Andreas Johansson likis:
> Quoting Nikhil Sinha <nsinha_in@...>:
>
> > Andreas Johansson likis:
> >
> > > Quoting Joe <joe@...>:
> > >
> > > > AFAIK, this is a pretty common confusion in languages with
retroflexes.
> > > > However, I, as a native English speaker, would place dentals and
> > alveolars
> > > > together, and retroflexes seperately, whereas evidently you would
place
> > > > retroflexes and alveolars together, and dentals seperately.
> > >
> > > I might point out that for me, whose native language distinguishes
dentals
> > and
> > > retroflexes (regardless of whether we phonemize [t`] as /rt/ - it
still
> > > contrasts with [t_d] /t/), alveolars sounds like dentals, not
retroflexes.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> >
> > Question for Andreas: What is your native language? I would still say
that
> > if
> > you consider the manner in which alveolars, dentals and retroflexes are
> > pronounced, dentals are no doubt closer to alveolars.
> >
> > But, if you consider the sounds that they produce, definitely, alveolars
> > sound closer to retroflexes than dentals.
> >
> > The difference in opinion may be due to the fact that even if two
languages
> > have alveolar t and d, both language may pronounce it differently.
>
> My native language is Swedish.
>
> I'm no phonetician, and cannot say whether alveolars are acoustically
closer
> to retroflexes or dentals, but I am unable to consistently tell dentals
and
> alveolars (alveolars as heard in the varieties of English I've heard)
apart,
> whereas retroflexes sound quite different to me.
I think it all depends on one's native language.
Nikhil