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

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> 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.
Checking my linguistics textbook, it appears to say that there are both apical
and laminal versions of [S]. The sound I use for Swedish /C/, German /S/ and
English /S/ is postalveolar apical fricative, near as I can tell.

I guess the Japanese sound is laminal [S_m] then.

> >  Restored to default status: confused.
>
> 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!
That's strange too, since [s_m] sounds much more like [s_a] than [S] to me.
The chief difference is POA, altho the body of the tongue is a bit higher when
I pronounce [S] than [s].

                                                               Andreas

Reply