The u in ful/fult/fula is long, while the u in full/fullt/fulla is short. This video describes the difference (at 7'29"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzYArZVTD4s&t=7m29s.
Rumor has it Arnouti doesn't contribute to the Swedish discussions any more, so I was hoping you might weigh in on this, Zmrzlina. A. says below, "Yes it is – full, fullt, fulla ('drunk', 'full') and ful, fult, fula ('ugly') – both adjectives are perfectly regular." Is this an example of words in Swedish having identical spelling but different meaning due to differing pitch accents (acute vice grave)?
Well, they don't have identical spelling, do they? :)
Swedish generally uses a short vowel pronunciation if the vowel is followed by two consonants, and a long vowel pronunciation if the vowel is followed to one consonant.
If you'd like, I can make a recording for you to more clearly show the difference.
100% correct, Dev: my bad. They are, indeed, spelled differently. I'm really pretty stoked about learning more about the pitch accents. Is that covered during the course? I haven't looked too far ahead, but I don't remember seeing that.
I found this YouTube video, "Understanding Swedish Pitch Accent" and it actually made my (current) inability to understand Swedes speaking normally in movies/TV make more sense to me. The real eye opener was 'prosody.'
As for your offer, absolutely I would like to hear the difference!
Speaking frankly, Lazar, I think I'd rather talk about a bear wearing a skirt than talk about people being ugly. For example, "Björnen bär en blå kjol." Behold... https://www.flickr.com/photos/143346117@N05/44579503550
Sounds like you should provide the correct example then, to be more helpful :) Seems you are trying to say that doesn't fall is different from not far. The English is not really ambiguous even if it weren't a known proverb. Perhaps you are suggesting it should have been långt inte to match the English? I wonder if it might be better to say inte så väldigt långt. Idioms don't usually translate 1:1 but, interestingly, this dictionary provides a translation of äpplet faller inte långt från trädet. Perhaps it needs a correction, but even then it wouldn't carry the additional meaning of the proverb (unless it happens to also be a Swedish proverb).
I wasn't reading into the Swedish of the idiom. "Äpplet faller inte långt från trädet" sounds perfectly fine to me for "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree".
Dubpir8 said "Jo". Wiktionary's entry on "jo" states:
- yes; used as a disagreement to a negative statement.
Therefore, I took his comment to be a disagreement with Jugglern0t (i.e. that he believes the apple does fall far from the tree). I commented as such, and am still not sure why it attracted downvotes. My only guess was that people didn't understand the use of "jo", hence my edit.
Wiktionary notes at the end that:
- In northern Sweden it is however not uncommon for the word jo to be used in place of ja in all cases, at least in spoken language.
So it's possible that Dubpir8 was speaking a northern dialect.
Regarding the noted practice in northern Sweden, I think Wiktionary is saying that people there may use "jo" in response even to positive statements, not that the word can have the opposite meaning there from the rest of Sweden. To reiterate a negative statement in agreement, they would use "nej, ...".