Talk:Voiceless dental fricative
|WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics|
The article right now says that "The voiceless dental fricative is relatively rare among the world's languages." Why is it a rare sound (even though I believe this statement)?
I'm going to remove this statement, as the sound appears in three languages with over 100 million speakers: English, Spanish and Arabic.
- Actually, few Spanish speakers have this phoneme, only the peninsulares.Cameron Nedland 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I find it a bit of an understatement to qualify some three dozen million Castilian Spanish speakers as "a few", don't you think? Surely they don't amount to a majority of the Hispanophone world at large, but they certainly aren't just "a few" and their pronunciation was for long held to be the standard (only recently the seseo pronunciation that lacks this sound has been accepted as standard for the Latin American dialects). 184.108.40.206 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm Italian, I'd like to know how this consonant sound is pronounced in the plurals (e.g. deaths, baths). I'm not used to it, so please explain. ;)
- Older speakers will often change it to the Voiced dental fricative in plurals, for example: one bath /wʌn bæθ/ but, two baths /tu bæðz/. Many younger speakers will keep it the as the voiceless: /tu bæθs/. It just depends on who you talk to.Cameron Nedland 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"Many languages, including ... Spanish in Spain, ... lack this sound." I think that should be Spanish in the Americas, because Spanish in most parts of Spain has this sound for the letter z, or c before i or e, hasn't it?
- It is completely redundant and nonencyclopedic to have a list of languages that lack the sound and moreover mention the languages that lack it before any languages that have it. It is also completely irrelevant which sound speakers of languages that lack the sound might possibly use to substitute it with. It is simply not encyclopedic information.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the "citation needed" marker because Wikipedia already has articles concerning those phenomena, with citations of their own. On the other hand, I more or less agree with aeusoes1 in that what we need is the actual percentage, instead of statements that "many languages don't have this sound" which isn't really informative, if not somewhat misleading. The occurrence of this sound isn't so rare that it must be specially mentioned: the voiceless bilabial fricative, for instance, is even rarer in terms of number of languages that have this sound, but nothing is said about it. 石川 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored the citation request. That Wikipedia somewhere cites this information means that it shouldn't be too difficult to cite it in this article. I'm not a fan of citing a fact in only one of the articles it's mentioned. Cite it here as well as there. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added some citations. I'm not certain it'd be a good idea to just copy the citations from each page and to paste them here, but that's the best I can find for now. Also, none of those sources talk about phenomena in non-native accent, so we still lack sources of that kind.石川 (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Equating dental with interdental?
Throughout several of the articles, the idea that dental fricatives "are also known as" interdental consonants is espoused. This despite the fact that they are two separate categories, and a conventional dental fricative can just as easily be pronounced as an interdental fricative. Could someone elaborate? --OneTopJob6 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interdental is not wholly separate from dental. It's simply one way of describing a type of laminal dental consonants. Sometimes it's too specific so that, for example, English /ð/ is pronounced with the tip of the tongue at the teeth in British varieties but is more interdental in American English. Don't quote me on that, though. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What happened to apico-dental?
There might not be much variation out there in terms of articulator, but shouldn't the tip of the tongue be mentioned in the description? It's a voiceless apico-dental fricative. allolex (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not always apical, even within a language. English, for example, varies from dialect to dialect between apical and laminal. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, English speakers have done it for quite some time. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, then the sound is only present in Icelandic as a voiceless alveolar non-sibilant fricative and not simply as a voiceless dental fricative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, as far as I know anyway. It's a subtle distinction. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Me: Not sure if by Icelandic that they oughtn't have said ancient norse? As in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) ? Sorry, new everywhere. -1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Contradiction in the denti-alveolar sibilant
The description of the denti-alveolar sibilant as it stands is contradictory. We have »Its place of articulation is denti-alveolar...« but »It is normally apical«. The problem is that a denti-alveolar consonant is by defintion laminal, not apical. The whole section is unsourced, so I can’t check which statement is wrong, but I suspect it’s the assertion of apicality. Can anyone shed any light on this? —Vorziblix (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not unsourced, read it again. Peter238 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you’re right. The source has »The tongue tip rests against the back of the upper front teeth, and the groove for the air escape is formed in the tongue blade (or corona) where it rests in the area of the upper teeth sockets, gum line, and alveolar ridge«, so the sound seems to indeed be laminal, not apical; I’ll fix the article accordingly. —Vorziblix (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)