In English, people often say this somewhat sarcastically, like if my partner said, "oh I burnt my toast," I might say, " oh, my heart bleeds." Is this the same in Swedish?
I don't know with Swedish, but if somebody said this sentence in Danish, it would probably be understood as a poetic and very explicit expression of deep sorrow. However, it is not colloquial language, not even sarcastically.
I think, it is the same for Swedish.
It is called retroflex assimilation. When r is followed by s, t, d, n or l, it merges with the following sound. http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Swedish_Phonology
Isn't that similar to "rt" in "heart" by the way (British pronunciation)?
No. The r is silent in RP. Think about the name 'Martin'. The difference is clearer in that word. I am not a native English speaker, though. I am basing this on my knowledge of IPA symbols and my own ears. I can sometimes recognise native Swedish speakers when they are speaking English or some other language by the way they pronounce rt. Another tell tale sign is the way Swedes pronounce words like 'heard' and 'cursed' with the ör combination.
Ok :). But there is still a difference between t in British "heart" and t in Swedish "hat" (hatred), right?
Hmm. The way the vowels are pronounced effects the following sounds, so there may be a slight difference between those t's. In IPA, they are marked the same way, though.
rt in Swedish does differ from British rt since in Swedish they’re merged to a retroflex sound, and in BrE the /r/ is dropped. But I also share Helen’s feeling that the /t/’s still aren’t completely similar in hat and heart. In Swedish, it is dental and aspirated, but I feel like it’s more alveolar in British English in that context? I might be wrong though, but I wouldn’t pronounce the /t/ in ’heart’ identical to the /t/ in ’two’ in English at least. Perhaps a British phonetician could shed some light. :)
@Lundgren8. In English, /t/ is a voiceless ALVEOLAR plosive. It is also said the same in the words "heart" and "hat". However, you also mentioned "two". This is a different phonetic context. It is still alveolar, but may, for example, feature more aspiration / affrication than word final /t/. In my speech, the word final /t/ of "heart" and "hat", even before a following vowel ("heart on sleeve", "hat on head") is generally a voiceless glottal plosive. I hope that is clear. :)
Hello, Lundgren8 (and Helen). You are right: T's in English are alveolar. English has two types of t's: Aspirated and unaspirated. Aspirated t's appear in word initial position, unaspirated t's in other positions (the same applies to p's and k's). So the t in "heart" is unaspirated, whereas the t in "two" is aspirated. I do not know much about Swedish t's, though.
Swedish t is pretty strongly aspirated, except after s. where it's unaspirated. (or more generally: stop consonants [p, b, t, d, k, g] are aspirated, except after fricatives).
Think of the word Mat. Now think of the word Mart. We don't pronounce the R. You see that the R is not exactly silent in RP. It modifies the sound of that syllable. We know its there. This is a little like in Swedish I guess. If a letter is "Silent" , when you remove it the word is pronounced the same.
Hi DanSmurf, I just wanted to correct your phrasing slightly. The /r/ is indeed silent. Indeed, it isn't even there, even at a deep level, in standard British English. But for HISTORICAL reasons, the vowel had been left changed by the former presence of /r/. This doesn't mean that /r/ still exists or is "not exactly silent". There is no /r/ anymore. This is the same with other sounds. For example, many people say "pen" like "pin" as the "i" has been influenced by the nasal. Likewise, we say "lOng" but "lEngth" because the word used to be long+eth, and the e influenced the o and changed it to an e ("I-mutation"), and it stayed changed even after the e of -eth died a death -- but you would NOT say that "the e is not exactly silent"; it is indeed silent, in fact, it doesn't exist at all anymore.
You're quite right. There is no /r/ sound in Standard British English in words like "heart"; so quite different to the Swedish.
Thought this is more of an emotional expression than medical? I mean by its literal meaning the person can't possibly still be able to talk, eh?