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

Racsko Tamas wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>
>
>>I know nothing of Polish, but here's what I do know.
>>
>>It has three 'sh'-ish sounds - <sz>, <s-acute>, and <si>.  AFAIK <sz> is
>>[s`] or [S], and both <s-acute> and <si> are [C].  I'm sure  Jan will
>>correct me on this - I'm probably wrong.
>>
>>
>
>  Unfortunately you are wrong. <s-acute> and <si> are simple orthographic
>variations:
>
>
Thought so.  I did apply them the same sound.

>  <sz> is simply /S/ = [S], i.e. unvoiced "postalveolar" fricative and it
>has no palatalised counterpart at all. Phonetically bothe <s- acute> and
><si> are [s\], i.e. unvoiced alveolo-palatal fricative, but phonologically
>they are /s'/ (or: /s_j/), i.e. unvoiced palatalized alveolar fricative.
>
>
>
/s`/ is not /s'/  it's stupidly ambiguous, but /s`/ is a retroflex
fricative.

>  Phonetically <s-acute> and <si> cannot be [C], i.e. a true palatal
>fricative, since some Polish dialects have palatalized <ch> = /x'/ which
>is pronounced as [C] (or: [C_-] to be hypercorrect). (In fact alveolo-
>palatal [s\] can be rendered as [s_-] = [C_+].)
>
>
>
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...

Reply