2013-11-19 19:42, Roger Mills skrev:
> I love those!! Especially
> *   "mmh"   [m̩ː]    'yes; I agree; I'm listening to you',
> *   "nnh"   [n̩ː]    'no; I don't think so',
> *   "hf"    [ɸːː]   'disbelief' or 'I'm tired' or 'done, finally',
> *   "tjj"?  [tɕ̩ːː]  'here we go again',*
> I think we kind-of have the first 2 in Engl,(at least my lect).
> "duh/dû" We have this too, as [d3 ~ d@] or maybe even your  [dɵː]
> -- but it means "oh, that's obvious" (of something someone has just said)
 >  or "OMG that's really stupid" (of something someone, or I, 
have just said or done....).

The 'spelling' similarity is actually misleading here.  The
Gothenburgish [dɵː] is clearly somehow derived from [dʉː] 'thou'.
It has even been described as the vocative of _du_, except
that it would be the only separate vocative in the 'lect
and is actually used interjection-like.  However it can
still only be used in addressing a single person, often
to start a conversation after a while of silence:

     Dû, jag tar  å   går     hem  nu
     Hey I   take and go.PRES home now
     "I'll be going home now"

     Dû, har  du  eld?  [ˈdɵː ˈhɑː dʉ ˌeld]
     Hey have you fire
     "Hey, got a light(er)?"

(And if you answer "yes" he'll be asking for the
cigarette too next! :-)

It is clearly rude if used to strangers, although not
as rude as _öh_.  People like my relatives of the older
generation would certainly object to it as low-class too,
but it has a lot of covert prestige as a marker of local
identity.  The point is that the pronoun used as a
subject or predicate never is pronounced with [ɵː]
-- in fact no other word in the 'lect has [ɵː]!
[ɞː] is frequent, but a distinct phoneme: [dɞː]
is a possible pronunciation of _dör_ 'die.PRES'
(/r/ is dropped before other alveolars and in pausa),
and it just would be wrong to pronounce _dû_ as [dɞː]
(which would be written _dô_ in the usual dialect
spelling where circumflex means centralization.)

> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:50 PM, BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 2013-11-17 20:48, R A Brown skrev:
>> But interjections often have sounds which are not part of a
>> languages normal phonetic inventory.
> They sure do. Gothenburgish has
> *   "uhn"   [ʔɞ̃ː]   'exasperation' (esp. with oneself),
> *   "mmh"   [m̩ː]    'yes; I agree; I'm listening to you',
> *   "nnh"   [n̩ː]    'no; I don't think so',
> *   "hng"   [hŋ̩ː↘]  'possibly; doubtfully; typical',
> *   "ngh"   [ŋ̩ː↗]   'don't do that!; stop it!',
> *   "hf"    [ɸːː]   'disbelief' or 'I'm tired' or 'done, finally',
> *   "tjj"?  [tɕ̩ːː]  'here we go again',
> *   "öh"    [ɞʔ]    'hey!',
> *   "duh/dû" [dɵː]  'hey (you)' -- etymologically related
>                       to, but phonologically distinct from,
>                       "du" [dʉː] 'thou'.
> which all feature sounds not normally found in the phonology.
> Nasal vowels occur as realizations of VN before sibilants, but
> not elsewhere, and /ɵ/ occurs short but not long, but these are
> all phonologically aberrant, which is signalled with funny
> spellings when writing them out: _h_ is not normally used as a
> vowel modifier in Swedish.  Some Gothenburgers in the oldest
> generation have a very lax [ɸ] as a realization of /x/, but
> it's still distinct from the interjection, which is tense.
> BTW it's interesting how the 'translations' of interjections
> often are whole sentences or more. My favorite is the likewise
> Gothenburgish "ank!" [ɒŋkʰ↗] 'Not *that* again; it totally
> annoys me!' Feels very weird to write that word; it definitely
> belongs to a spoken, informal register.
> /bpj