Re: CHAT: F.L.O.E.S.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
>
>
> >Waitaminit! If 'sh' isn't apical, it can't be [S] as Christophe says, since
> >that's supposed to be apical.
>
> Doesn't "apical" mean "with the tip of the tongue"? If so, then [S] is
> certainly *not* apical. At least, I've never pronounced it that way (and I
> cannot! When pronouncing [S], the tip of my tongue is *down*, and it's the
> body of the tongue which is close to the palato-alveolar region) and I have
> no default of pronunciation.
...
> I think your confusion comes from your strange definition of [S]. I've even
> seen articles describing sound changes from [s] to [S] due to a loss of
> apicality!
No Christophe, I doubt it's Andreas whose definition is confused (though
its possible it has multiple defns)... At least if the English /S/ is an
[S]. If so, then there's certainly no loss of apicality... The difference
is that /S/ is pronounced further back then the /s/.

--
Tristan.