Talk:Affricate

message: Are "trilled affricates" really affricates? I've only seen them referred to as "trill-released stops". --Ptcamn 23:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilled affricates 

message: :Within the IPA, [tʃ] and [dʒ] are sometimes transcribed as palatal stops, <c> and <ɟ>.
What?  Surely postalveolar affricates and palatal stops are different enough to warrant separate notation. (E.g., they're different phonemes in Hungarian.) —Naddy 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True palatal stops are rather prone to decaying into postalveolar affricates (see palatalization). They may regardless continue to phonologically behave as palatal stops (AIUI, they usually do, at least as long as there are no newer palatals getting in the way). Plus, a single symbol can be more convenient to use… --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palatal stops 

message: Does anyone know anything about this?Cameron Nedland 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not personally able to confirm its existence (I can't remember hearing a Swiss affricate that immediately struck me as obviously uvular), but it appears plausible that it does exist as a dialectal or idiolectal allophone of the velar affricate. Searching for "velar affricate", I've found a posting on Linguist List which shows that a lot of linguists find this interpretation credible, and even likely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss-German qχ? 

message: This topic could use a whole subsection. Mainly, on when they exist and when they don't. My understanding is that they by default aren't, unless there are specific reasons to consider them as such - so eg. tax and depth would not be applicable for affricate status - but I've never found a good treatise of the subject. Still, it keeps irking me whenever I hear the letter X described as an "affricate".--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The palatal sound typical of the Indic languages such as Hindi, usually transliterated "c", has been described as phonetically a hetero-organic affricate [cʃ] e.g. by Masica, Indo-Aryan Languages, p. 94, Google Books Link.  Grover cleveland (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  although Masica is not a phonetician IIRC. Maybe he wanted to be more precise on the stop part, but did not bother that much for the fricative part. One can find these affricates  transribed as t̠͡ɕ or d͡ʑ, (sometimes also with curly tail on t and d, but I cannot find them now) but the curly tails on c and z are a bit difficult to produce. My guess is that the representation as ʃ is due to convenience, and does not imply that the poa is necessarily postalveolar. Jasy jatere (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he does say "a more accurate phonetic representation would be [cʃ]" (I hope this is visible in the Google books link), which seems to imply that he is specifically concerned with the phonetics here, rather than phonology or whatever.  However (thinking about it further), I think he may have meant to say [cɕ]:  from my experience in Hindi, the sound is created by placing the blade of the tongue flat against the hard palate and releasing with a laminal fricative in the alveolar or postalvelar region.  I'm not even sure how [cʃ] would be physiologically possible.  Grover cleveland (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterorganic affricates 

message: Maybe there should be a disclaimer about "catch it"/"cat shit". I my dialect the final /t/ in "cat" is alveolar, although I think it also has a preceding glottal stop; but in any case it isn't completely reduced to a glottal stop. I think it's like that in a lot of 'lects. The vowels in "cat" and "catch" are also different, FWIW. Finally, I'm not sure of the phonology at work, but "cat shit" seems to have more of a pause between the /t/ and the /S/. 71.90.130.7 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: cat shit/catch it was just something at the top of my head, though there must be other minimal pairs that are maybe more widespread.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little weary of using "t͡ʃ" versus "t.ʃ" because the two "t"s are in different places (much like in the Polish example).  Would it be better to use "adds its" versus "add zits," even though [d͡z] is considered non-phonemic?  That has the advantages of being (somewhat) less crude and not facing t-glottalization, too.  I'm going to replace it with the less crude (though somewhat more nonsensical) "bench udder" versus "bent shudder," but if there's some important distinction not being mentioned, you're free to put it back where it was. Blanket P.I. (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catch it" 

message: I see 2-column lists of sounds, but no links to .ogg files. Also, shouldn't the 2 columns be reworked as a table?
Also, it would be clearer if the coronals were distinguished with the labels laminal, apical, and subapical (and possibly a fourth group ("laminal/apical"??) for those languages (e.g. English?) where the laminal/apical distinction is not made and doesn't confuse listeners, i.e., doesn't really matter. I think this would really help with "retroflex" &c.  — Solo Owl (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound files added. Oops, one of four table. Three to go.  -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound files, please

message: According to Mandarin Chinese#Initials, voiceless bilabial-labiodental affricates (both unaspirated and aspirated) also exist in regional Mandarin dialects as regular regional variants of the retroflex affricates.
:I found the source
::“Many dialects of Northwestern and Central Plains Mandarin have /pf pfʰ f v/ where Beijing has /tʂw tʂʰw ʂw ɻw/.[71] Examples include /pfu/ "pig" for standard zhū 豬 /tʂu/, /fei/ "water" for standard shuǐ 水 /ʂwei/, /vã/ "soft" for standard ruǎn 軟 /ɻwan/.” 
:::-32.212.121.214 (since you can already see my IP, it doesn’t make much of a difference if I include it)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.121.214 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilabial-labiodental affricates in Mandarin and velar affricates in English 

message: ts and dz obviously exist in English as the simple combinations t+s and d+z  (the latter usually spelled ts/tts and ds/dds, respectively, most often the result of adding the plural marker s or possessive 's or s' following a noun ending in t or d  or  having the third-person singular form for present-indicative verbs that end in t, tt, d, or dd.  The scarce word adze of old origin and such domiciled and indispensable words as waltz and pizza clearly contain this affricate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is noted in the "Affricates vs. stop-fricative sequences" section. The general list of examples has by editor convention been limited to phonemic affricates… --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ts, dz in English 

message: Why there is no single character -instead of two- for these consonants?
Is there an ongoing process for new characters for these sounds?--98.196.232.128 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "These symbols are officially written with a tie linking them (e.g. t͡ʃ), and are also sometimes written as single characters (e.g. ʧ) though the latter convention is no longer official. They are written without ligatures here to ensure correct display in all browsers." —Help:IPA#endnote_t --Thnidu (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Character 

message: i think that the consonants kx and qχ deserve to get there own article. especially the consonants qχ because i find that many people are interested in that sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsa123 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The consonants kx and qχ 

message: d͡z and possibly b̪͡v are recorded as two-sound sequences, not as proper affricates. 176.221.120.207 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. In phonetic terms, I think this means that the stop portion of the affricate is slightly stressed or lengthened in contrast with the fricative portion: . The other affricate recordings sound better because the stop portion is short enough. — Eru·tuon 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound files in need of review 

message: I believe this article to meet the 6 B-class criteria:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.
:The article contains inline citations, though more would not hurt the article. I would be hesitant to rate the article any higher without more citations, and almost gave the article a C rating because of how few inline citations there were.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
:The article seems to cover the topic well. It covered many important aspects of affricates such as differences and similarities with consonant clusters, how they sound, place of articulation, and so on. I feel that a specific section on the distribution of affricates across languages would be a useful addition or a renaming of the section, Examples, that talks about their distribution.
3. The article has a defined structure.
:It does indeed, however the lead is a little on the short side. Other than that it seems good.
4. The article is reasonably well-written.
:While the article is not particularly heavy on prose, that which it does have is well written and it flows well from section to section.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
:The article uses tables, figures, and sound files to better present the topic at hand which helps understanding of the material.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
:The article seemed to me to be easily understandable. It has information for the general non-linguist, good overviews for non-expert linguists, and content that speaks to a more expert knowledge of phonetics. It uses wikilinks to help direct those who don't understand something to an article where they can learn more.
I rated the article as High importance because it "is important to the field of linguistics. Many non-experts will have heard of the subject, but may not be familiar with it." While definitely not the most important thing in the field of linguistics, many non-experts will have heard of it such as undergrads in non-language related fields who take a linguistics class, anthropologists, some singers, and others. Wugapodes (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment rational 

message: The table "trilled affricates" lists a "Voiceless dental bilabially trilled affricate". I've added a mention of that to "Heterorganic affricates". --Thnidu (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wari’ 

message: I propose that Affrication be merged into Affricate consonant. I admit that I have little subject matter expertise, but to this layman, the "Affrication" article contains a simple stub of material that is already covered by "Affricate consonant". This merger, as proposed today, had previously been carried out nearly ten years ago. That status quo remained stable until . An argument presented to justify the reversion was that the "Affricate consonant" article "doesn't even mention the term 'affrication'."  I submit that perhaps this is an indicator of that term's relative encyclopedic significance.  I think a simple section (paragraph) in the merger destination would suffice to cover this content, together with those recently-added references from the stub. 
I recognize that "affrication" is a noun referring to a process – that being the conversion of a simple stop consonant into an affricate consonant – but I don't see that this stub article would ever grow into a distinct and meaningful encyclopedic article that is able to stand on its own. At present, it is little more than a dictionary entry, and per policy, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary."
Finally, for reasons that I raised in another discussion on this page, there is also a page entitled , which is a redirect – from an incorrect name – that should also be included in this merge proposal. —grolltech(talk) 18:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Being a native speaker of Polish, and well acquainted with several Slavic languages I must say that calling the "c" sound (spelled "c" in all Slavic languages that use Roman alphabet, and "ц" in Cyrillic) is a stop, not a an affricate. The way this sound is produced is exactly the same as "t", only the place of articulation is different.
The same apply to the sound spelled "cz", and to the voiced counterparts of the two consonants. 
The rendering of these sounds by [ts] and [tʃ] in the IPA alphabet contributes further to the confusion. Each of those two consonants consist of only one element, not two as the affricate definition suggests. However, there is a combination of sounds, loke in the word "trzy" (three) that is pronounced in standard way as "t" + "sh" and I substandard way as "ch"+"sh". These can be called real affricates. --Jidu Boite (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In :File:Pl-co%3F.ogg it is very clearly an affricate. Affricates are really single sounds. "t" + "sh" and the like in Polish are plosive–fricative sequences, not affricates. --JorisvS (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ⟨ц⟩ is an affricate. ⟨тс⟩ is a plosive-fricative sequence. --User:32.212.121.214 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic "ts" is not an affricate 

message: This article is full of wrong/misleading information, like "According to Kehrein, no language contrasts a non-sibilant, non-lateral affricate with a stop at the same place of articulation and with the same phonation and airstream mechanism, such as /t̪/ and /t̪θ/ or /k/ and /kx/," which I guess is not technically wrong since it's presented as "according to", but it's still not true.  Most languages with /k͡x/ contrast it with with /k/, like Navajo and Swiss German, and every language I can think of with /p͡f/ contrasts it with /p/. Also, [qχ] contrasts with [q] sometimes, phonemically in Kabardian, but phonetically in a lot of languages with /qʰ/ like Burushaski (which also contrasts /p/ with /pʰ ~ p͡f ~ f/ like German contrasts /p/ and /p͡f/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.58.2 (talk) 20:50, October 9, 2015‎
:I don't personally know if Kehrein is right, but the affricates of Swiss German and Navajo that you refer to are analyzed as aspirated consonants on Wikipedia: see here and here. — Eru·tuon 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Affricate consonant. 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/20150412004402/http://www.cambridge.org:80/servlet/file/EPP_PED_Glossary.pdf?ITEM_ENT_ID=2491706&ITEM_VERSION=1&COLLSPEC_ENT_ID=7 to http://www.cambridge.org/servlet/file/EPP_PED_Glossary.pdf?ITEM_ENT_ID=2491706&ITEM_VERSION=1&COLLSPEC_ENT_ID=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that in the article, there's no mention of the English "tr" and "dr" sounds (voiceless/voiced postalveolar labialized non-sibilant affricates), despite them being in the very language of the article. Is the fact that they are effectively non-phonemic (in as much as they could be pronounced [t͡ʃʷʰɹ̥] and [d͡ʒʷɹ̠] and still be perceived as the exact same sound) enough to ignore them? Or do they deserve a mention, both because of their rarity and their presence in the language of the article? Furthermore, those two links mention that for some people the affricate is alveolar, another unmentioned affricate. Is that worthy of note, too, or is that just being pedantic? Thank you. Blanket P.I. (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly I'd answer the first question in your text with yes. But for an explanation you don't have to resort to these complicated pronunciations, nor to the additional musings: It's simply that /r/ doesn't count as a fricative (such as [ɹ̠˔]) but as an approximant (such as [ɹ]). Since I assume most readers would perceive it that way, I would answer the question in your heading with no: Mentioning /tr/ and /dr/ would unnecessarily complicate the matter for most readers. ◅ Sebastian 12:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should English tr and dr be mentioned? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Plosive consonant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Currently, the article contains text like “The English affricate phonemes  and  ...”. But is there any case in which the distinction of these from  resp.  is phonemic in English? (Given that even our example resorts to , rather than simply , that seems rather unlikely.) If not, then I'd say we should leave out the ties, just as we leave out the superscript h in . Sebastian 12:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the tie bars for the English phonemes?