Talk:Voiceless velar fricative

message: I do not understand the most recent edit: 'the German name "Bach" when it is pronounced wrong (like usually in English).' It seems to me that the voiceless velar fricative is the correct sound for the "ch" in "Bach", but that many English-speakers substitute [k] for [x]. I hope my edit is clear. -- Lesgles 05:06, June  27, 2004 (UTC)
After seeing I wasn't quite correct about some of my English language examples for aspirated vs. unaspirated voiceless consonants, I'm not so sure about my German example either.  If someone believes the aspirated/unaspirated distinction I have made here to be incorrect, by all means change it, and if someone with a better knowledge of German phonology can verify that it is correct, please leave a message here to that point.  Thanks. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 00:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most material on German phonology anywhere fails to take the regional variation even within Standard German into account. Pluricentric language and all. David Marjanović 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A few versions of German (both dialects and regional versions of the standard) have  behind /a/ and . The Alemannic dialects have  as the only realization of /x/. The rest of German lacks  entirely. I'm a native speaker of two such varieties. David Marjanović 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bach" edit 

message: I'm pretty sure that the 'ch' in Chanukkah is an uvular fricative, not a velar fricative - at least in modern Israeli hebrew... maybe that example should be taken out. (See Voiceless uvular fricative) --Mo-Al 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanukkah example 

message: In Russian, the X letter is pronounced as  and not x.
:Wrong. It can be  or  depending on the surroundings, and the latter sound is similar to , but it's not the same. David Marjanović 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X 

message: I am Jewish-American, Hebrew being my second, yet semi native toungue, given that i learned it a young age.  The speaker in the .ogg file is not pronouncing the hebrew version of the "ch" sound correctly.  It is much rougher and sounds like throat clearing, almost.
:Yep, the Hebrew one is uvular. See Hebrew phonology. David Marjanović 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccure .ogg file? 

message: Are you sure the word "ojo" is pronounced with the voiceless velar fricative? I was taught the letter jota makes an /h/ sound when used as a consonant, although I suppose if you speak quickly it might sound like /oxo/. -- Mwalcoff 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /h/ and /x/ are similiar sounds, especially to speakers with only one or the other in their phonetic inventory.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on which kind of Spanish you speak. In Spain itself ojo is . David Marjanović 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it depends on wich dialect is spoken. /x/ appears in Mexican, Peruvian, Argentinean and north Spain dialects. In other cases as Colombian or Cuban Spanish, J sounds as /h/, but in Madrid Spain it sounds /χ/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.241.251 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish example 

message: Is there a non-sibilant velar fricative? Is that what [] is? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 09:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dorsal sibilants (as radical and glottal ones) are impossible, unless you count  - but they are both dorsal and coronal. That is why velar, uvular, pharyngeal, epiglottal and glottal fricatives are by definition non-sibilant. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 08:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sibilant 

message: The Finnish example is quite simply incorrect; the voiceless_velar_fricative sound does not appear in the Finnish language. The correct pronunciation for "lahti" is with a voiceless glottal fricative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.150.253 (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While lahti is indeed a bad example (even if there were frication, this would come off as [laħti]!), [x] as an (optional) allophone is well-attested in more velar environments, such as o_k, u_k. Readding with cite… --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish example 

message: The broad 'ch' in Irish is an uvular fricative (contrasting with the palatal fricative). Velar fricatives are liable to be conditioned very heavily by context; in Irish inflexion and some contexts result in the palatal fricative, but one does not hear the same variance seen as with the velar variety.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.221.224 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish example 

message: The Azeri example is actually a borrowed word from Persian (with the same meaning), even though it's pronounced correctly. Another actual Azeri word should probably be substituted.,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z amirkhosravi (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a better example?  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijani example 

message: The KH in arab word "Khodhra" is not pronounced the same way as German "nacht". It is much harder, and the soft KH does'nt even exist in any varieties of Arabic that i know. It is always pronounced in the hard way - as in persian Khorram.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.211.84 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the German example might be wrong.  But it is true that the Arabic sound is typically a bit more back in the throat than the German one. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: I'm another German native speaker, and I can tell you: the russian 'x' letter is NOT the same as the "Bach" "ch"!
Just hear a German speaker pronunce "Bach" and then listen to a Russian speaker pronunce "Michail" in his native language! The Russian sound sounds much weaker and softer. There IS a difference, and this should be considered. [edit] Just wanted to note too that Russian 'X' letter and Greek 'X' letter are more closely together than Russian and German: compare to Greek 'nyxta' (night). -andy 84.149.103.162 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: German ch is uvular after a.  This is why the example is not Bach.  Compare German Kuchen with Russian кухарка  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This really looks VERY wrong to me! 

message: I removed this source :  apparantly claiming that this sounds appears in Belgian Dutch (or Belgian Dutch alone, not in northern Dutch). This is simply wrong (maybe a wrong quote). I provided a new, accessible source that states that this sounds is "typical" for northern Dutch, just like it is. I corrected it in the table but to that end, I had to delete Verhoeven.--Hooiwind (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooiwind, can't you provide a different example? As far as I know, Belgians don't have a hard G as it were, like the "northern dialects" are said to have. So, please give a univocal example. It will be appreciated. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Dutch 

message: This is originally a dutch word (colonization) which is still being used frequently in the Netherlands and flemisch Belgium. 
Maybe this word should be mentioned twice in the table or both countries should me mentioned for this word. 193.190.253.160 (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's normally voiced, though. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goed 

message: in the sound file it sounds like a devoiced trill. I know some russians and they pronounce it as a devoiced trill too. is it possible that this sound has been misidentified? if it was truly a fricative, then it would sound more like an h or an s, not a kh.n same goes for the uvular fricative, i think it's a trill too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.134.45 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very likely that this has been misidentified.  I believe what you're hearing is air turbulence.  A trill occurs when articulators vibrate, which is not what's going on here. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also possible that the IP is familiar with [x] as an allophone of [ʀ]. I can discern no friction in the sample. It is true, however, that uvular fricatives like [ʁ] can turn out (slightly) trilled, as it is difficult to produce a fricative with the uvula without causing it to vibrate a little. However, for velar fricatives this is much less common. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Listening to the sample again, I agree that there is what sounds like a vibration at the start of the sound, but it is only very slight. If it were stronger, it would almost make the sound resemble an affricate. Keep in mind that velar fricatives are typically articulated somewhat farther back than a typical [k] (between [a] vowels), but not quite as far back as the uvula (velar and uvular fricatives are still clearly distinct phones), so they could be described as "post-velar". In that position, a slight vibration is possible, but still less likely or strong than at the uvular position. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't sound like a fricative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Voiceless velar fricative. 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/20131211020607/http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/ell/staff/amalia-arvaniti/docs/Greek%20Phonetics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Art.pdf to http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/ell/staff/amalia-arvaniti/docs/Greek%20Phonetics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Art.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) 01:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Romanian example is hram - a word that I have definitely never heard, and which is defined as "patronal feast of a church". I have overheard a lot of Romanian in my lifetime, this is a very common phoneme. I am not a native speaker so I won't change the example, but please: Use a word that is not super rare. I'm almost 100% sure a native Romanian speaker could find an example that uses this phoneme that is one or two syllables and is one of the 500 most common words. Fluoborate (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again, a very obscure word is the Romanian example 

message: "French	jota	[xɔta]	'jota'"
Jota is not a French word! You mean: Spanish.  
Even for loanwords, this sound is not used in French, and French people are not able to make it naturally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  French jota? 

message: This page is about 'X' sound, which is written as "ch" in German or as the Greek letter "χ". That sound clearly doesn't exist in Hindustani and Nepali. The only Indo-Aryan language to have this sound is Assamese.
Use Google translate to translate the English word 'Book' in German language & listen how its pronounced. Google translate too agrees that there's no X sound in Hindustani or Nepali. The example given  for Nepali is pronounce as "Sakha" (branch in English). The example of Hindustani is pronounced as "Khushi" (happy in English). So where is the X sound here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizen03 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tizen03 Actually, the [x] sound is present in Urdu and I've heard Urdu speakers use that a lot (including words like Khushi) so your point that it doesn't occur there isn't correct. I can understand the points about Hindi and maybe Nepali as it isn't quite as common in them, however, the phonology article for Hindi & Urdu (Hindustani phonology) does say that many Hindi speakers do use [x] although some may replace it with [kʰ] while Nepali phonology does mention [x] can occur as an intervocalic allophone of [kʰ]. In any case, I've mentioned here that in Hindi, [x] may be sometimes replaced with [kʰ] while for Nepali, I've mentioned that [x] is an allophone of of [kʰ] so that should solve this problem. Please read those two phonology articles I've mentioned carefully and if you still believe that information is wrong, feel free to discuss the matter in the talk pages of those two phonology articles. Broman178 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you still state that its not present in Hindustani (Urdu is a Hindustani language after all) despite me giving evidence in my comment does show you either didn't read my comment carefully or just ignored parts of it because I have heard Urdu speakers use [x] in "Khushi" (I have never heard an Urdu speaker use [kʰ] for "Khushi", its usually been [x] while for Hindi I have heard [kʰ] for Khushi). I have no wish to further comment on your points on Hindi & Nepali because you might be correct for them, especially for Nepali, but your assumption that [x] is not present in Urdu is wrong, especially as it is a main phoneme of Urdu (see the Phonology section in the Urdu language article) - I just used Google Translate now between Hindi and Urdu with words like Khushi, Khan and Kharab and while the voice sample in Hindi used [kʰ] (or the kh sound as you might say if you don't want to use IPA terms), the Urdu sample clearly used [x] for all of them. Like I said in my previous comment, it would be better to discuss this issue in the talk pages for Hindustani phonology & Nepali phonology if you still believe its not a phoneme for them (even though there are sources for them in both articles). And I might also point on a side note, it would be very helpful to add your signature onto your comments here (by finding "Sign your posts on talk pages" and clicking the icon) as other editors will know you made those comments. Broman178 (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  X sound doesn't exist in Nepali or Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu) 

message: As a native speaker of Georgian I've never heard anyone pronounce "ხ" in "ჯოხი" as a velar fricative, most of the time it is pronounced as an uvular fricative [χ] or maybe slightly fronted [χ˖] when next to a front vowel like /i/ or /ɛ/, the same is true for "ღ" as well which is pronounced as [ʁ~ʁ̟]. 2A01:CB10:65:400:4DCF:2CA7:7201:97D2 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgian 

message: .ogg file for voiceless voiceless velar fricative is also the one posted as voiceless velar approximant. 2A00:23C5:BA8A:F401:F517:4F4:EFC2:5E8E (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm gonna remove it. Edit: Can't remove it; it's protected. :/ Emdosis (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound files