![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Moved for three reasons:
— Tkinias 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is Ladefoged our only reference here? The article seems to imply postalveolar laminal and retroflex laminal are the same sound.
Indeed, the relevant Polish and Mandarin fricatives/affricates are decribed using both sound classifications seemingly interchangeably across various wikipedia articles. However, the Polish and Mandarin versions of the sounds do not sound the same. In fact, I would be inclined to clasify Polish as postalveolar laminal and Mandarin as retroflex laminal.
Similarly the Mandarin alveolo-palatal fricatives sound nothing like the Polish ones in any Mandarin I've ever heard spoken and I'd much sooner clasify them as palatals.
It would be really great to get some expert opinion in here, and if necessary, clean some of this up (at the very least disambiguate as much as possible). -- Het 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The palato-alveolar affricates are treated incoherently in the first table. There are images, and there are characters illustrating the shape of the phonetic symbols. In the image section, tʃ is shown as juxtaposed t and ʃ, bu dʒ is shown as a ligature ʤ. In the character section, both are written juxtaposed, i.e. tʃ and dʒ. This should be treated in a coherent fashion, either all juxtaposition, or all ligature. In case of juxtaposition, I think we should add a tie bar ͡ to make clear that we are talking about one segment, not two. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of this article, particularly the first diagram of sounds refers specifically to 1 sort of post-alveolar. As discussed above, there are three sorts. This should be left for generalities and discussing the differences and there should searate that shows where palato-alveolar consonants are used. Munci ( talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
[s̠ z̠] laminal flat postalveolar (laminal retroflex) Polish sz, rz, cz, dż
[ṣ ẓ] apical postalveolar (apical retroflex) Mandarin sh, zh, ch
[ɕ ʑ] laminal palatalized postalveolar (alveolo-palatal) Mandarin q, j, x, Polish ć, ś, ź, dź
That doesn't make sense. Polish cz, dż, ć, dź and Chinese zh, ch, q, j are affricates. Mandarin doesn't have ẓ nor ʑ.-- 2.245.66.112 ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Suppose /s/ is a laminal alveolar. According to Place of articulation, the retracted consonant /s̠/ should be palato-alveolar and thus I reckon this symbol would be equivalent to /ʃ/. However, in this article /s̠/ and /ʃ/ are referred to as two different sounds. Is it a notation issue, or have I done anything wrong? I reckon the only difference between Polish sz and English sh is the tongue shape.-- Farru ES ( talk) 14:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The table of examples uses the underdot for examples from Ubykh and Toda. This apparently marks apical retroflex consonants. The diacritic isn't listed in the International Phonetic Alphabet article, however; is this deprecated usage from an older form of the IPA, or from another transcriptional system? — Eru· tuon 07:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This sentence here: The normal rhotic consonant (r-sound) in American English is a retroflex approximant [ɻ] (the equivalent in British English is an alveolar approximant [ɹ]) appears to contradict the articles for the sounds described - It states that /ɹ/ is used in most AmE dialects, with /ɻ/ used in fewer. I'm asking for clarity on the articles - they appear to contradict each other, so something needs to be changed, I'm just not sure what. Deuteranopia ( talk) 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that the most common rhotic in American English is the alveolar approximant [ɹ]. When I took a multilingual diction course at university we were taught about the retroflex approximant [ɻ] and my whole class of native West Coast American English speakers marveled at the novelty of making an r-sound like that. We did not use [ɻ] in any of our transcriptions of American English and I’m personally not familiar with any American English dialects that use the retroflex approximant [ɻ].
However, we were taught that the retroflex version was common in Australian English. We used [ɻ] to transcribe the sound in AusE. If the phrase were changed to “The normal rhotic consonant (r-sound) in Australian English is a retroflex approximant [ɻ],” that would match with my understanding. Scientific Method Man ( talk) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone add to the article the name of this symbol: ʃ? And maybe the other symbols for postalveolar consonants, too. Thank you! DBlomgren ( talk) 03:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Moved for three reasons:
— Tkinias 20:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is Ladefoged our only reference here? The article seems to imply postalveolar laminal and retroflex laminal are the same sound.
Indeed, the relevant Polish and Mandarin fricatives/affricates are decribed using both sound classifications seemingly interchangeably across various wikipedia articles. However, the Polish and Mandarin versions of the sounds do not sound the same. In fact, I would be inclined to clasify Polish as postalveolar laminal and Mandarin as retroflex laminal.
Similarly the Mandarin alveolo-palatal fricatives sound nothing like the Polish ones in any Mandarin I've ever heard spoken and I'd much sooner clasify them as palatals.
It would be really great to get some expert opinion in here, and if necessary, clean some of this up (at the very least disambiguate as much as possible). -- Het 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The palato-alveolar affricates are treated incoherently in the first table. There are images, and there are characters illustrating the shape of the phonetic symbols. In the image section, tʃ is shown as juxtaposed t and ʃ, bu dʒ is shown as a ligature ʤ. In the character section, both are written juxtaposed, i.e. tʃ and dʒ. This should be treated in a coherent fashion, either all juxtaposition, or all ligature. In case of juxtaposition, I think we should add a tie bar ͡ to make clear that we are talking about one segment, not two. Jasy jatere ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Some of this article, particularly the first diagram of sounds refers specifically to 1 sort of post-alveolar. As discussed above, there are three sorts. This should be left for generalities and discussing the differences and there should searate that shows where palato-alveolar consonants are used. Munci ( talk) 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
[s̠ z̠] laminal flat postalveolar (laminal retroflex) Polish sz, rz, cz, dż
[ṣ ẓ] apical postalveolar (apical retroflex) Mandarin sh, zh, ch
[ɕ ʑ] laminal palatalized postalveolar (alveolo-palatal) Mandarin q, j, x, Polish ć, ś, ź, dź
That doesn't make sense. Polish cz, dż, ć, dź and Chinese zh, ch, q, j are affricates. Mandarin doesn't have ẓ nor ʑ.-- 2.245.66.112 ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Suppose /s/ is a laminal alveolar. According to Place of articulation, the retracted consonant /s̠/ should be palato-alveolar and thus I reckon this symbol would be equivalent to /ʃ/. However, in this article /s̠/ and /ʃ/ are referred to as two different sounds. Is it a notation issue, or have I done anything wrong? I reckon the only difference between Polish sz and English sh is the tongue shape.-- Farru ES ( talk) 14:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The table of examples uses the underdot for examples from Ubykh and Toda. This apparently marks apical retroflex consonants. The diacritic isn't listed in the International Phonetic Alphabet article, however; is this deprecated usage from an older form of the IPA, or from another transcriptional system? — Eru· tuon 07:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This sentence here: The normal rhotic consonant (r-sound) in American English is a retroflex approximant [ɻ] (the equivalent in British English is an alveolar approximant [ɹ]) appears to contradict the articles for the sounds described - It states that /ɹ/ is used in most AmE dialects, with /ɻ/ used in fewer. I'm asking for clarity on the articles - they appear to contradict each other, so something needs to be changed, I'm just not sure what. Deuteranopia ( talk) 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that the most common rhotic in American English is the alveolar approximant [ɹ]. When I took a multilingual diction course at university we were taught about the retroflex approximant [ɻ] and my whole class of native West Coast American English speakers marveled at the novelty of making an r-sound like that. We did not use [ɻ] in any of our transcriptions of American English and I’m personally not familiar with any American English dialects that use the retroflex approximant [ɻ].
However, we were taught that the retroflex version was common in Australian English. We used [ɻ] to transcribe the sound in AusE. If the phrase were changed to “The normal rhotic consonant (r-sound) in Australian English is a retroflex approximant [ɻ],” that would match with my understanding. Scientific Method Man ( talk) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone add to the article the name of this symbol: ʃ? And maybe the other symbols for postalveolar consonants, too. Thank you! DBlomgren ( talk) 03:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)