Re: Time to play Identify Those Phones, and a bit of a pharyngeal question

> -----------------------
> Sender:       Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
> Poster:       Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
> Subject:      Re: Time to play Identify Those Phones, and a bit
> of a pharyngeal
>               question
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> Eric Christopherson wrote:
> >>
> >> The first one is a dental fricative. The second one is an interdental
> >> fricative. They are not known to be contrastive, so both are
> represented
> >> in the IPA by symbols representing dental fricatives (eg.
> theta or eth).
> >> But since languages that have them consistently uses one or
> the other, it
> >> is possible in the IPA to represent the second one with a
> 'subscript plus'
> >> in phonetic transcription.
> >
> >Hmm, neither of them is the same as the way I form a dental
> fricative (i.e.
> >with the tongue blade against the top front teeth). There's no
> more specific
> >way to notate that?
>
> Hunh? But you described both of the sounds above as having
> tongue against the upper teeth, no?
I thought I said bottom teeth; if not, I apologize. I meant the bottom
teeth. Also, I just realized there are two more sounds like the first two
that I'm wondering about: With one, the tongue touches the upper teeth, but
the canines, NOT the front teeth. With the other, the tongue is places JUST
behind the teeth, with a small opening between them, and the friction seems
to come from the top teeth and the tongue. Would this be a dental
approximant?


Eric Christopherson / *Aiworegs Ghristobhorosyo suHnus
raccoon@elknet.net