Talk:Voiceless alveolar fricative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

about 203.164.184.7's reversion of "vandalism". (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a definition, adding a paragraph on the cross-linguistic frequency of a sound is not vandalism)

(I'm not sure if this Talk: page is appropriate for this). All the human language sounds articles such as this one currently contain links in titles such as 'In English'. This is imho ugly. Moreover, the Wikipedia manual of style states:

"Avoid links within headers. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header."

It is quite a bit of work to change this on all these articles, but I think it should be done. I am not sure what the best way is, but I certainly do not want to go into a revert war over this. --Lenthe 21:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fricative or sibilant?

Kwamikagami's edit of 10 August changed some, but not all, occurences of "voiceless alveolar fricative" to "voiceless alveolar sibilant". Not knowing myself which is more correct I've restored 'fricative'. If it should be changed to 'sibilant', then all occurences in the article should be changed and the page renamed. IceKarmaॐ 22:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sibilants are a subtype of fricative. However, there are alveolar fricatives besides [s] and [z]. The name of the article is appropriate, but there should perhaps be subcategories in the article. kwami 01:59, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

[edit] Dental?

I see many charts listing the IPA [s] as dental. I've also seen a description of the sound that makes the person touch their bottom row of teeth while pronouncing it. I tried it and it sounds similar. What is this phenomenon? -Iopq 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

IPA [s] may be dental, alveolar, or postalveolar - the symbol is intentionally ambiguous. (The title of the article is misleading.)

No sound requires that you touch the lower teeth. This is probably a way to get you to make a laminal [s]. Which language was the description for? kwami 06:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this in descriptions of Ukrainian. -Iopq 21:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge with Voiceless apicoalveolar fricative

I think it's a bit excessive having a separate page for this just as having one for a palatalized uvular ejective would. Any thoughts? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The alveolar fricative and the apicoalveolar fricative are two different fricatives. For example, Basque has a laminal fricative and an apicoalveolar fricative. Also, the occurrence of apicoalveolar fricatives is in several major languages of the world and it needs a page to describe them. If we merge the pages with alveolar fricatives, then they need to expanded to include the various alveolar fricatives. azalea_pomp

I think that the alveolar fricative pages can tolerate explaining the distinction. Would you suggest that there be a distinction like with the sibilant non-sibilant versions already on the page? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that distinction as well as one for the laminal fricatives. Since both the laminal and apical use the alveolar ridge, the laminals use the blade of the tongue while the apicals use the tip of the tongue. The occurrence section will have to be subdivded as Basque makes a distinction between laminal and apical voiceless fricatives as well as some Portuguese dialects I believe. Several varities of Spanish (most of the Iberia and one of Colombia), Catalan, Gascon, several Occitan dialects, and Greek have apico-alveolar fricatives. I am not sure if you have ever heard an apicoalveolar fricative, but it does have a whistling quality as several of my sources I listed also mention. azalea_pomp

That seems a bit excessive; having separate sections and separate tables/lists that is. Mentioning the contrast and illuminating the reader on the distinctions is perfectly appropriate. Also, having one table but using diacritics to show the contrast would be helpful enough to the reader. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)