Print

Print


On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:25:14 +0800, Eugene Oh wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> I can handle the initial unaspirated [p], but [ɕ], with or without the [t],
>> eludes me. (Actually, I don't even see it on the IPA chart; I'm assuming it's
>> the same sound represented by [ç]...)

> I would say that it is a more s-ish version of ç. More sibilant, I should
> say.

I find [s\] easier to pronounce than [S], BTW. I used to think I had the latter 
well down, as it's half-phonemic in Finnish anyway (compareable to the status 
of [x] in English) - but it turns out I'm actually pronouncing an *apical* 
postalveolar sibilant. Trying a laminal one tends to come off completely wrong-
sounding.

I've seen even [C] called a sibilant, but I can't really consider it such; it's 
basically [x_+] and [x] sure isn't sibilant in any sense. If there is a velar 
sibilant it's probably one of the realizations of the Swedish /x\/. (One of my 
first sketchlangs had this sound in voiced, voiceless and affricate forms...)

And while I'm on the topic, are there postalveolar *non*-sibilants? An alveolar 
[T_-] seems to be possible, but not anything further back until we get to 
dorsal consonants. That's odd.

John Vertical