Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:01:34 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>Mate:
>> I started as retroflex /s./ but now I would say it is generally
>> /S/, at least in Central Sweden.
>
>Ugh, more complexity. Well, if this helps, my greatgrandparents
>came from Stockholm around 1900-something. Something tells me
>that this [s.], even if it is retroflex isn't terribly so.
>Otherwise, I'd imagine it sounding more Hindi :) All I remember
>is a "softening" of /s/ to what sounded like an "s" with a
>tip or flat tongue further behind the teeth than normal but only
>by a few millimeters or so. I suppose that can be called
>"retroflex" but not very much and the tongue wasn't curled back,
>I don't think.

It was originally as "retroflex" as Polish sz or Mandarin
sh, i.e. not really retroflex at all (Ladefoged uses the
term "laminal flat postalveolar"). The acoustic effect is
similar to that of retroflex /s./, and the conditioning in
Swedish by /r/ (as with the stops: /rt/ > [t.]) is another
common factor.

The retroflex shibilant /rs/ pushed old Swedish /S/ (<sj>)
into the sound it has acquired now (a labiovelarized
labiodental or dorsovelar fricative), which means that /rs/
can now move into the territory of phonetic [S].

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...