Talk:Voiceless alveolar affricate

message: I don't know if everything in this article is wrong, but the Polish example is. The citation of Jassem's article is a fake as in this article Polish Voiceless alveolar affricate is approximated as ʧ not as ʦ, while the latter is called (post)dental, not alveolar. Different languages have other allophonic realisations of their phonemes, so it is possible, that typical Polish s is more dental than typical English s (as Polish has no θ to be confused with s) and so are it's affricates. Actually in English there's only one phonemic affricate (in voiced and voiceless versions, but it's irrelevant here), while in Polish there are three, so it is crucial to discriminate between dental, alveolar and palatal (plus palatalised allophones of dental and alveolar ones that are not phonemic). However, every contrastive phonetic manual I know says that alveolar affricate is ʧ in contrast to ʦ, which makes me doubt in whole the article that says that typical alveolar affricate is ʦ. Panek (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at "Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages" by Silke Hamann.  Typically, the sounds represented by e.g. sz are represented with the IPA characters for palato-alveolar fricatives ().  If people call these alveolar, it's possibly because the point of contact is on the alveolar ridge though it sounds closer to a postalveolar fricative because, as Hamann's article indicates, these sounds are actually retroflex. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Polish "sz" is also retroflex. As Kopczyński in "Andrzej Kopczyński: Polish and American English Consonant Phonemes : A Contrastive Study. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1977" says, the Polish "sz" and American English "sh" (and "cz"/"ch" respectively) are considered to be equivalents as they're both "hushing" which is a distinctive feature in Polish (in contrast to "hissing" (s, c) and "whisper" (ś, ć)) and irrelevant feature in English (as there are no other sibilants). As I wrote I don't expect full equality between sounds of different languages, so I can even accept, that Polish ʧ is more similar to hypothetical English ʦ than ʧ (postalvolar). The problem is, that in Polish there is another ʦ, which is rather dental or postdental than alveolar (and not retroflex AFAIK). This is not just Slavic-Germanic confrontation as Russian "ч" is more palatal than Polish "cz" (in Polish it is similar to a just palatalised allophone of "cz", eg. in 'Chile'). To sum up, it is disputable to say that Polish ʦ ("c") is alveolar, although it really reassembles German "z" or Italian "zz". And it is untrue to cite Jassem as a source for such a statement (as one can see in a link above to this very article). Probably it just should have its own article Voiceless postdental affricate, but I just wonder if other examples from this article are really alveolar or rather postdental as a Polish one (I know it is rather continuous than discrete feature and there are intermediate versions, not even mentioning allophonic variation). I saw some course-books saying that eg. German "z" is alveolar, but maybe it's just an English-centric simplification. Panek (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ʦ or ʧ? 

message: According to Unicodewww.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0180.pdf, "ƾ" is an archaic symbol for ʦ. Should this be added to the article? ObsequiousNewt (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ƾ

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Voiceless alveolar affricate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000614/http://www.rastko.net/rastko-ka/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=26 to http://www.rastko.net/rastko-ka/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=227&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=26
*Added  tag to http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/litere/idd/cursuri/an_1/limba_rom_cont/lrc_an1_draghici.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323072940/http://www.academiadelallingua.com/diccionariu/normes.pdf to http://www.academiadelallingua.com/diccionariu/normes.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section is mostly trivia... or something...
I don't know why english-speaking people think in this way. In slavic languages, hungarian and latvian the letter C is stop. The sound theese languages makes is far far away from saying t and s at the same time, it occurs only in fast speaking endlish like in let's go. This problem isn't a thing with other affricates like pf, bv, kx and ggh (gh is for voiced x). s is fricative version of c and fricative version of t is th (illustrated with english digraph)
Also IPA for deltal fricative (th) made new charcater which is like s and f (voiceless) or z and v (voiced) said at the same time. This is why Russians and Japanese pronounce the word The as Ze. And Polish as Ve and all languages that don't features dental fricative (including Ru, Ja, Pl) substitutes Th and Dh with t and d sounds (but maybe s+z fans less often than f+v fans), that's because th isn't bassically a new sound rather being s͡f or z͡v and sound represented by ts, c, is tottally different than t an s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.104.66 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exactly like eng. CH. You don't pronounce this as t sh, but ch. Also it is fun and weird that if sh is hard s, and zh is hard z, so why c isn't plain c but instead s or k, and j - why not dz then jh as hard dz? 79.185.21.171 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is not an affricate 

message: Reading Modern Greek phonology the article says ts is an allophone, but this article doesn't mention Greek, other then what it says for say Japanese. is this sound in Greek or not or have we just not gotten round to it? Great Mercian (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek