Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Time to play Identify Those Phones, and a bi

From:Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
Date:Friday, March 3, 2000, 12:00
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)