Talk:Sibilant

message: Could someone please clarify the relationship between this and fricative? -- SS 03:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A sibilant is a type of fricative that has a high "second formant" spike on its waveform. Basically, what it means is that there's a distinct "whistling" sound that can be heard in a sibilant. But sibilants are just a subset of fricatives that have unusual phonetic properties. thefamouseccles 03:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In articulation, a sibilant has a narrow channel in the tongue that other fricatives lack. You can have a non-sibilant alveolar fricative, for instance; this is transcribed as a raised approximant (a turned 'r' with a "tack" under it). kwami 10:36, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
The sibilant/non-sibilant distinction is especially important in English. Most people consciously know that to pluralize a regular English noun, they simply add an -s to it.  
But what they know only subconciously is that English plurals can take three forms (allomorphs), those being  and  occurs after most voiceless sounds, and  occurs after most voiced sounds. The sequence  fills in the rest, and occurs after sibilants, i.e. . Thus, distinguishing between sibilants and non-sibilants is extremely important in English.
I removed this, because this phenomenon is merely a process of inserting an epenthetic schwa to avoid two consecutive instances of the same consonant. The same thing happens when one adds the past tense suffix -ed to a word: when the last letter is not t or d, we can just tack the suffix on: ease ([]) + -ed produces phonetic [], but if we try it with raid ([]), then we say [] and not []. It has nothing to do with sibilants. thefamouseccles 03:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just to be clear, English nouns ending in a sibilant take the plural allomorph [ez].
thefamouseccles, you are exactly correct in your assesment of the english past tense, that verbs ending in t and d take the past tense [ed].  However, the plural situation is different, because a word like 
JUDGE which ends in an affricate -- which can be a sibilant because it shares qualities of fricatives -- still gets the [ez] plural allomorph.  Even if you just wanted to look at the fricative part, you end up with just the [ʒ] sound (like in 'genre'), which is hardly found in English at all.  
So, it isn't about avoiding two consecutive instances of the same consonant, though that is what the past tense is.
peace.
:I'm taking this back out. Thefamouseccles is correct: the epenthetic schwa breaks up sequences of similar consonants. What's going on with the sibilants is no different from what's going on with the past tense: the schwa comes between sequences of coronals, whether fricatives or stops. This demonstrates the unity of the articulatory category "coronal", but not "sibilant". kwami 10:27, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
::. Sorry, that is plain wrong. [th] (as in that and  thick) is a coronal fricative, and there is no schwa inserted between that sound and the sibilant at the end of a word (baths, lathes, for example). The schwa is only inserted for sibilants and no other consonant 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:5CAB:B9C5:3234:C105 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English plural sibilant distinction 

message: Are "sibilant" and "grooved fricative" synonymous? --Ptcamn 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are. kwami 07:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think so too. The sibilant term is focusing on an acoustic classification while the grooved term is focusing on an articulatory classification. However, we dont know as much about the articulation of the midline of the tongue for many languages simply because we dont have data collected on tongue shapes (it is time consuming to collect shapes compared to just recording the sounds). So, we dont really have a definite answer at this time, as far as I can tell. Incidentally, in American English, some vowels have grooves in the midline of the tongue — these vowels clearly are not sibilant. So, although a groove may be a necessary condition for creating a sibilant sound, there are grooves that are not used for sibilants. – ishwar  (speak) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  See speech.umaryland.edu/Publications/issp.pdf for some cool tongue shapes of English [æ]. – ishwar  (speak) 00:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grooved fricative 

message: Just so you guys know, this page has almost nothing to explain to a layman the meaning of the word "Sibilant".  You're discussing the subject as though anyone coming to the page will have some education on phonetics and languages in general, and you are totally ignoring any laymen who stumble in here just looking for a simple description of which sounds would be classified as sibilant. (i.e. me)
Maybe one of you who knows more about the subject could include a section at the beginning (where you describe the process of making the sounds) giving a few examples in plain english?  I know that would have helped me immensely. - Toad, 12 April, 2007, 10:51 AM EDT.
::Maybe putting how you write these syllables/examples would help... Hrcolyer (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree.  This article is pretty much useless to an average layman.  75.100.154.106 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed.  This article is absurd for non-linguists.  The spirit of Wikipedia is to be informative to all - and this article is not. Indeed, this seems to be a common theme on the transliteration and phonetic-related wiki pages.  In the References section, I shall add a link to an International Phonetic Alphabet Chart with pronunciation sound files.  This ought to help non linguists surmount what might be construed as hopeless ivory tower linguistobabble.  152.3.183.94 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: The authors of this page have been good at including references in the writing, but there is no reference list at the base of the article giving the full details of the references. Please could someone who knows the full references insert these at the bottom of the article, thanks,(George-E (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :The spin-off terms shibilant, and rarely thibilant, are used to describe particular kinds of sibilant.
I don't believe interdental fricatives are considered sibilants. If I'm correct, the reference to "thibilants" as kinds of sibilants is erroneous and should be removed or amended.--Atkinson (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at least according to both this article and thibilant. 72.75.86.126 (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the article.  It seems like thibilant is extremely rare and used only in analogy to sibilant (that is, defining sounds by what they are not) so I've moved thibilant to redirect to here. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 23:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "thibilant" is so rare that I just took it out entirely.  There are hardly any legitimate non-WP refs I can find on Google. Benwing (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thibilant" 

message: Aren't there also languages which don't even distinguish the alveolar and palato-alveolar sibilants? Modern Greek comes to mind. -- 92.229.164.108 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller Inventories than English? 

message: I agree with an earlier comment that this article is of no use to the general reader. It is written by people with a lot of knowledge for other people with a lot of knowledge.  
Wikipedia pages should aim to help the lay reader, they are not aimed at experts wanting greater knowledge.  
It needs some plain English explanations.  For example, the opening paragraph needs a simple list of the letters/sounds that are sibilants.  
Joff203.0.223.244 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any other suggestions?  Surely the lack of examples in the first paragraph isn't the only thing making this article difficult to understand for a lay reader.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plain English 

message: The introduction to this article doesn't make a distinction between a sibilant and a stop + sibilant affricate, and this inaccurateness is ferociously defended by User: Kwamikagami. 31.6.141.51 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between a sibilant fricative and a sibilant affricate? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affricates?? 

message: Are sibilants basically fortis fricatives? And, if so, could this information be added to the article? --Joseph Yanchar (User page/Talk page) 20:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortis? 

message: Hi everyone! I had some ideas on how this article could be improved. I wanted to see what others thought before doing anything. 
First, I think it would be good to add some pictures which show the tongue shape and position of each of these consonants. Pictures would nicely complement the verbal descriptions, especially for people who aren't good with visualization, and don't know technical phonetic terms.
Second, I think it would be good to add recordings of people pronouncing these sounds. Most people who read about sounds probably would like to hear them, if possible.
I also think it would be useful to link the specific consonants to the corresponding Wikipedia articles, if they exist. That might make it easier for people to access these articles. 
Thanks for reading!
By the way, I'm editing on my phone so I'm not sure if I'm logged in, but I thought to sign anyways. I haven't edited on my phone in a long time since I've had technical issues in the past, but I'm hoping my luck might change...
JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas 

message: Andalusian lisp is seen with different symbols, s̄, s̻̪, s̪̻, s̟ 
[s̺̪ z̺̪] hollow + dental + apical = southeast European Spanish s/z, Kumeyaay ... is this Andalusian?? it doesnt seem to be
[s̪ z̪] denti-alveolar + laminal = Polish s, z; Basque z, tz ... is this Andalusian?? it doesnt seem to be, even though it says 'Voiceless denti-alveolar laminal sibilant' 
if these are not Andalusian sound then where is it and why is it not in the 'possible combination' of sibiliant article??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.7.188.171 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andalusian lisp