Talk:Sj-sound

message: I think this is a bit mis-named -- the fricative is not only dorso-palatal but also labial -- if the lips are not rounded the sound is virtually identical to   or .   So I'd call it a voiceless dorso-palatal labio-velar (or just labial) fricative.  Any Swedish-speaking linguists to help me?  Steverapaport 01:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I don't speak Swedish, given the general picture I'm getting of the articulation of this consonant, I'd probably go with either "voiceless antevelar fricative" or "voiceless trans-oral fricative".  Denelson83  19:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You might also prefer to transcribe this sound as  and stay away from the ɧ symbol altogether. --  Denelson83  00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I found this article through the article on the Swedish language, where this sound is described as a rather specifically Swedish sound. After reading the article, I still haven't figured out what sound we're talking about, and I'm Swedish. A couple of examples would be great. Just a quick list of words where the sound occurs. Velar this and fricative that doesn't mean much unless you're fairly deep in the whole phonemolinguistic-quagmire. And most of us aren't. 95.209.112.255 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sjuk", "skjuta", "diskussion" and "orange" are a few examples. Geolodus (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Although I am not a phonetician and may well be misinterpreting one or other of the sounds, I am a native speaker of British English and have also learned Swedish and to me the Swedish sj- sound sounds identical to the way in which more conservative speakers of Southern British English used to pronounce -wh- in -which- -wheel- etc. There are probably not many speakers still alive with this pronunciation although certainly people in their sixties and seventies had it in the late 1980s. Richard Hudson, Munich
:It sounds like that to me too, but it's not.  See Voiceless labiovelar approximant#In English. jnestorius(talk) 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A combination of [h] + [w] + [j] ("hwy-", "why-" with consonantal "y" as in year) is a good approximation, though, I think. Or Welsh "chw" + consonantal "i". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence in some varieties of British English? 

message: People using their lips in pronouncing this sound must be very few, don't they/you, fellow Swedes. I think the voiceless dorso-palatal fricative (without any additional components) is the most common up to Dalarna and north thereof most people use a sound similar to the sh-sound of English or somewhat more retroflex. In the very south [x] might sometimes used instead of the dorso-palatal.
If you are Swedish and use a labialized sj-sound where in the country do you live?
81.236.227.236 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labialization? 

message: Though it appears to be unclear exactly how this consonant is pronounced, would it be okay to put this article in :Category:Doubly articulated consonant? Mo-Al 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put this in the Doubly articulated consonant category? 

message: I removed the dentolabial claim, as it was unreferenced, and the few comments alluding to it on this Talk page were inconsistent. Please restore if it can be justified. kwami (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dentolabial? 

message: The sound sample is really bad.
I am swedish and have been so for all of my 33 years on this earth, and I would never ever have guessed that to be a sje-sound  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ason (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound sample 

message: "sje-sound, based on one of the more common spellings"
I don't know any Swedish words spelled with "SJE", I think that would be a more Dutch or Norwegian way of spelling!?
92.81.71.77 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sju, sjuda, sjuk, sjunka, sjö. I think most of those are derived from diphtongs beginning with i, though. The evolution being roughly si - sj (sy) - sje-sound, if that's clear. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common spellings 

message: No way. The Swedish sound acoustically and articulatorily similar to [ç] is /ɕ/ (tje-ljudet), which actually contrasts with /ɧ/ and is indeed pronounced as [ç] in many a Swedish dialect as well as in the neighbouring Norwegian language. The /ɧ/ may be compared to an Ich-Laut because of the [x]-component, but it is nothing like a palatal fricative, and its degree of palatalization is very weak compared to [ç] and to tje-ljudet. It's either a labialized palato-alveolar, or a labialized velar, but never in-between these two places of articulation, and the labialization always make sure to lower the formants and makes it "darker" in sound compared to your typical palatal or palatalized fricative.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to [ç]?! 

message: Some time ago I had an idea: Might [ɧ] really be the missing fourth member in the list at Approximant consonant#Coarticulated approximants with dedicated IPA symbols – a voiceless labialised palatal approximant (i. e., a consonantal [y̥])? That makes a lot of sense to me. It would certainly fit the variant which has been described as labialised voiceless palatal fricative, at least, and given that [ʍ] seems to have a tendency to excresce a velar fricative at the beginning and to sound more like [x͡ɸ], it might fit the other variant too – the velarised postpalatal fricative.
(Incidentally, I might note that a voiceless labialised velar approximant can approximate low-pitched whistling, and a voiceless labialised palatal approximant can approximate high-pitched whistling, or produce it as a side-effect, especially when the lips are strongly protruded and the constriction very narrow/small.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that the voiceless labialized palatal approximant now has a page of its own. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless approximant? 

message: It seems that the glyph for ɧ is incorrect (the lower hook curves right) in Helvetica/Helvetica Neue (the default sans-serif font on Macs, and thus used for body text on Wikipedia). What is the best way to avoid rendering the character incorrectly? Hftf (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a better font, like Gentium Plus. — Eru·tuon 01:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glyph 

message: The audio clip on the page sounds to me like [xʷ]. Just saying. --AndreRD (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [xʷ] 

message: Is this Sj-sound (or at least the lightly fricated variety) basically a velar sibilant? I mean phonetically it seems to essentially be a sibilant sound that with a purely velar articulation (aside from the rounded lips) especially since the teeth tend to be closed during articulation. Plus you can tell the lightly fricated version is very different from /x/ (and definitely from /ç/ given its velar nature). TheNewLetters (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless velar sibilant? 

message: In the Iberian branch of the Romance languages, all dialects apparently had the sounds [ʃ] and [ʒ], roughly equivalent to Modern English [sh] as in ship and si as in "vision". These sounds remain intact in Catalan and Portuguese, but not in Standard Spanish, where they merged into [h] or [x]. Thus Cervantes' novel Don Quixote, written when Spanish x typically represented a [ʃ] is still known as Don Quichotte in French (French ch is usually [ʃ], as it was in medieval Spanish and in modern Portuguese), but is now spelled Don Quijote in Spanish (spelling reforms making most incidences of x becoming j). This change happened only in Spanish, and not in Portuguese or Catalan. 
This looks somewhat, if perhaps not perfectly, parallel to what is happening in Modern Swedish. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  analogy in early-modern Spanish  

message: When I view the IPA transcription at for example wikt:särskild, I see the consonant as <ɧ>, an h with its ascending line curving down-right, and its descending line curving down-left. 
However when I view this article on Wikipedia for the Sj-sound, all the IPA transcriptions show an h with its descending line curving down- right. The opposite direction from what's on wiktionary. I tried to copy-paste what I'm seeing on wikipedia into this comment, but it pastes as a different glyph, with the hook going down-left. see: ɧ
And I don't see either version of the IPA glyph in the chart at International Phonetic Alphabet.
What is going on here? Which is the correct version of this symbol? Are they the same? I'm so confused. -lethe talk [ +] contribs 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The form you see on the IPA chart is correct: both hooks curve inwards. Looks like Helvetica on Apple devices incorrectly shows it with the lower hook curving outwards. Apple's default fonts (Helvetica and San Francisco) are terrible at displaying IPA—see Help:IPA#Rendering issues. Nardog (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see it now in the IPA chart. It's underneath the main grid, listed under "other symbols". So there's only one symbol, but sometimes my apple device renders it wrong, but it's the one that curves left/in. -lethe talk [ +] contribs 17:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  which way is the hook?