Talk:Voiceless alveolar affricate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Voiceless dental affricate)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics   
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.
 

Do not make edits if you don't have a source to back your claim[edit]

If you make an edit, please have an authoritative source to back your claim. Thanks azalea_pomp

English[edit]

No source is needed for English - as a native speaker of English, I am fully aware that almost all English speakers who don't use the /kæʔs/ pronouciation use the affricate pronounciation (I have never heard anyone use the non-affricate prouounciation in word-final position, except when they are speaking very slowly (and even then, it's still rare)).

If you wish, feel free to contact other fluent speakers of English for reassurance. User:Spacevezontalk 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While native speakers can provide lots of helpful insights and information, one of the things native speakers can not provide is phonetic particularities of their language. In this case, your claim contradicts what actual experts say about English. The English word cats exhibits a stop + fricative cluster, not an affricate. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If you say so (but I pronounce it the affricate way, and I can tell the difference between the affricate and non-affricates) User:Spacevezontalk 07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Have I understood it correctly - is this the phoneme in pizza? Why is it sometimes written as [ts] and sometimes as [t͡s]? Is there a difference and shouldn't that be explained in the article? Doccolinni (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In English, the double zz in pizza is not a single phoneme, but two phonemes so that, if pizza were to use more typical English spelling, it would be peetsa. In precise phonetic transcription, there is a difference between [ts] and [t͡s], though there are varying differences between them depending on language. In Russian, for example, the difference is that the former takes twice as long to produce as the latter; in other languages, the former may have an independant release of the [t] before the [s] is pronounced. In less precise transcriptions, the tie bar is often omitted since most languages don't make a distinction. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

They may say it, and while I do accept that, I still can't really believe it completely (and still believe I use the affricate!). It seems to be a pervasive thought among native English speakers that this really is [t͡s]! I wonder why? Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

ʦ or ʧ?[edit]

I don't know if everything in this article is wrong, but the Polish example is. The citation of Jassem's article is a fake as in this article Polish Voiceless alveolar affricate is approximated as ʧ not as ʦ, while the latter is called (post)dental, not alveolar. Different languages have other allophonic realisations of their phonemes, so it is possible, that typical Polish s is more dental than typical English s (as Polish has no θ to be confused with s) and so are it's affricates. Actually in English there's only one phonemic affricate (in voiced and voiceless versions, but it's irrelevant here), while in Polish there are three, so it is crucial to discriminate between dental, alveolar and palatal (plus palatalised allophones of dental and alveolar ones that are not phonemic). However, every contrastive phonetic manual I know says that alveolar affricate is ʧ in contrast to ʦ, which makes me doubt in whole the article that says that typical alveolar affricate is ʦ. Panek (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at "Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages" by Silke Hamann. Typically, the sounds represented by e.g. sz are represented with the IPA characters for palato-alveolar fricatives ([ʃ]). If people call these alveolar, it's possibly because the point of contact is on the alveolar ridge though it sounds closer to a postalveolar fricative because, as Hamann's article indicates, these sounds are actually retroflex. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I know that Polish "sz" is also retroflex. As Kopczyński in "Andrzej Kopczyński: Polish and American English Consonant Phonemes : A Contrastive Study. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1977" says, the Polish "sz" and American English "sh" (and "cz"/"ch" respectively) are considered to be equivalents as they're both "hushing" which is a distinctive feature in Polish (in contrast to "hissing" (s, c) and "whisper" (ś, ć)) and irrelevant feature in English (as there are no other sibilants). As I wrote I don't expect full equality between sounds of different languages, so I can even accept, that Polish ʧ is more similar to hypothetical English ʦ than ʧ (postalvolar). The problem is, that in Polish there is another ʦ, which is rather dental or postdental than alveolar (and not retroflex AFAIK). This is not just Slavic-Germanic confrontation as Russian "ч" is more palatal than Polish "cz" (in Polish it is similar to a just palatalised allophone of "cz", eg. in 'Chile'). To sum up, it is disputable to say that Polish ʦ ("c") is alveolar, although it really reassembles German "z" or Italian "zz". And it is untrue to cite Jassem as a source for such a statement (as one can see in a link above to this very article). Probably it just should have its own article Voiceless postdental affricate, but I just wonder if other examples from this article are really alveolar or rather postdental as a Polish one (I know it is rather continuous than discrete feature and there are intermediate versions, not even mentioning allophonic variation). I saw some course-books saying that eg. German "z" is alveolar, but maybe it's just an English-centric simplification. Panek (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

ƾ[edit]

According to Unicode[1], "ƾ" is an archaic symbol for ʦ. Should this be added to the article? ObsequiousNewt (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0180.pdf