Talk:Voiced dental fricative

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

English Language High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Icelandic

Why isn't Icelandic mentioned in this article as a language with a voiced dental fricative? Vauxhall1964 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Icelandic sound is actually an alveolar non-sibilant fricative. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

icelandic isnt mentioned for that consonant either though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.112.187 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to scroll down to the second table. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danish

The article has, under the list of voiced dental fricatives

Danish 	vide 	[ˈʋiːðə] 	'to know' 	See Danish phonology

But Danish phonology has a bridge under the ð and shows it in the Danish consonant table as alveolar. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is alveolar - read Danish phonology#Consonants. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 10:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue groove

What's the tongue groove? The only thing I could imagine was rolling the tongue. I think this topic deserves an article because it's mentioned in many places, but isn't really a clear term — at least not clearer than tongue blade. Wisapi (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. It seems it has something to do with the shape of the tongue, but it's not clear what that shape is. Before we make a new article, we might just try putting the information at sibilant consonant. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the occurrence section...

The bolding of the "r" for the south African pronunciation of "round" seems to indicate that "r" is pronounced "d".

round / [ɹ̝ɑənd] / 'round'

I have 2 problems with this.

I have never heard a South African substitute "r" and "d" sounds. Seems like this might be a typo and they intended for the last letter of the word to carry the sound.
Different complaint, but still applicable, another area of Wikipedia identifies this pronunciation as being of a specific urban dialect: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Phonetics/Archive_2#Proposed_style_guidelines. Even if it is the correct pronunciation, it does not appear to be representative of the way most people speak in South Africa.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.1.102 (talk • contribs)

How do you get from the representation that r is pronounced like d?

The link you've provided is an archived discussion, not really "another area of Wikipedia." The examples there are for figuring out how information is to be presented. You don't really think there's a language called "Examplese" do you? Either way, though, the SAE entry is uncited so we can add a fact tag if you'd like and remove it if no one can provide a source after a reasonable period of time. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu

Urdu is a lamguage that written in arabic script and contain havey vocabulary from arabic. Urdu also contains All Arabic sounds.----Viharian101 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is not mentioned on the Hindustani phonology page where it talks about sounds introduced from loans. You'd have to have a proper source that says so, "because I say so" is not good enough. --JorisvS (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dental approximant sound

is the same as the sound for the dental fricative. Edralis 11:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese

There is no equivalent sound in Portuguese, d in "nada" sounds nothing like the voiced th in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:12F0:601:A914:F8A5:F1C4:F4F8:DCDB (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the source says. Peter238 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced dental fricative in Dutch and German

Comparison between words in English and Dutch shows quite obviously that many cognate words exist that(!) in English start with either voiced or voiceless fricative "th" and in Dutch start with "d". This Dutch "d" is actually pronounced very close to or even as the voiced dental fricative. This feature even extends through the Dutch-German dialect continuum well into the area of the German language. Actually at least originally, all along the lower German North Sea shore this pronunciation of "d" as a voiced dental fricative must have been practically the standard pronunciation.Amand Keultjes (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Old High German, the original Germanic *þ was first voiced to /ð/ and eventually became a stop /d/. This /d/ remained distinct from Germanic *d in Upper German and some dialects of Central German because these had shifted *d to /t/. (Hence, English day, thorn vs. German Tag, Dorn.) In the more northern dialects of Central German, both sounds were merged into one phoneme /d/, and the same then also happened -- slightly later -- in Old Dutch and Old Saxon. The question whether this merged phoneme of the northern varieties was at times realised as a fricative [ð] is somewhat unrelated, but you would seem to be right that this was the case, though probably only in intervocalic position, not word-initially. (One reason to assume is the frequent elision of intervocalic /d/ in these varieties.) However, I'm not sure whether it was necessarily predominant throughout the North European Plain. It could have been common in some areas but not in others. At any rate, this [ð], if it indeed existed, was only an allophone of /d/, not a phoneme in its own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.102.144 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English occurrences....

In the "occurrences" sections, it lists a couple dialects (RP & Western American) as having this sound, but as far as I know just about every dialect of English pronounces words like "this" and "father" with this sound....It's rather universal - certainly in Eastern American English, non-RP British dialects, Aus and NZ English, etc. So I'd recommend getting rid of those dialects and just having it listed as an across the board English usage. -2003:CA:870C:E9F:9DEE:D792:643D:BE7B (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

/θ, ð/ are pretty unstable, see Pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩. Nardog (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand right, you're saying there are a lot of dialects that use a different sound so the article only lists ones where it's definitely [ð], right? I had the same question as the anonymous user and came here to ask about it, so could we add a note to clarify? Maybe something like:

While [ð] is found most English dialects, there are numerous exceptions, so the dialects presented here are some significant ones that use [ð] without exception.

Otherwise, if I get what you're saying, to be more inclusive, we'd have to say stuff like

Canadian English except Newfoundland English; British English except Cockney, ...; General American except most AAVE, some NYC, Chicago, Boston, ...

— W.andrea (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]