Talk:Voiceless postalveolar fricative

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? --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. [1]. No apparent relationship to Inspector Ghote. 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? 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? Valley2city 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the voiceless postalveolar fricative in both languages.:)·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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.160.71 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 --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? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 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. 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. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 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 :-). No such user (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You really can't hear the difference Ƶ§œš¹? Listen to the sound samples here: [2]. I think it's really obvious there. Do you still not hear it? 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. — kwami (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, 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.

I oppose the merger. 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. 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). 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. 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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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. 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?

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. --Matthiaspl (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed as it's sourced as retroflex on Norwegian phonology#Consonants. 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? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not phonemic in any language I'm aware of. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm more confused as to why it's on THIS page at all? --gejyspa (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Both [ʃ] and [ɹ̠̊˔] are postalveolar but not retroflex, that's why. The current official name for [ʃ] is "voiceless postalveolar fricative". — Peter238 (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.
The sound does occur in Finland in place of Swedish [ɧ], which is completely different from [ʂ]. — 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! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "illogical"? --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. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes it uncommon/unlikely, but not illogical. --JorisvS (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. It was unsourced, and in my experience it is laminal retroflex [ʂ] in the north, rather than palato-alveolar [ʃ]. If someone has sources that say otherwise, feel free to reinsert it. 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: -Helvetica (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.202.8.115 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

That's not true. Plus, there are two types of [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 [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 [ɕ] is Cockney, in which some speakers realize /s, z/ as [sʲ, zʲ] or sometimes even [ɕ, ʑ]. Apart from that, maybe Indian English uses [ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ] instead of the usual English [ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ]. Now, even if that is the case, no scholars I'm aware of use the symbols ⟨ɕ, ʑ, tɕ, dʑ⟩ when transcribing Indian English. 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 my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant → Voiceless postalveolar fricative
• Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant → 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 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 notable enough to have their own articles, "...postalveolar fricative" is the only sensible option I can think of. Nardog (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nardog - I haven't actually ever heard anybody call these sounds the titles they currently have on Wikipedia. BenYaMan (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Google Books supports the proposed alternatives as the common names for these concepts. bd2412 T 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sanskrit

The entry "Ś" claims that Ś is used for the transcription of the voiceless postalveolar fricative when Sanskrit is transcribed, and instances of its usage exist, e.g. Śrāvaka. Is that statement mistaken, and "Ś" really transcribes another sound? A cursory search has not brought up any instances of the voiceless retroflex fricative being transcribed as "Ś", though many instances of it being transcribed as the digraph "sh", e.g. "Rishi", which makes the voiceless retroflex fricative an unlikely candidate, and the voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative does not, according to its entry, exist in Sanskrit. Are there any other considerations why Sanskrit should be excluded from the list of occurences in this article? Otherwise, this should perhaps be amended. --Halemyu (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Does Norwegian have [ʃ] or [ʂ]?

"Finally, the last to undergo the shift was Norwegian, in which the result of the shift was [ʃ]." [ʃ] or [ʂ]? Yeowe (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)