User talk:Ahls23

Dental sibilants?

Are these essentially laminal alveolar? — Lfdder (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my native language {Polish} there's nothing alveolar about them, they're apical post-dental. European Spanish has laminal denti-postalveolar sibilants before /t d/, but they're not consistent at using it, sometimes pronouncing basically Polish /s z/ in these positions. I think describing these as laminal alveolar is confusing. For me it gives the impression that the tip of the tongue is lowered. At least in my language, that would sound like a lisp. --Ahls23 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is post-dental? — Lfdder (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce /s z/ with the tip of my tongue against lower teeth. That's how majority of (or all, I'm not sure yet) Slavs pronounce it. --Ahls23 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the closure? If the blade's resting then air is just flowing in freely. — Lfdder (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the closure is post-alveolar, somewhat lower than the alveolar ridge and slightly behind it, that's how it feels like when I pronounce it. I guess by these standards, you could say it's laminal (post-)alveolar, but I wouldn't use such description (look above for the reason). --Ahls23 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the 'place' of articulation isn't the lower teeth, why is it dental? What do you mean, it gives the impression the tip is lowered? How much lower than the lower teeth? This is from p. 154 of The Sounds of the World's Languages, quoting Puppel et al. (1977):

The polish sounds s̪ and z̪ belong to dentalized sounds, i.e. those which are articulated in the alveolar region but with the blade of the tongue being very close to the inner side of the upper front teeth. Thus, the hissing effect is very strong. [...]

Is this description flawed? Do you pronounce them differently? — Lfdder (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that calling it just laminal alveolar without mentioning the dentition would give me such an impression. Nope, the description sounds good. Perhaps the best description then would be "laminal denti-alveolar". --Ahls23 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could move those sibilants below the alveolar tables and write "denti-alveolar" above them. I don't see a problem with that, as long as we keep dentalized sibilants apart. --Ahls23 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, if it's 'dental' in literature, we should keep 'dental'. But are all the other 'dentals' on that list similar to Polish? I'm especially doubtful about Chinese. Also, should we add the passage above to the two articles so it's hopefully made more obvious how this sound is pronounced? — Lfdder (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be doubtful about Chinese, Lin keeps dental and alveolar sounds apart, so that /s t͡s t͡sʰ/ and /tʰ t n l/ are in different columns (dental and alveolar). I'm not adding sounds to dental articles unless the author explicitly states the dentition. Plus, it's listed separately for 4 dialects in 4 separate tables - Min, Meixian, Suzhou, and Mandarin in general. No way that would be a mistake. Also, I've heard Mandarin and their /s/ sounds exactly the same as ours. We could add that passage to these articles, but there's a catch here - in my language, the tip presses against the inner side of the lower front teeth. I missed that before. So I don't know how that would be helpful, since it doesn't mention lower teeth... --Ahls23 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, does this s also sound similar to you? — Lfdder (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very. It's likely the same as mine. It's Spanish, right? I clearly hear [säɰˈɾe̞s]. I honestly think that almost whole Latin America (I'm talking about Spanish) has a dental /s/, which is just labeled as laminal alveolar. --Ahls23 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Cypriot Greek, but I think that transcription would be exactly right. — Lfdder (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know what they mean that Greek and Spanish sound similar. She (he?) sounds totally like someone from South America. --Ahls23 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it weren't for θ. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Tottenham"

Hi, Could you explain to me the rationale of showing the pronuncation of Tottenham as a three-syllable word when it is not actually pronounced like that by people in London or indeed the rest of the UK? I notice that Wikipedia gives the pronunciation for "Leicester" correctly as (/ˈlɛstər/ ^ⓘ LES-tər). In other words, the IPA rendering takes account of the peculiarity of local pronunciation ("local" meaning the whole of the UK), whereas the spelling would imply something different. (American and other visitors to London can often be heard asking the way to "Lie-cester Square".) If you search YouTube etc. for people talking about Tottenham (eg Tottenham Hotspur FC), you are unlikely to hear any native speaker pronouncing Tottenham with three syllables. You will hear it as two syllables (with a glottal stop, I think – but you would be the expert on this – dividing the two).

In fact, if you listen to Harry Redknapp talking in this YouTube clip, he says the word "Tottenham" within the first ten seconds and it is a perfect demonstration of how it is pronounced. Redknapp is from London and has a working class background, but the pronunciation of "Tottenham" does not change with class differences. In this second YouTube clip, again within the first ten seconds you will hear someone with a more "received English" accent saying it in the same way. Dubmill (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having second thoughts about this. I still think it is more common to pronounce it as only two syllables (Tot-nm), but there are some people who say it as three, only with the middle "uh-n" part being said so quickly as to make it barely perceptible. I guess it's a rather minor question overall, although I note the subject has come up on Yahoo Answers and elsewhere. Dubmill (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This website has something to say on the matter and refers specifically to Tottenham: [1]. Dubmill (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Slashes represent phonemic transcription, which seemed to be /ˈtɒtənəm/. Now, due to the unstressed nature of schwa it can (and indeed is, as you point out) be elided [ˈtʰɒtnəm]. The second /t/ then turns to a glottal stop, because even in Received Pronunciation it's an allophone of /t/ before a nasal [ˈtʰɒʔnəm]. Actually pronunciationlondon made a mistake by writing /ˈtɒʔnəm/ - it should be [ˈtɒʔnəm]. Glottal stop isn't a native phoneme, but an allophone of /t/.

I think it's very possible that /ˈtɒtənəm/ was once the proper pronunciation, but it doesn't matter. I think the best option is to transcribe it as {{IPA|/ˈtɒtnəm/}), and I've changed it to that. Thanks for the feedback. --Ahls23 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]