View source for Talk:Voiceless postalveolar fricative

{{WikiProject Linguistics|phonetics=yes}}

== š ==

The croatian sound š iz listed on this page, but it seems to me that is actually a [[Voiceless retroflex fricative]]. Any ideas?

== == 

I have heard somewhere that there is a wordplay with spelling the word "Fish" as "Ghote" (hence [[Inspector Ghote]]). I can easily remember the first two sounds: "Gh" sounds as "F" in "laugh", and "o" sounds as "i" in "women", but I cannot for my life remember what constitutes the spelling of "te" as sounding as "sh". Can somebody help me? --[[User:83.248.174.108|83.248.174.108]] 09:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (User Hannibal from Swedish Wikipedia)

:It's ''ghoti'' and the ''ti'' comes from the ''-tion'' ending as in ''destination'', ''nation'', ''documentation'', etc. [http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhat04.html]. No apparent relationship to Inspector Ghote. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 17:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I am far from being a phonetician, so I don't feel comfortable editing this article, but I feel like in the examples section (''shoe'', ''passion'', and ''caution''), the phoneme in ''passion'' is indicated by the letters ''ssi'', as opposed to just the letters ''ss''.  ''Passon'' would not be pronounced with the voiceless postalveolar fricative; ''pasion'' would almost certainly be pronounced with the voiced postalveolar fricative; the word passion seems to combine the ss digraph that softens the vowel (and removes the voice from the resulting sound) with the [consonant]+i digraph that appears in ''caution''.  Am I totally off base here?

As you suggest,the '''sh''' comes from the '''t''' in nation but the '''e''' is silent [ but does that make the short '''i''' in fish into a long '''i''' as in kite?]
Marlon Munroe 05/03/06

== Postalveolar vs. palato-alveolar ==

Should the languages with the [[voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative]] or [[voiceless retroflex fricative]] be removed from this list, thus reserving the page for a specifically palato-alveolar consonant? Or is this page about voiceless postalveolar fricatives in general, including alveolo-palatals and retroflexes? [[User:74.8.91.57|74.8.91.57]] 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Hebrew and Yiddish? ==
I'm not totally sure I understand the concept but would someone versed in this tell me if it exists in Hebrew or Yiddish: Shabbat, Shalom, Shomer, Esh (in Yiddish: Shabbos, Sholem, Shoymr, Eysh), Sabbath, peace, guard, fire, respectively. Are these voiceless postalveolar fricatives? [[User:Valley2city|'''<span style="background: blue; color: white;">Valley</span>]]2[[User talk:Valley2city|<span style="background: skyblue; color:white;">city</span>''']] 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the voiceless postalveolar fricative in both languages.:)·[[User:The Dropper|The Dropper]] 03:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

== Spanish ==

Why do you always remove the information about this sound in Spanish, that's so unprofessional. I've had specified the dialects this sounds appears (instead of /tʃ/, written "ch"), but you keep deleting it. If you find out about Spanish language this sound is present in a lot of dialects, heard 100% in Seville and Cádiz (Spain). As well it is present in Chilean Spanish, as other dialects. Please, do not remove the information again, as it is true.
If you got a doubt, you can check the Chilean Spanish dialect, or the Andalusian Spanish dialect (here on Wikipedia) to ensure that it does really exist in Spanish. Even it is common in other dialects, as in the north of Mexico.
So, please, do not remove the information about this, as this can be useful for whoever wants to know the Spanish language in-depth, or even the dialects mentioned above.

Check, http://www.atinachile.cl/node/11018 (Chilean dialect)
http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Dialecto_andaluz (Andalusian dialect)  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.120.160.71|84.120.160.71]] ([[User talk:84.120.160.71|talk]]) 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You are so stubburn, you keep deleting it. This is not information! Why do you specify other dialects in other phonemes, and you keep deleting it for Spanish which is an international languages and it is got loads of phonemes represented differently depending the place where you are!!! THIS IS NONSENSE!!! There up is the proof for goodness sake. What's there to do for you don't to delete it?!

You would do better to address your complaints to the person who deleted your information; go here: [[User talk:Aeusoes1]] --[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4|M1ss1ontomars2k4]] ([[User talk:M1ss1ontomars2k4|talk]]) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
:We can address it here.  I removed it because it's unreferenced.  The references you provide aren't very scholarly.  Do you have books or journal articles? — [[User:Aeusoes1|Æµ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== Sound sample: too palatal ==

Is it just me, or the sounds in [[:File:Voiceless_postalveolar_fricative.ogg]] (ʃ) and [[:File:Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_fricative.ogg]] (ɕ) are almost identical? 

I'd say that the sound sample in this article (postalveolar fricative) is too palatal and "soft", i.e. the speaker's tip of the tongue is too fronted. If the typical English sound "sh" is a "cannonical" form of /ʃ/, then this sound sample does not represent it well, and should be re-recorded. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 08:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:Can you readily tell the difference between the two sounds?  After years of trying, I still can't distinguish the two.  — [[User:Aeusoes1|Æµ§œš¹]] <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[[User talk:aeusoes1|<small><sub>[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]</sub></small>]]</span> 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::I can't tell the difference between those two .oggs (both are a /ɕ/, IMO), but I can tell the difference between two "cannonical" sounds. And this one is fairly wrong; imagine a native English speaker--you seem to be the one--saying "sh*t" with that sound <tt>:-)</tt>. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::You really can't hear the difference Æµ§œš¹?  Listen to the sound samples here: [http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/charts.html].  I think it's really obvious there.  Do you still not hear it? [[User:Badassusername|Badassusername]] ([[User talk:Badassusername|talk]]) 18:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I agree. Our two sound files are essentially identical. One's maybe pronounced with a higher tone, but the articulation sounds the same. The Meier files are a little better (there's a slight difference), but the [ɕ] is not what I'm used to from Japanese or Mandarin. I've been wondering if I should redo some of these, but I can't make a uvular trill for the life of me. — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

:::::Hi, i'm french speaking and something else seems to doesn't work on this sound file... Why it's say's "sha" ? It's should say "sh" with a little of "i" in french or "e" in english... No ? Something like this : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kOiQcEwAL8TjhURVZZTkRUNmc/view  You are free to use/modify this sound if you want to any use's imaginable. Thanks, [[User:Eric1212|Eric1212]] ([[User talk:Eric1212|talk]]) 12:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

== Merger with [[Esh (letter)]] ==

According to a tag in [[Esh (letter)]], there is a proposal to merge [[Esh (letter)]] with this article [[Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant]], and the proposal is being discussed here. I can find no such discussion — so I'll start one.

<s>I '''oppose''' the merger.</s> One article is about a sound or phoneme, the other is about a printed or written character. They are completely different things. The latter often represents the former, though it is also used in other ways; and the former can also be represented in other ways. To merge the two article would cause confusion. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:No, there is a tag to merge the '''section''' [[Esh (letter)#Other languages]] to here, which is quite reasonable. That section certainly does '''not''' belong to that article, because none of those languages has the glyph <ʃ>. It is a bit questionable if it belongs here at all (describing possible spellings of sound /ʃ/ in all world languages could be a bit too wide), but I think it would be acceptable (barely). [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 12:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

::Ok, I understand. In that case I withdraw my opposition. The section certainly does not belong in that article. I am unsure where it does belong. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== sheep and schön ==

The first sounds of "sheep" and "schön" are not the same sound, which is quite apparent if one is familiar with both. The latter sound I don't think I've ever encountered in English, while the former appears in some German words.
: -- I disagree, [ʃ] is the first phone in both words [[User:Tavin|Tavin]] ([[User talk:Tavin|talk]]) 23:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The German SCH/S(T)-/S(P)- sounds much darker, bordering on retroflex, the English SH is purely postalveolar. Using German SCH in English is perceived as -German accent-. In no way they are the same phone/sound, neither
articulatory nor acoustically.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Linda Martens|Linda Martens]] ([[User talk:Linda Martens|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Linda Martens|contribs]]) 23:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I agree with Linda Martens' description: "sheep" and "schön" don't have the same exact sound (I'm studying German for over one year, and have been in Germany for six months before that). After chatting with German natives, listening to media and songs, you clearly see that the English [ʃ] is different from the German [ʃ]. Using the English [ʃ] whenever it is prompted in German is nonetheless acceptable and totally fine. I think it has actually some expression among German natives, but it is rarer. As such, the "authentic" and definitely most common [ʃ] in German differs from the English [ʃ]. Regarding just the tongue shape, I suppose that the English [ʃ] is what the phoneticians call "laminal" (this seems to be the same used in European Portuguese, btw - I'm a native speaker), whereas the most common German [ʃ] is described as "apico-laminal". I am however confused: "apico-laminal"?? To me, being "apical" contrasts precisely with being "laminal". I'm unaware of the possibility of a consonant being both apical and laminal at the same time.
[[User:Oceanflipper|Oceanflipper]] ([[User talk:Oceanflipper|talk]]) 23:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

== diagram ==
I drew a diagram of this, could anyone check if it's correct? and if so please use it?
[[File:Fricatives-sch.svg|thumb|left|200px|]]
{{clear}}

== Norwegian ==

Could someone provide a sourced example for Standard Eastern Norwegian? What is now present in the article is very confusing, since Bokmål and Nynorsk are '''writing''' standards, not standards of '''pronunciation''', like [[General American]] or [[Received Pronunciation]]. Please don't remove the tags without addressing the problem. Thanks. --[[User:Matthiaspl|Matthiaspl]] ([[User talk:Matthiaspl|talk]]) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:Removed as it's sourced as [[Voiceless retroflex sibilant|retroflex]] on [[Norwegian phonology#Consonants]]. [[User:Peter238|Peter238]] ([[User talk:Peter238|talk]]) 09:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

== Voiceless postalveolar non-sibilant fricative ==

What the devil phoneme is this? I can't really comprehend how it would sound. Can someone familiar with it please explain? [[User:Tharthan|Tharthandorf Aquanashi]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:It's not phonemic in any language I'm aware of. — [[User:Peter238|Peter238]] ([[User talk:Peter238#top|v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊]]) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm more confused as to why it's on THIS page at all? [[User:Gejyspa|--gejyspa]] ([[User talk:Gejyspa|talk]]) 13:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Both {{IPA|[ʃ]}} and {{IPA|[ɹ̠̊˔]}} are postalveolar but not retroflex, that's why. The current official name for {{IPA|[ʃ]}} is "voiceless postalveolar fricative". — [[User:Peter238|Peter238]] ([[User talk:Peter238#top|v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊]]) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

== Occurence in northern Sweden ==
To claim that the sound occurs ''"in northern dialects"'', and that it's an ''"allophone of [ʂ]"'' is literally laughable — I would have laughed out loud if I ever heard someone speak like that, and I've met people from many different parts of northern Sweden. <br>The sound ''does'' occur ''in Finland'' in place of Swedish [<nowiki></nowiki>[[ɧ]]<nowiki></nowiki>], which is ''completely different'' from [ʂ]. — [[User:Knyȝt|Knyȝt]] ([[User talk:Knyȝt|talk]]) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

:I think the real question is, why in the world would a sound like /ɧ/ develop out of a historical /sk/ anyhow? It's an illogical phoneme is what it is! [[User:Tharthan|Tharthandorf Aquanashi]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::What do you mean "illogical"? --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:::As is clearly obvious from evolution of /sk/ in pretty much every other instance, it does not follow that /sk/ ➨ /ɧ/. There are only two instances of such a shift ever occurring and they are both documented on this page. Furthermore,  /ɧ/ sounds nothing like /sk/ whatsoever. I'm am truly baffled as to why such a shift has occurred. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthandorf Aquanashi]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 20:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
::::That makes it uncommon/unlikely, but not illogical. --[[User:JorisvS|JorisvS]] ([[User talk:JorisvS|talk]]) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. [[User:Tharthan|Tharthandorf Aquanashi]] ([[User talk:Tharthan|talk]]) 01:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
:I removed it. It was unsourced, and in my experience it is laminal retroflex {{IPAblink|ʂ}} in the north, rather than palato-alveolar {{IPAblink|ʃ}}. If someone has sources that say otherwise, feel free to reinsert it. [[User:Peter238|Peter238]] ([[User talk:Peter238|v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊]]) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

== Sheísmo ==

As noted in the [[Rioplatense Spanish]] article, in parts of Argentina, particularly around Buenos Aires, both Y and LL are pronounced with this sound.  So Paraguayo is pronounced as Paraguasho, and Caballito as Cabashito. This phenomenon is known as "sheísmo."  Can someone edit occurrences to note this.  I'm not experienced with editing these sorts of tables, but have reference right here from the other article: <ref>Charles B. Chang, [http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wss/4/paper1755.pdf "Variation in palatal production in Buenos Aires Spanish"]. Selected Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, ed. Maurice Westmoreland and Juan Antonio Thomas, 54-63. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 2008.</ref> -[[User:Helvetica|Helvetica]] ([[User talk:Helvetica|talk]]) 07:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

== Confusion between ʃ and ɕ in American English ==

It seems to me most Americans say /ɕ/ instead of /ʃ/ . I hear /ʃ/ sometimes if that person has a lisp problem. Or some British accents (e.g. Scottish, like Sean Connery). Difference is /ʃ/ seems heavier, due to blocking of air flow.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/73.202.8.115|73.202.8.115]] ([[User talk:73.202.8.115|talk]]) 02:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:First, it's {{IPA|[ɕ]}} and {{IPA|[ʃ]}}. You're talking about the phonetic realization of the phoneme {{IPA|/ʃ/}}.

:That's not true. Plus, there are two types of {{IPA|[ʃ]}}: flat postalveolar and palato-alveolar, both of which can be heard in English (but the latter is much more common). The flat postalveolar variant is often (not really correctly) called retroflex, and transcribed {{IPA|[ʂ]}}.

:The difference between the palato-alveolar and alveolo-palatal sibilants is in the amount of palatalization - the former is only somewhat palatalized, whereas the latter is strongly palatalized. Flat postalveolar sibilants are not palatalized.

:The only accent I'm aware of that sometimes uses {{IPA|[ɕ]}} is Cockney, in which some speakers realize {{IPA|/s, z/}} as {{IPA|[sʲ, zʲ]}} or sometimes even {{IPA|[ɕ, ʑ]}}. Apart from that, maybe Indian English uses {{IPA|[ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ]}} instead of the usual English {{IPA|[ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ]}}. Now, even if that is the case, no scholars I'm aware of use the symbols {{angle bracket|{{IPA|ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ}}}} when transcribing Indian English. [[User:Peter238|Peter238]] ([[User talk:Peter238|talk]]) 12:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815004302|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102210548/http://www.rastko.net/rastko-ka/content/view/227/26/ to http://www.rastko.net/rastko-ka/content/view/227/26/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC) –&nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)</small>

== Requested move 23 December 2017 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: {{Done}} {{RMNAC}} [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] [[User Talk:Zppix|<sub>Talk</sub>]] 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
----


* [[:Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant]] → {{no redirect|Voiceless postalveolar fricative}}
* [[:Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant]] → {{no redirect|Voiced postalveolar fricative}}
"Sibilant" is not truly a manner of articulation but an acoustic characteristic that certain fricatives and affricates have, which in turn is used to distinguish some sounds from others [[Distinctive feature|when it helps]]. So the current names do not really distinguish the sounds from the homorganic affricates, let alone align with all the other phonetic sound articles. Also, palato-alveolars are almost always sibilant, so to call a sound "palato-alveolar sibilant" is most likely pleonastic.

I understand that "palato-alveolar" was chosen to disambiguate them from other sounds produced in the postalveolar region, namely the retroflexes and alveolo-palatals, but now that the articles also cover the postalveolar non-sibilant fricatives, which aren't palato-alveolar or [[WP:N|notable]] enough to have their own articles, "...postalveolar fricative" is the only sensible option I can think of. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)<small>--'''''Relisting.''''' [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 18:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)</small>

:I completely agree with Nardog - I haven't actually ever heard anybody call these sounds the titles they currently have on Wikipedia. [[User:BenYaMan|BenYaMan]] ([[User talk:BenYaMan|talk]]) 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. Google Books supports the proposed alternatives as the common names for these concepts. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->