Talk:Voiceless palatal plosive

message: sound says something like "ja, aja" (like y in yes), is it right? --Monkbel 10:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound sample looks wrong 

message: Isn't Spanish ch a voiceless postalveolar affricate?
:yes.Cameron Nedland 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this is Canarian dialect. That's why I wrote it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.119.169 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Please provide a source first. Peter238 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you take down the other unsourced examples then, hum?--Il Qathar (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish 

message: I do not speak this language, but I do have a vague thought that they have a similar or the same sound in their language. So have they? -andy 91.32.75.66 09:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually present in the language, I will add an example now. » byeee 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're confusing it with a palatalized velar plosive? That's what Romanian phonology seems to say it is. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Romanian has three phonetic values for the letter C. It's [tʃ] when followed by E or I (like in Italian), a [c] when followed by HE or HI, and a [k] otherwise. » byeee 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from The phonology of Romanian by Ioana Chițoran (page 10): "On the surface, however, palatalized consonants also occur, derived from underlying sequences of a consonant and the high vowel : C+ → ..." She then lists a posited phoneme inventory with all palatalized consonants being phonemes, including  and .  The distinction between  and  is subtle.  So subtle that literature on languages like Polish and Jamaican Patois have variance between them in the transcription of particular sounds.  Right now, evidence is leaning more towards a palatalized velar but more sources could enlighten us on the matter.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could not tell you the difference between [kʲ] and [c], and I am personally not sure that there is one, but all samples of [c] on Wiki and elsewhere, as well as the Romanian wikipedia and the Czech language example point to that sound. Also, that article seems to want to eliminate a lot of sounds. [ʨ] is also present in Romanian (final -CI), but the consonant does not have an article on the ro:wiki. » byeee 03:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  Also, I have looked around and you seem to consider Ioana Chitoran an expert on Romanian linguistics - says who? The fact that she has published a book? The name said nothing to me, and still does not. She is not in any way affiliated with the Romanian Academy, so her book is just as good as any book I would publish and would appear on the Internet. » byeee 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chițoran may not be affiliated with the Romanian Academy (why she would need such an association to be considered an "expert" escapes me) but she has more authority than you or I.  It's not just that she's published a book but that she's done credible research on Romanian; she is a reputable linguist and her department considers her an expert in Romance languages.  If your standard for reputability is whether a name "says something" to you, then I'm curious what scholars you find to be more authoritative.  I also recommend that you read her work before you dismiss her whole cloth and, more importantly find sources that back your position up.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I partially agree with you, but, still, she has no authority on saying whether Romanian /chi/ is pronounced [kʲ] or [c] because she is not part of the language regulating body to confirm an official position. Yes, I read her work and it seems sketchy and slightly dismissive (in the sense of let's disregard this possible sound because I don't want to crowd up my paper). While I do appreciate her work, I don't find it necessarily relevant. The difference between [kʲ] and [c] is the difference between /kě/ and /tě/ in Czech. And Romanian /che/ is the latter, pronounciation-wise. » byeee 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, that is not how linguistics works.  Phonologists are not required to check in with regulating bodies to determine if their research passes their standards.  Anyway, I don't feel compelled to defend Chitoran too much.  Find some sources that say otherwise.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Romanian phonology article on ro:wiki has one section dedicated to the palatal k and g. They are further described under ro:Consoană_oclusivă_palatală_surdă and ro:Consoană_oclusivă_palatală_sonoră individually. Is that good enough for you? » byeee 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All three are uncited, so no.  Got anything else? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, since Romanian is not a very well-known language, phonetic studies tend to remain within the borders of the country (or the Romanian-speaking community). Furthermore, since pronounciation is assumed, so far I have found three dictionaries which give the proper spelling, but only phonemically. I will keep looking. » byeee 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Romanian not well-known?  I find that hard to believe.  Where are you doing your searching? — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the native speakers and the large diaspora (26 million total), I doubt there are many learning or knowing Romanian as a second language. And, out of the Romance languages, it is the most "ignored" (unless you count Romansh). I was looking online and in my bilingual German-Romanian dictionary, which only gives phonemic spelling. » byeee 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Romanian? 

message: Vietnamese phonology says:
# /c, ɲ/ are phonetically palatoalveolar [ṯ, ṉ] (i.e. the blade of the tongue makes contact behind the alveolar ridge).
# /c/ is often slightly affricated [ṯʃ], although much less than English [tʃʰ]. (Note that the English affricate is also aspirated and usually apical, unlike Vietnamese). This affrication, however, is not obligatory.
So, I've deleted mention about Vietnamese in the article. --Koryakov Yuri 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese 

message: I think most of them are wrong.
Many of the examples describe the Romance /k/, a fronted velar ("palatovelar"?) plosive. That is , not .  sounds similar to , not to . As in all dorsopalatal consonants, the tongue bends into a ⋂ shape, with the tip touching the alveolar ridge of the lower jaw.
Others probably describe , though the difference between [c] and  is a rather small matter of degree.
AFAIK the Albanian q, gj are ,  in the south and ,  in the north – the same what happens to the letters ќ and ѓ in the neighboring Macedonian language. Sure, one can expect  as historical intermediates between the palatalized velar stops and the alveolopalatal ( = palatalized palatoalveolar) affricates, and maybe these pronunciations actually occur somewhere in central Albania, but I'd like to see some evidence for this.
Most Australian languages have "laminopalatal" (postalveolar?) plosives; the tj in the last example is such a thing. Dorsopalatal plosives, or even nasals, apparently don't occur anywhere in Australia (not even in Yanyuwa which has plosives and nasals at seven contrasting places of articulation). David Marjanović 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All examples I have added are from academic sources.  I could actually list every source, but that would be tedious for language examples.  Albanian does have palatal stops and the your statement about the north/south distinction is not accurate.  In any event, the Albanian example is for standard Albanian.  For a more obscure language, the Tadaksahak is from here: http://www.sil.org/silesr/1999/008/nsonghay.pdf  and the transcription includes the palatal stop.  I cannot vouch for Greek having palatal stops though... Azalea pomp 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The examples 

message: Am I the only one who thinks the similarity to [tʃ] is slightly over the top? I can see a much bigger similarity to [k]. » byeee 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The palatalization of  to  is common, usually with intermediate steps like this .  Also,  is usually unstable as a phone in a language and more often turns into a postalveolar affricate than to a velar plosive.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, but still "similarity" is subjective. Judging upon a language where all three sounds are present, I tend to stand by my earlier opinion.» byeee 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is perhaps most helpful to readers who only have two of the sounds (as in English).  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article could be made more clear on just how this sound is made. If it is not [kʲ] then what is it? The sound sample unfortunately does not make this clear, and as I stated in a previous comment, I actually thought the sample was making a [ty-] sound at first. Does the sound of [c] begin with a [k], or a [t], or somewhere between the two in a way I have a difficult time understanding? Does the back *and* the front of the tongue connect? If so, that seems almost unrealistically complicated for a natural language, but what else could it be? ... Either way, this does not seem at all, in my opinion, similar to [tʃ], and I think the comparison is actually rather misleading. And this is coming from a native English-speaker, if that makes a difference (a post below states an opinion that this might be easier for English readers, but I found the Reykjavik example to be far more enlightening). - MXVN (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neither, duh. It's its own sound. A stop made at the same place of articulation as the Y in yes. Monolingual English speakers just need to cope with the unfortunate fact that a lot of languages have sounds that they may not be familiar with from their own native dialect or accent, and are thus ill-equipped to pick up even from the speech of a foreigner whose native language possesses the sound in question (or the demonstration of a phonetician). As I said, cute or tune provide useful approximations, but ultimately [c] is not identical with either (except perhaps in some accents), only similar to both. The sound [c] is not precisely identical with ky or ty, because if it were, we could simply write [kj] or [tj] and be done with, and there would be no need for this symbol. For the same reason, you're leading yourself down the garden path if you think that [c] "starts" with a t or k. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

text: That's all very well BUT. This is en.Wikipedia and therefore it has to be intelligible to English speakers. This article is an unintelligible mess. One should be able to get a good idea of what the phoneme sounds like without reading through the entire talk-page. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similarity" 

message: My German-Greek dictionary uses k with a hook similar to the "more rounded" diacritic in IPA (◌̹) to denote the sound [c]. Is there a diacritic in IPA which looks like the "more rounded" diacritic and shows palatalization?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meidei (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be, but it's no longer used since a superscript j came about. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  c = k with a hook? 

message: Is it possible that some accents of English in Ireland use [c] for t in tune [cu:n]. Check out how Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh pronounces the word opportunity at 8:21 of the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqkVkt0P74M&feature=related. I'm thinking it's [ɔpərcu:nɪtɪ], but I'm not sure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.33.217 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely not palatal, but palato-alveolar . Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 11:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish English 

message: For Blackfoot it says that  is an "allophone of  after front vowels", but the example given is . I suppose this is supposed to be ? Does anyone have a source for it? — Lfdder (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're guilty of making the same mistake I make in my head sometimes: switching the meanings of before and after. But I don't know if it's true or not for Blackfoot. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! I somehow think I wouldn't have made this mistake if it were . ;P — Lfdder (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackfoot 

message: "The airstream mechanism is pulmonic, which means it is articulated by pushing air solely with the intercostal muscles and diaphragm, as in most sounds."
The human diaphragm does not, and cannot, push air out of the lungs. It be contracted to draw air in, and it can be relaxed to allow exhalation, but the pressure of exhalation comes from contracting the intercostl muscles. The diaphragm cannot "push air." Simple human anatomy. 172.56.193.244 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diaphragm?