Talk:Voiceless retroflex sibilant
|WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics|
"Puʂʂy. Puʂʂy galore." -"Sean Connery" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien lysdexia 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That would rather be [ˈpʊs̠i], with the voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant. --Ahls23 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2013 (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)
- 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) .
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)
- 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)
"and in almost every German's fast-speech." Are you sure about that? "first sound in German STIMMT sounds dark (somewhat retroflex)." I agree, if the so-called "laminal retroflexes" (Polish and Russian post-alveolars) are here then German /ʃ (ʒ) t͡ʃ (d͡ʒ)/ should definitely be in retroflex articles as well. There's nothing palatal about them for many or most speakers. --Ahls23 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
[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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- This seems the place to discuss them. You'd preferably upload them to Wikimedia Commons. --JorisvS (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)