Re: laterals (was: Pharingials, /l/ vs. /r/ in Southeast Asia)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 Joe <joe@...> wrote:

> /s`/ is not /s'/  it's stupidly ambiguous, but /s`/ is a retroflex
> fricative.
  I've understood you, that's why I wrote my posting. None of the Polish
sybillants are retroflex as it can be seen on figures of the reference
material I mentioned.

> Well, I was close.  But who says both 'ch' and s-acute can't both be [C]?
> Even though they're not, there's nothing saying they can't be...
  But who says that English 'sy' in <Sue> 'syoo' and 'sh' in <shoe> 'shoo'
can't both be an [S] for an Indonesian, or an [s] for a Finn [not for an
Anglophone, of course]? Even though they're not, there's nothing saying
they can't be: both are articulated on the pre-palatal location...

  /s'/ and /x'/ are different articulations with different auditive
impression. E.g. for a German speaker the Polish /x'/ is rendered to
German "ich"-Laut [C], and the Polish /s'/ to <sch> [S]. In fact /x'/ is
articulated on the hard palate and /s'/ extends to the postalveolar
region. Should we use the same IPA character for different realizations of
different phonemes?

  Therefore I we want to get rid of [s\], we should rather replace it with
[s'] than with [C].

Replies