![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"Puʂʂy. Puʂʂy galore." -"Sean Connery" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien lysdexia 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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 88.240.56.129 ( talk) 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have some spectrograms of voiceless retroflex sibilants. Is this page a good place to upload them? TheNyleve ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
at all? Edralis ( talk) 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What about the voiceless equivalent? Could that also exist too? Fdom5997 ( talk) 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this sound is in some English dialects for [s], for instance some speakers from Texas. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4d1ati0n ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible that there can be a voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative [ɻ̊˔], as well as a voiced one [ɻ˔]? If so where? Any information? Fdom5997 ( talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
"Puʂʂy. Puʂʂy galore." -"Sean Connery" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien lysdexia 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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 88.240.56.129 ( talk) 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have some spectrograms of voiceless retroflex sibilants. Is this page a good place to upload them? TheNyleve ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
at all? Edralis ( talk) 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What about the voiceless equivalent? Could that also exist too? Fdom5997 ( talk) 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this sound is in some English dialects for [s], for instance some speakers from Texas. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4d1ati0n ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible that there can be a voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative [ɻ̊˔], as well as a voiced one [ɻ˔]? If so where? Any information? Fdom5997 ( talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)