Talk:Voiceless retroflex fricative: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:59, 1 December 2012

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

"Puʂʂy. Puʂʂy galore." -"Sean Connery" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien lysdexia 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Castillian Spanish Example

Is "s" really a voiceless retroflex fricative? I've always thought it was a voiceless apico-alveolar sibilant, but I may be misinformed. Also, the example [dɔʐ], has ʐ, doesn't that mean it should be in the ʐ article instead? I didn't want to edit anything without being sure of anything. --Sergio Á.(nodoubt9203) ^{|talk to me|} 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right. The tongue doesn't usually go back that far, but it can serve as an allophone in some regions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

That's what I thought! :D Thanks --Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me|}^{|what i've done|}^|e| 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in German

For some reason everyone recognizes that there are two "hard ch" sounds in German ([χ] and [x]) but there is no acknowledgment that the "soft ch" [ç] is often reduced to [ʂ] or even [ʃ] in many dialects in NRW and in almost every German's fast-speech. The reason being is that [ç] is not always comfortable to pronounce quickly and effectively with an every-day tempo. It's much the same idea with American English reducing the [t] sound in words like "butter" to a flap or tap. Sorry I didn't put this in the notes when I changed it today. ·:RedAugust 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "sch" sound in general? From my own observations it seems like some pronunciations of "sch" (such as in the oft-heard word "Scheiße) border more on a voiceless retroflex fricative, rather than a voiceless postalveolar fricative. Can anyone confirm or debunk this observation of mine?--Witan 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, SH in English SHELL sounds light (postalveolar), SCH in German (SCHTIMMT) sounds dark (somewhat retroflex). In no way they are the same sound, using German SCH in English is heard as '"German accent.

diacritics

Several of the examples had a retraction sign. Not sure what that's supposed to mean - retracted [s] would make more sense. I suppose it was supposed to be an apical or laminal sign. Whoever did it might want to check I didn't screw things up. kwami (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Old versions of this article (up to here) distinguish'd explicitly between the subapical, apical and laminal retroflexes. The "retracted" diacritics seem to stem from the list of laminals.

Too bad there isn't a "subapical" diacritic, because with newer additions we can't really tell if they're to be taken as explicitly subapical (the canonical definition of 'retroflex'), or as "generic" retroflexes. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ʂ] = [ʃˠ]?

Is it possible to view this sound as a velarized [ʃ], i.e. [ʃˠ] or [ʃ̴], just like the way [ɕ] is equal to [ʃʲ]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.56.129 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's quite distinct from that. [ʃˠ] would have a secondary narrowing (articulation) in the velar area, while [ʂ] is made using the tip of the tongue curled up and without any secondary articulations (and it could, technically, be velarized: [ʂˠ]). --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 For some reason everyone recognizes that there are two "hard ch" sounds in German ([χ] and [x]) but there is no acknowledgment that the "soft ch" [ç] is often reduced to [ʂ] or even [ʃ] in many dialects in NRW and in almost every German's fast-speech. The reason being is that [ç] is not always comfortable to pronounce quickly and effectively with an every-day tempo. It's much the same idea with American English reducing the [t] sound in words like "butter" to a flap or tap. Sorry I didn't put this in the notes when I changed it today. ·:[[User:RedAugust|RedAugust]] 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::What about the "sch" sound in general?  From my own observations it seems like some pronunciations of "sch" (such as in the oft-heard word "Scheiße) border more on a voiceless retroflex fricative, rather than a voiceless postalveolar fricative.  Can anyone confirm or debunk this observation of mine?--Witan 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
+You are right, SH in English SHELL sounds light (postalveolar), SCH in German (SCHTIMMT) sounds dark (somewhat retroflex). In no way they are the same sound, using German SCH in English is heard as '"German accent''.
 == diacritics ==