Joe wrote:

> Roger Mills wrote:
> >Joe, responding to Mark J. Reed:
> >
> >>>       ś       (LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH ACUTE)

> >>s-acute = [C]

> >Eh? I've always been under the impression it was [S] (though Hindi may
> >be the same as Sanskrit....)
> >
> Hmm?  S-acute is palatal(sometimes written c-cedilla, in fact).  S-dot
> is retroflex.  I don't think indic languages have postalveolar sounds...

Yes, S-acute is considered a palatal.  So are "c j ñ" which at least
conventionally are pronounced [tS dZ] (probably postalveolars) and [J] ( a
true palatal).  The series "s - s-dot - s-acute" parallels the other
consonantal series "t - t-dot - c".  How it was _actually_ pronounced in
Skt. is probably unknowable; nor do I know how it's pronounced in Hindi.  It
could well be [C]; I've learnt it as [S], which is also the usual
transliteration, as in "Shiva".  And yes, ç is often used.

(ObConlang!!) My first Kash texts used s-acute for [S] (which proved
impossible in email at the time), now changed to ç.

-----Error in my previous post: "r.s.i" would be -- technically at least--
['ris`i] with retroflex (or apical) s.  It is, however, Anglicized as
"rishi".  It's possible Hindi is merging or confusing s-dot and s-acute; I
recall an Indian friend mentioning that they often have to ask "is that
"21-s?" (which the devanagari s-dot resembles).

Many instances of the retroflexes in Skt. are conditioned  by the RUKI rule,
and so not really distinctive; but there are also unconditioned occurrences,
so the retro. series has to be considered distinctive/phonemic.  Many of
those words seem to be of obscure (that is, non-IE) origin.....