Talk:Stød

Hatter

The choice of "hatter" as example is confusing because the Danish word is "hatte". --Troels Nybo 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

West, South, glottal stop and more

I see several problems here: 1. "Some dialects of Eastern Danish realize stød which is more similar to the prosodic word accents of Norwegian and Swedish" "Southern Danish" seems closer to the truth, as the map shows, too.

2. "in Western Jutland it is realized as something reminiscent of a glottal stop." The so-called vestjysk stoed (being a glottal stop) is a completely different phenomenon with distribution rules that are diametrically opposite to the rules for standard Danish stoed. As far as I know, the normal Danish stoed with its normal distribution also occurs in West Jutland and coexists with vestjysk stoed, but it keeps its normal creaky voice realization.

3. The article doesn't mention the fact that also Standard Danish might realize stoed as a glottal stop for emphasis. (see the reference in the topic on Peter Isotalo's talk page). --85.187.203.123 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

2. The comment about stød in Western Jutland is straight from Basbøll's The Phonology of Danish. Is your statement based on Grønnum or is this your own deduction?

3. I couldn't find anything in Basbøll about especially emphatic stød being a glottal stop. Either I missed it or Basbøll overlooked it, so I'd love to see someone read it more carefully than I did or explain why Basbøll forgot to mention it.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Well, the fact that vestjysk stoed is a completely different phenomenon than central Danish stoed is something you can find anywhere (Groennum doesn't mention vestjysk stoed at all) and they co-exist (e.g. Fischer-Joergensen writes that ""a large area in the western part of Jutland has both the common Danish stoed and the so-called "West Jutlandish stoed". I don't have Basboell's book on me, so I don't know what he has written, exactly, but I am 99% sure that he was referring to the West Jutland stoed, not to the stoed in West Jutland (a subtle but important difference). The fact that vestjysk stoed is reminiscent of a glottal stop is mentioned e.g. by Swedish phonetician Eva Gaarding who calls it "an energetic contraction of the glottis", whose "aural impression is similar to the glottal stop found in English dialects". The precise statement that the common Danish stoed is opposed to West Jutland as a creaky voice to a glottal stop is something that I have read, if I remember correctly, in works by linguists Salomon Kacnel'son and Anatoly Liberman. In a recent paper, Liberman states that CD stoed is "constrictive (the more usual case) or occlusive" as opposed to WJ stoed, which is "occlusive": "each has its own realization, and native speakers do not confuse them"; he even mentions that there are a couple of minimal pairs.

3. I have no idea why he overlooked it. Groennum is no less as an authority for me. :) Maybe there is a controversy, but I have never heard of it.--85.187.44.131 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I mailed Nina Groennum to ask if there is a controversy and she said that to the best of her knowledge there is none. --85.187.44.131 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

2.5? My personal recollections of my grandfather's vestjysk dialect, which was thy, from Thisted Amt, is that he claimed he didn't use stød. He referred to the Copenhagen Danish as "clackity-clack" Danish, and said the stød was invented by courtiers in imitation of the (at one time) fashionable German language. Does anyone know anything about thy? Is it still spoken? It's hard to look up on the internet for obvious reasons.

Snezzy 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your grandfather is partly right but mostly wrong. Surely, the stød also exists in the dialect of Thy. It is, however, somewhat more frequent in Copenhagen than in Thy since Thy dialect, being Jutlandic, can only have stød on vowels and on sonorants not followed by obstruents, whereas standard Danish can also have it on sonorants followed by obstruents. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that stød should have emerged in order to imitate German which has nothing of the kind. It is of purely Scandinavian origin.

There might be a slight possibility that your grandfather might have had even fewer examples of stød if he spoke a dialect with "oralized stød" meaning that the stød was realized as a /k/. This actually happens in north-west Jutland (I'm not sure if this includes Thy but it does, to my knowledge, include neighbouring Mors. This means that words like ny "new" and ti "ten", normally with stød, are actually pronounced as /nyk/ and /tik/. In Vendsyssel, after a front vowel, it is even /nytj/ and /titj/.

Like most Danish dialects, Thy dialect is being replaced by a regional variety of standard Danish, but the stød features, being part of the prosody, might actually survive this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.41.45 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can’t speak for northern Thy, but in southern Thy and Thyholm, the oralised stød is alive and well (at least among not-quite-young speakers). The town of Hurup is frequently realised as ‘Hukrup’, and the Kryb-i-ly Hills are normally referred to, ‘hyper-oralisedly’, as ‘æ Kryk-i-lyk Baˀker’ (with a stød before the k, for some reason—not sure if that’s the result of an oralised vestjysk stød adjacent to a phonemic k or just an idiosyncracy?).

(This is based entirely on anecdotal evidence and a Thyholmsk-speaking aunt)

Kokoshneta (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Prosodic vs tonal word accents

Calling the Swedish-Norwegian word accents "prosodic" accents is:

1. too broad. They aren't just prosodic, they are above all tonal in terms of recognition, and studies have shown that clearly. The other cues (duration, intensity) are secondary.

2. insufficient to separate them from stoed, since it's a prosodic "accent" as much as they are. I can support that with quotations if necessary.

3. A tautology, since any accent is prosodic by definition.

--85.187.44.128 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can recommend actually reading up on concepts before making these kinds of comments. The term prosody includes the concept of tone. It's even in our own article.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can recommend actually reading comments before commenting them. I never said "prosody" didn't include tone, I said it is too broad a concept. In other words, it doesn't include just tone, it also includes duration, intensity, etc.. I never said the accents weren't prosodic. If you're interested in what I was saying, please read my original comment again. --85.187.44.128 10:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate naming

Is "stød" really the commonly accepted English-language linguistic term for the glottal stop/laryngealization in Danish?

"Stød" in Danish is similar to the glottal stop occurring in non-standard English and lowland Scots, and I never actually saw anybody refer to the phenomenon as "stød" when speaking of these languages (since both many English dialects and lowland Scots are heavily influenced by Nordic languages, I wouldn't be surprised if the phenomenon had a common origin for the three languages - but then I'm not a historical linguist; Larry Trask would definitely have had an opinion on this, had he still been among us).

Maybe the appropriate term to adopt is "glottal stop", possibly qualified as "Danish glottal stop", to enable us to use the same term to describe the phenomenon in different languages? If so, this article should be renamed to "Danish glottal stop".

Agger 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we could mention that the word translates as "thrust", and use that term throughout the article, since that would make it easier for the English-speaking population to read it, as well as making it easier for those units that read for the blind to do so. Zuiram 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no renaming, please. The term "stød" is the only term I have ever seen used for this Danish phenomenon (in English scholarship). I do not disagree with Zuiram that one may explain the phenomenon by translating it with something like "thrust," but on no account should the article be renamed or the term "stød" be replaced throughout by "thrust." If the character "ø" is considered problematic, I would consider it reasonable to replace it with regular "o" throughout the article, as long as some clear reference to the proper spelling, with "ø" is made in the beginning. By the way, I would be greatly surprised if North English glottal stop has anything to do with "stød." For more information on "stød", please refer to Anatoly Liberman's book Germanic Accentology, Vol. 1 The Scandinavian Languages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. I will add this title to the list of references. Lufiend 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is sometimes also used for similar phenomena in other languages too, see for instance here [1].Kallerdis (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stød in Icelandic?

Icelandic doesn't have stød? I could be wrong, but the word höndunum (dative plural of "hand") in this youtube clip sounds as if it has it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8lJtYTHTU BGManofID (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Icelandic doesn’t have stød. You can’t really use song as any indication of suprasegmental information such as tone and stød, since they’re frequently lost or ignored when singing (stød in Danish is generally left out when singing)—and besides, I don’t hear anything resembling stød in the word höndunum in that clip …

Kokoshneta (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Walken

Is the accent of American actor Christopher Walken an example of stød? He puts a really strange kind of stress on vowels that seems kind of like what is described here --143.236.168.60 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Could you provide an example of this? (For example, a YouTube link and a position in it.) SpectrumDT (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless he speaks danish it is not stød. He just speaks with a weird kind of creaky voice.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the word itself

I thought the word itself was an example of a word with stød but according to the pronunciation, it isn’t. Why is this? --Lundgren8 (t · c) 12:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "stød" means "thrust" and refers to a glottal stop or creaky voice. The word "stød" itself doesnt sound to me as a native speaker to have stød. According to Nina Grønnum in "Rødgrød med Fløde" [ð]is a consonant and an oxytone lexeme with a vowel followed by a non voiced consonant does not have stød. [ð] is a consonant but it doesn't make "airnoise" (sorry not certain of english terminology here)and "stød" in plural does sound to me as if having stød. [sd̥øːˀəð] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.230.137 (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You’re right that ‘stød’ does not have stød.

Stød is not an oxytone lexeme with a vowel followed by an unvoiced consonant, though—/ð/ is a voiced consonant (or glide, if you will), not an unvoiced one. As such, the word falls under Grønnum’s group III of oxytone lexemes (short vowel + sonorant) where the presence or absence of stød is unpredictable. Compare stød [sd̥øð] and nød [nøðˀ], which does have stød.

[ˈsd̥øːˀəð] would be ‘støet’ orthographically, a word that (as far as I know) does not exist. The plural of stød is stød, pronounced identically to the singular; I suspect what you meant was that the definite singular form of stød (stødet) does have stød: [ˈsd̥øðˀð̩] (or [ˈsd̥øːˀð̩], especially in Copenhagen). This, however, goes without saying, as all oxytone lexemes have stød in the definite singular—whether they have it in the indefinite or not.

Kokoshneta (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Phoneme ≠ allophone

Hello. There seems to be a problem with the part that says "this means that only syllables ending in a long vowel, a diphthong (i.e., vowel + [ʁ]/[j]/[v]) or one of the consonant phonemes [m], [n], [ŋ], [l] and [ð] can take the stød." The problem is that allophonic notation is used (square brackets []), while what (precedes and) follows is the term phoneme. And it looks like the allophonic notation is used incorrectly, too. For instance, I would guess that, instead of "[ʁ]", there should be "[ɐ]" ([ɐ̯]), possibly, if you see fit, with an indication that it's a realization of /r/ (the phoneme). I don't know much about Danish phonology (yet), so I just wanted to point out the problem so that somebody take care of it. Cheers, Ryba g (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Very true. I have changed the article accordingly, using the more appropriate phonemic notation instead. Kokoshneta (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sound files

Would some (preferably native) Danish speaker please add some sound files, to illustrate the differences between minimal pairs of words with and without stød?

yoyo (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pitch vs. F0?

§ Phonetics has the following sentence:

The first phase has a relatively high pitch and high intensity and a high F0, whereas the second phase sees a drop in intensity, pitch and F0.

Since (auditory) pitch is practically a direct mapping of (acoustic) F0, isn't it redundant to mention them both as if they were independent? Thnidu (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

South Zealand Stød

In South Zealand where I grew up, the local dialect has no standard Danish stød, but instead vowels in syllables that would have stød are doubled. So the underlying feature is there, it just yet another system. This leads to fun when children learn to count syllables, since stød is more common in monosyllabic words. For instance Kaffe (Coffee), has no stød and is pronounced Kaff', while Te (Tea), has stød and is pronounced Te-æ. Carewolf (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The "doubled" vowel is in fact a stød. As mentioned in the article some zealandic varieties have extra stød occurrences.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Danish phonology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that this article be merged with Danish phonology and simply become a section of that article. Since we already have a phonology article separate from Danish language, I think it's an overkill to also have a separate article for stød. It's not even that long, so we could just copy-paste this article into the Danish phonology one. Peter238 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The stød is an important and well described phonological phenomenon, and it more than merits its own article which should of course be summarized in the article on Danish phonology. Also Stød has been proposed for other languages than Danish.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is pretty well-developed and well-sourced, so I'm not sure how it would conceivably be just a section in the Danish phonology article. Per Maunus, I also wouldn't want to merge it with the Danish phonology article if it's a part of other language phonologies as well. Perhaps that area could be expanded somehow, but even if it weren't it seems like just as notable a language-particular phonological topic as Flapping and Rhoticity in English. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Merger is not a default option. It needs to be motivated, like most suggestions for change. I don't see any compelling, neutral arguments in this case. Ideas about appropriate length of anything between a few thousand kB up to a 100,000 kB are usually based on personal preference. Peter ^Isotalo 10:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, it didn't hurt to ask. Thank you for your input, guys. Nomination withdrawn. Peter238 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some of our transcriptions

Hello. I'm curious whether these transcriptions are correct:

• læser /ˈlɛːsʌ/ / læser /ˈlɛˀsʌ/ - shouldn't these be /ˈlɛːsər/, /ˈlɛːˀsər/ (I thought only long vowels and sonorants could carry the stød?), or is that how the source transcribe these?
• hænder/ˈhɛnʌ/ / hænder/ˈhɛnˀʌ/ - the same as above.
• My biggest concern is with /ˈtrække/ and /ˈtrækker/. These can't be phonemic transcriptions, as Danish doesn't allow geminated plosives. I'm guessing these should be /ˈtrVɡə/ and /ˈtrVɡər/ (I'm not sure what's the first vowel), respectively, whereas /ˈtrække/ and /ˈtrækker/ are, in fact, simply trække and trækker, i.e. orthographic forms. Peter238 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I was right about the last one. Den Danske Ordbog states that trække is pronounced [ˈtʁagə]. Peter238 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • The question about length marking I think is one of analysis and preference - One might say that the stød is the length marking. The words are in Grønnum which I believe you have, so you can see what she does and follow her. I think the sources for trække actually write the <kk>, but I think it is only a mild degree of OR to retranscribe it with [g]. There is something weird about the vowel too though - everyone I know pronounce it with a glide as [ˈtrɑi̯ɡə] or something like that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"læser /ˈlɛːsʌ/ / læser /ˈlɛˀsʌ/ - shouldn't these be /ˈlɛːsər/, /ˈlɛːˀsər/": The [r] is certainly not correct. It does not occur in the pronunciation. I suspect you have been misled by the orthography. Henryfunk (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Stod positions before consonants and after vowels

Hi guys, I wonder if the word hænder is rendered syllable-by-syllable as /ˈhɛnˀ.ʌ/ or /ˈhɛ.nˀʌ/? Thanks! Awesomemeeos (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maunus:, do you have any knowledge of this? -- Awesomemeeos (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

/ˈhɛnˀ.ʌ/ is correct. /nˀʌ/ is not a possible syllable in Danish.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that hænder can be a verb (meaning occurs, happens) and a noun in the plural (meaning hands). There is no stød in the verb.

Henryfunk (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Markup

MOS:FOREIGN markup was reverted by Maunus, with "stød is not a foreign word but an English word borrowed from Danish in this context hence the additional markup is unnecessary, please reinsert other changes separately". That's clearly not correct. It's a Danish word, unique to the linguistics of Danish, which linguists use in English when writing about Danish because we don't need to invent a new English word. It's not a fully assimilated English word; it's Danish jargon used by a vanishingly small percentage of English speakers as technical jargon in English for the same (non-English) thing. MOS:FOREIGN definitely applies here, just as it does to writing about ethnic dishes almost unknown in the West, or discussing the Arabic concept of radāʿ in kinship. Just because English-speaking anthropologists would not always italicize the latter in an anthropology journal, or someone writing a Oaxacan cookbook in English probably wouldn't bother with italics around the former, that doesn't mean MOS:FOREIGN doesn't apply when writing these non-English terms on Wikipedia. The point of the italics to indicate it's not an [assimilated] English word and won't appear in most or any English-language dictionaries, and the point of the {{lang}} markup is to ensure proper pronunciation by screen readers (for now; it's likely other uses of this metadata have arisen or will arise as the Web continues to develop; e.g. one could right now create a script to analyze the frequency of Danish words in English Wikipedia by looking for this markup, so removing it skews the data, though of course we have a long way to go in marking up the rest of such material). PS: It's also crappy to revert fixes you do not dispute just to revert ones you do, especially when guideline-based rationales for all of them were provided and you have not refuted any of them. The onus is on the person with the iffy dispute, per WP:EDITING policy. (There is no WP:V argument to make in the other direction, that the material is "challenged", since we do know for a fact that it's Danish – that information is reliably sourced and obvious in the context anyway.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong, this is by now an English word, though certainly specialized linguistic vocabulary - but this does not make it non-English you also won't find "theta-roles" or "ergativity" in most English dictionaries. As you will see if you were to look at the titles of the references in the articles, "stød" is now a linguistic term that is used in the description of languages other than Danish. So no, MOS:Foreign does not apply, and it shouldn't have italics because it doesn't in the cited sources. If you don't want all of your changes reverted you might consider not doing them all in a single edit. I think the rationale regarding screen readers is reasonable. Your musings about onus is neither here nor there, you made a bold edit and I reverted it, there is no burden on anyone to sort the wheat from the chaff for you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Probably less that 0.00001% of the English-speaking population know this word. It is not assimilated. Even our article Danish language gives it in the markup I did. WP's guidelines and practices are what I'm following, you're doing WP:ILIKEIT. The word is not found in nearly any major English-language dictionaries, including American Heritage, Random House Unabridged amd Collins via Dictionary.com, Cambridge, OxfordDictionaries.com, nor the Corpus of Global Web-Based English – not even under an anglicized spelling of stod. Only Merriam-Webster has it (and probably OED, since it tries to record every term that ever shows up more than a couple of times in English, but I'm not going to pay a subscription fee to find out). Google Books Ngrams shows the frequency of stød in English-language books to be orders of magnitude lower than even a term like Festschrift, which most people wouldn't consider assimilated either. I'm restoring my work, and you can RfC it if you continue to disagree in the face of both policy- and source-based arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Is stød used in some Norwegian dialects?

At various points in the first season of Skam, I swear I hear the character Eva, who is from Bergen, saying nei ('no') exactly the way we Copenhageners would pronounce it—with stød (see e.g. season 1, episode 10, 16 minutes, 15 seconds). Perhaps stød has been picked up by some Norwegian dialects? I couldn't find any sources on this online, though, but I hope someone can find one. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 19:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure I heard the character Isak doing a stød in season 1, episode 11, 15 minutes and 15 seconds in, too. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(Talk – Contribs)} 21:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Biscuit-in-Chief: Bergen has tonal accents just like the rest of the country (only a tiny minority of Norwegians lack them in their speech). Any kind of creaky voice used by Norwegians is non-phonemic and therefore isn't stød. Also, nei has just one syllable and so it can be pronounced with any tone, with or without creaky voice. Only trøndersk and a few other dialects (also spoken in that area, rather far away from Bergen) distinguish monosyllabic words based on pitch accent. In other words, whether she said [ˈnaj̰] or [ˈnaj] matters as little as whether she said [ˈnâj] (with Tone 1, which is falling in Bergen) or [ˈnǎj] (with Tone 2, which is rising in Bergen). Forgive me if I got the vowel wrong - the diphthong starts in the open central area in Copenhagen. I don't know which vowel is used in Bergen; in Oslo it'd be [æ]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

OR in pronunciation

@Kbb2: I changed the pronounciation of stød per the ref; you then reverted my edits to properly reflect H:IPA-DA. Per WP:SYNTH, that seems to be OR. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Biscuit-in-Chief: ⟨t⟩ in the system used on H:IPA-DA stands for an unaspirated voiceless alveolar stop. Using ⟨d⟩ for that sound is not an IPA usage, given the fact that the contrast between this and [tˢ] is purely affrication. ⟨d̥⟩, used by Basbøll and Grønnum is an overly complicated transcription that was replaced with ⟨t⟩ after a discussion we had last year. I'm not sure what WP:SYNTH has to do with this. H:IPA-DA is an in-house convention that doesn't have to follow any source religiously, I also see no problem with replacing non-IPA transcriptions with their IPA counterparts. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stød vs. pitch accent in regional Norwegian and Swedish

We need to mention that while Urban East Norwegian and Standard Swedish contrast Tone 1 and Tone 2 only in non-final syllables of polysyllabic words, there are dialects that do not have such restriction (e.g. trøndersk) and can also contrast the tonemes in monosyllables. In some dialects there can even be two (or perhaps even more?) tones in one word, which makes them even more similar to Danish.

Also, what about tones applied to groups of words in UEN (gro igjen /ˈɡrùː ˌijən/ 'grow anew' vs. gro igjen /ˈɡrûː ˌijən/ 'grow over')? Is there a similar phenomenon in Danish? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Creaky-voice laryngealization

I strongly recommend that the paragraph about stød as an example of creaky-voice laryngealization should be reconsidered and preferably removed as I find it to misrepresent both. I have no idea why it has ever been suggested as a way of description, unless someone once read that stød is about stress (which it is, but not in the sense of stressing the vocal cords or larynx leading to a distorted sound, but in the sense of accentuating or adding weight). Note that in the danish article nothing of that kind is mentioned either. Flight714 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

What is it, then, when it's not realized as a glottal stop? Sounds like you're mistaking a phonetic description for a phonological one. Nardog (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is basically a sort of emphasizing or accentuation by way of shift of weight within the vowel(partioning the vowel into 2-3 connected micro portions) without necessarily altering it's duration though this may occur,and without any distortion or altering of neither sound quality of the vowel nor it's pitch. The differing airflow in stød vs non stød is silent and takes place entirely above the larynx, in the mouth and through the nostrils, not unlike in certain french words ( note that quite a number of stød syllables contain " n ", also mirroring French praxis, save the clogged nasal timbre) To what degree any distorted or creaky-voiced effect should occur among random test examples, this would be considered strangely crude and unnecessary,as if tensions were erroneously directed to the vocal cords,not in any way typical. It's rather unfortunate that this misconception has found it's way into the english article from where it seems to spread via quotes and translations.

Flight714 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)