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

At 14:37 13.2.2004, Racsko Tamas wrote:

>   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.
Actually Polish _sz, cz, rz/.z_ *are* retroflex,
while _s' c' z'_ are alveopalatal.  The usual
Slavistic terminology and notation is more than a bit
confusing on this point.  I don't know if the so-called
'hard shibilants' ("harte Zischlaute") of other Slavic
languages are also retroflex.  One Czech correspondent
actually described Czech _s^_ etc. as intermediate
between the Polish sounds.


John Cowan wrote:

> >   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]?
>
>AFAIK with /sj/ all dialects have either dropped the palatalization (as
>with "Sue" /su/) or have gone all the way to /S/, as with "issue" /ISu/).
>Nobody says /sju/ or /Isju/ any more.
I hear /ISju/ quite often.  Maybe native speakers miss
that subphonemic nicety.

/BP 8^)
--
   B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk,
and so they are gone to milk the bull."
                                     -- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)