Time to play Identify Those Phones, and a bi

I tried replying to this yesterday but was not able to get through
to the list. So here it is again:

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.
You did. But you also said that there was friction between the upper
teeth and the tongue.

>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 dentalapproximant?
If there is friction, then it isn't an approximant.

-kristian- 8)