semitic languages to mark numerals with the morphology normally used for the opposite gender. How that would be hit by analogy is quite easy to see.

[Maximillian]

All verbs in Ivrit use the א aleph to mark the FUT.1SG like the quote upstairs? Is א used to mark any other future numbers/persons/genders?

Yes, yes it does. However, it is a tricky way to describe it. Aleph itself is not pronounced anymore in modern Hebrew, and in writing it acts more like vowel-bearer. So, the vowel marking the 1PS FUT may change depending on adjacent consonants. For example, eleḥ "I will go" vs. omar "I will say".

The incorrect gender with numerals thing could easily be a result of analogy though - keep in mind that it's a family feature of all Semitic languages to mark numerals with the morphology normally used for the opposite gender. How that would be hit by analogy is quite easy to see.

Yes, this is most probably the case.

[Omzinesý]

Finnish could get a voiced-voiceless harmony of obstruents. I have seen we have incredible problems with pronouncing voiced and voiceless obstruents in the same word. Finnish HAS voiced obstruents as allophones. I see I often use [z] as /s/ and all the other obstruents get voiced too.

[DrGeoffStandish]

Personally I am hoping for a negative conjugation for swedish, it is already happening sometimes on chat, you take the infinitive and add -nt(e) to it.
Jag pekade på honom "I pointed at him"
Jag pekade inte på honom "I didn't pointed at him" Correct sentence
Jag pekadent på honom "I didn't point at him" Future correct sentence?

The construction pekadent is just a plain contraction of pekade + inte. I've always said like that (or rather pekant since -de in pekade is deleted in speech) so it feels perfectly normal to me. This is the regiolect of my area and - probably - it's common in many dialects throughout Mainland Scandinavia (and even Iceland and Faroe Islands?). It's just teenagers in the (big) cities that are unused to a traditional non-bookish pronounciation like "pekadent".

I realize Jag pekade inte på honom as [jɒˑ ˈpʰeːkantɛ pʰoː hɔnɔm]. I could realize it as [jɒˑ ˈpʰeːkantɛ pʰoː an] as well.

I'd realize it as [jɑ ˈpʰeː.kɐnt ˈpʰoː.n̩], i.e., as if it were "Ja pekant på'n".

I have heard of prepositions that inflect for gender and number but I don't think that I have heard of prepositions that take half of the nominative pronouns and make a new world. But it's fun

Påan "On him"
Påon "On her"
Pået "On it" (utrum
Pååm "On them"

The effect is even more pronounced in my regiolect:

• på'n "on him" (proper: på honom)
  påna "on her" (proper: på henne)
  påren (u), påne (n) "on it" (proper: på den (u), på det (n))
  påråm "on them" (proper: på dem)

In most varities of North Germanic there are contractions similar to the ones above that I happen to use.

Most people do, but if it is clear for the conversees that they are speaking about something in the past it isn't unusual to just use the infinite, but only to verbs with regular conjugation, not verbs that use umlaut or the like.

It's not the infinitive that's used, it's a phonological simplification (first the -e is dropped to reduce the number of syllables, then the remaining -d is lost since in that position it's become silent in all words traditionally; note that Gutnish and Elfdalian are still on the intermediate stage).

You can say: Jag såg Lotta igår. Hon handla(de) "I saw Lotta yesterday. She shopped"
But not: Jag såg Lotta igår. *Hon springa "I saw Lotta yesterday.

Indeed, and the reason is what I wrote above.

She ran" Here you must use the past tense becuse the word use umlaut to show tense.
So, you know, changes are not absolute and don't work in all situations.

Wriong, it works in all situations, but you've completely misidentified what the situations are.

Well i think that very few speak truly traditional scanian, but if I met another swede from another part of sweden he might notice that I am from Scania becuse of how I speak, but no I don't use traditional vocabulary very much, just scanian aspect of swedish I guess

You'rte lucky (?) in that your regiolect is easily identified. Since I'm from Jämtland noone - at least not south of Dal river or north of Lule river - seems to be able to figure out from which region I am. Apparently we have the most ambiguous regiolect in Sweden, maybe since we have western (we're norwegians, after all), eastern (i.e., standard Swedish) and northern (due to geography) traits.

[Systemzwang]

handla is a regularly formed past in that case, not an infinitive as Stammalor seems to think.

IMD, final -a is dropped in the infinitive, so they're visible distinct in that dialect as well. This isn't uncommon in north Sweden as well, no?

Also, you guys are happy that your regiolects don't get the reaction
"you've really learned Swedish well!"

[DrGeoffStandish]

IMD, final -a is dropped in the infinitive, so they're visible distinct in that dialect as well.

In my dialect the infinitive end vowel is dropped but the grave accent is still preserved; this is applicable to a verb like peka which thus becomes peik (but with a grave accent rather than acute; this makes it sound like "pe-eik" since in the grace accent pronounciation the tone rises half way through the stem vowel, in this case the diphthong ei). In imperfect it's peike which is not the same as the infinitive.

This isn't uncommon in north Sweden as well, no?

There are two areas with infinitive apocope in northern Sweden, one in Väster- and Norrbotten and one in Jämtland. The former area's apocopation is probably related to the Ostrobothnian one and the latter area's is most surely related to the one in Trøndish. In the old Hälsingland area and in the Southeast Norwegian dialects spoken in northern Sweden the infinitive is -e but the imperfect is most often -a for verbs like peka; i.e., dial. peke = Swe. peka but dial. peka = Swe. pekade. In Tøndish it's inf. peik - imp. peika. I think. How it works in Westro-, Norr- and Ostrobothnian I don't know apart from the fact that it's peik in infinitive.

Also, you guys are happy that your regiolects don't get the reaction
"you've really learned Swedish well!"

Does it suck so hard being Scanian? Your Danish origin is only hinted these days when you speak, though.

[Systemzwang]

Also, you guys are happy that your regiolects don't get the reaction
"you've really learned Swedish well!"

Does it suck so hard being Scanian? Your Danish origin is only hinted these days when you speak, though.

What? No, I'm from Ostrobothnia. There's a surprising number of Swedes who automatically assume I've really put a lot of effort into learning grammatically perfect Swedish. Of course, everyone who speaks Swedish natively is born and raised in Sweden.

[Shrdlu]

In Piitish it is something like I pek, I peke and I hav pekt. Never heard of any diphthong, just an loss of infinitive -Vr. Though, I'm a second learner but everything I ever have used was written by old people who had grown up speaking Piitish so I think I'm pretty much qualified.

Note: Pek is of one these words that make no distinction between the past tense and the verification.

[DrGeoffStandish]

What? No, I'm from Ostrobothnia.

I had figured that out but you never explicitly claimed it.

There's a surprising number of Swedes who automatically assume I've really put a lot of effort into learning grammatically perfect Swedish.

Don't we all, really? Even monolingually Swedish speaking people have to struggle. OK, subconsciously the first 13 years or so, though.

Of course, everyone who speaks Swedish natively is born and raised in Sweden.

Aren't you first of all Ostrobothnian speaking? I wouldn't call that Swedish just like how I wouldn't call any other Norse dialect in Sweden "Swedish". Only rikssvenska (i.e., standard Swedish) is what I'd call Swedish.

In Piitish it is something like I pek, I peke and I hav pekt. Never heard of any diphthong, just an loss of infinitive -Vr.

It's a loan from Low German (Norse lacks inherited words beginning with p due to Grimm's Law), in at least Norwegian dialects - including Jamtish (it was certainly Norwegian when peika was introduced) - the stem vowel became the diphthong ei. Maybe you've borrowed the word via Swedish rather than Norwegian and thus never introduced any diphthong?

Though, I'm a second learner but everything I ever have used was written by old people who had grown up speaking Piitish so I think I'm pretty much qualified.

I believe you. (Diphthong only in old Norwegian dialects?)

Note: Pek is of one these words that make no distinction between the past tense and the verification.

"Verification", you mean imperative?

N.B.: Here's a paragraph from p. 12 in Vidar Reinhammar's book Hammerdalsmålet on the Jamtish Hammerdal dialect:

• 

The verb peeik (i.e., peik with grave accent) is highlighted. Note also the SAOB entry for peka which gives the following etymology:

• [fsv. peka, sv. dial. peka, pega, motsv. d. pege (ä. dan. o. dan. dial. äv. pæge), nor. peke, nor. dial. o. färöiska peika, lt. peken; jfr mlt. pēk, peik, spjut, lans, spetsigt järnredskap; i avljudsförh. till PIK o. PICK sbst.³,]

Apparently Low German had both a version with monophthong and a version with diphthong. Obviously, Norwegian chose the version with diphthong and Swedish the version with monophthong, and the governed dialects inherited the respective choice. (Jämtland was Norwegian - albeit an autonomous democratic republic within Norway-Denmark - when the word in question was introduced in the Medieval.)

[Shrdlu]

Gah, stupid me. Of cource it should be I pejk, I pejke, I hav pejkt. For some reason I just forgot the diphthong because everyone was writing it as ei instead of ej.

[Systemzwang]

Of course, everyone who speaks Swedish natively is born and raised in Sweden.

Aren't you first of all Ostrobothnian speaking? I wouldn't call that Swedish just like how I wouldn't call any other Norse dialect in Sweden "Swedish". Only rikssvenska (i.e., standard Swedish) is what I'd call Swedish.

What, you wouldn't include Standard Finlandsswedish in Swedish? If so, that's real odd. (As that too is basically a native language of mine, and what I speak whenever I interact with people from the other side of the pond)

[DrGeoffStandish]

Gah, stupid me. Of cource it should be I pejk, I pejke, I hav pejkt. For some reason I just forgot the diphthong because everyone was writing it as ei instead of ej.

Since it's a diphthong I recommend you to write it as such: peik.

BTW1, is Pit. I = Swe. jag or Swe. ni? I assume the latter, but apparently there's both a stressed and an unstressed first person singular pronoun in bondska. In Jamtish we've got je (short schwa; [jə]) when unstressed and je(g) (long e; [jeː]/[jeːɡ]) when stressed.

BTW2, maybe one should denote apocopation with preserved picth accent using ', i.e., an apostrophe? That is, e.g., peik'. I used to have this for Jamtish for those dialects that have apocopation, but now I employ the end vowel -e since southeastern Jamtish dialects have preserved it. Thus, I write - in my orthography for Jamtish -consistently peike.

What, you wouldn't include Standard Finlandsswedish in Swedish? If so, that's real odd. (As that too is basically a native language of mine, and what I speak whenever I interact with people from the other side of the pond)

You don't regard Standard Finland Swedish as being rikssvenska (lit. Kingdom's Swedish)? This because Finland is no longer part of the Swedish kingdom? I regard it as just another regiolect of rikssvenska since the word "rikssvenska" doesn't really have anything with political borders. By definition, Standard Swedish is called "rikssvenska" in Swedish. Do you have another suggestion - "standardsvenska" perhaps?

[Xonen]

You don't regard Standard Finland Swedish as being rikssvenska (lit. Kingdom's Swedish)?

He certainly shouldn't; the standard definition of the term in Finland is 'the kind of Swedish spoken in Sweden', specifically as opposed to the finlandssvenska spoken in Finland.

Do you have another suggestion - "standardsvenska" perhaps?

The term for standard F-Swedish is högsvenska, but I'm not sure if there is a term that would cover both that and the rikssvenska standard. I'd assume standardssvenska to be more or less understandable, though.

[DrGeoffStandish]

He certainly shouldn't; the standard definition of the term in Finland is 'the kind of Swedish spoken in Sweden', specifically as opposed to the finlandssvenska spoken in Finland.

Of course, I knew this. My questions were rhetorical and leading.

The term for standard F-Swedish is högsvenska, but I'm not sure if there is a term that would cover both that and the rikssvenska standard. I'd assume standardssvenska to be more or less understandable, though.

Indeed, the intersting thing is what one should call standard Swedish such that it includes both the various regiolects (sydsvenska, västsvenska, centralsvenska, uppsvenska etc.) of standard Sweden Swedish and the standard Finland Swedish regiolect (which in Sweden is just regarded as a Finlandic regiolectal variety of rikssvenska).

[taylorS]

I suspect that some Spanish dialects that debuccalize final /s/ to /h/ will develop a series of aspirated plosives

estar > /ɛtʰaɾ/

[Shrdlu]

Gah, stupid me. Of cource it should be I pejk, I pejke, I hav pejkt. For some reason I just forgot the diphthong because everyone was writing it as ei instead of ej.

Since it's a diphthong I recommend you to write it as such: peik.

BTW1, is Pit. I = Swe. jag or Swe. ni? I assume the latter, but apparently there's both a stressed and an unstressed first person singular pronoun in bondska. In Jamtish we've got je (short schwa; [jə]) when unstressed and je(g) (long e; [jeː]/[jeːɡ]) when stressed.

I wanted to keep it distinct from Norwegian.
It is "jag". Piitish "ni" is "jä". Piitish has two forms of "I". emphasized and un-emphasized which is "eg" and "I".

edit: fixed.

[DrGeoffStandish]

I wanted to keep it distinct from Norwegian.

Isn't it more important to keep it distinct from Swedish since Piteå is located in Sweden and not in Norway? Pitemål should contrast with Swedish, not Norwegian.

It is "jag". Piitish "ni" is "jä". Piitish has two forms of "I". emphasized and un-emphasized which is "eg" and "I".

Isn't it jeg in the emphasized mode? This Wikipedia article suggests that, but it may be wrong.

This is what the aarticle says about sample words beginning with I and J (in whatever orthography employed):

• I
  
  • I: jag (obetonat). Exempel: I väjt et vo I sko djära. (Jag vet inte vad jag ska göra.) --- je
    Illt: ont. Exempel: I hav illt öte bäjne. (Jag har ont i benet.) --- ihllt
    Itta: äta --- âta
    It/et: inte --- itt
  
  
  J
  
  • Je/Jä: ni --- dä/dâ
    Jeg: jag (betonat). Exempel: Hä val båra deu å jeg. (Det blir bara du och jag.) --- jeg
    Jenna: här --- hen/henen/henan, henn
    Jett: Lätt --- jett
    Jär: är --- e
    Jäde: er --- däck, däckan

I assume you just forgot to write j in "eg". (In red I have written some Jamtish translations.)

[Shrdlu]

"Eg" is probably an internal dialectal division -- the same as with mojn/mojl(ball) and some other example that I can't remember. And that I have learnt to say schko djäre(shall do) and not sko djäre.

The thing with Piitish is that it don't resembles Swedish that much, rather some hybrid between Norwegian and English and in many cases it is very similar to one of these or both at the same time. It is for in the cases where it is similar to Norwegian that I decided that I should write -ej instead of -ei to keep it distinct.

[DrGeoffStandish]

"Eg" is probably an internal dialectal division --

OK, but what's the etymology for eg? My theory: The lost initial j in eg comes from analogy with the unemphasized j free I.

the same as with mojn/mojl(ball) and some other example that I can't remember.

Jamtish has myl so only an l version here as far as I know (which is the old one). Where does the n in mojn come from?

Edit: I checked out myl in SAOB:

• [fsv. myl, klot, kula, sv. dial. myl, klump, boll; jfr isl. myll, myill, -myvill (i ssgn fjarðmyvill sten, bärg); av ovisst urspr.]

Apparently from ON mývill, simplified to mýill since non-initial v [w] was early lost in Mainland Scandinavian. This could very well have a parellel form ending with -nn, i.e., mýinn; this should readily become myn (or mojn after Pite diphthongization of ON ý).

And that I have learnt to say schko djäre(shall do) and not sko djäre.

Is this sch in front of p, t and k (and other consonants?) due to the multitude of German immigrants during the Great Power era of Sweden? I've read that most adult men in northernmost Sweden died in all the wars conducted in the continent so they had to import german men to fill up the vacancies. Maybe just a myth.

The thing with Piitish is that it don't resembles Swedish that much, rather some hybrid between Norwegian and English and in many cases it is very similar to one of these or both at the same time. It is for in the cases where it is similar to Norwegian that I decided that I should write -ej instead of -ei to keep it distinct.

Similarities with Norwegian is due to common archaisms (in particular old diphthongs and some vocabulary) and similarities with English is due to special novations (in particular new diphthongs and lost end vowels).

[Shrdlu]

I kán se e bätter hus. Yeah, I know what you mean. (kán is analogous to eng. can, and "kàn" is analogous to eng. could)
is always before /m n l/ and sometimes when is initial so I can't see why it wouldn't end up being "schk" in a few /sk/-clusters and then stuck as such.

Piitish doesn't have /y/ as an vowel (it's /i/, /oi/ or /ö/) and it lacks the famed "sje"-sound. Instead it has a plain old , [w] and [dZ].

edit: I don't know who wrote that wiki-article because there is a definitive distinction between /v/ and /w/ in Piitish. The text actually resembles that refined-variety and so it contradicts it self.

Jeg: jag (betonat). Exempel: Hä val båra deu å jeg. (Det blir bara du och jag.)

vaL is "choise" or "whale", it should be "waL". Side-note: "váL" is "may"(swe: må)
never heard of "båre", it should be "bare".