> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:24:44 +0000, Richard Wordingham
> <richard.wordingham@n...> wrote:
> > The chart I've got is 'revised to 1993, updated 1996', whatever
> > that means.
> Allright, see what you mean. No that's correct: the "raised"
> modifier makes a fricative out of an approximant, and the
> "lowered" modifier makes an approximant out of a fricative.
> If you think about it, it makes sense:
> you raise the articulator to make more friction, and you lower it
> to decrease the friction.
Good. That's the kind of thing that the charts don't mention.
> > Also, what are [S] and [Z] doing as post-alveloar fricatives?
> > They used to be palato-alveolar fricatives. Has the meaning or
> > the classification been changed?
> The terms "palato-alveolar" and "alveolo-palatal" are not very
> I'll paste from a post I coincidentally had just written to
> <begin quote>
> Ladefoged & Maddieson's thorough analysis of the s(h)ibilants
> reveals that the following parameters can play a role:
> 1 blade of the tongue (laminal)
> 2 tip of the tongue (apical)
> 3 underside of the tip of the tongue (sub-apical)
> place of articulation:
> 1 the upper teeth (dental)
> 2 the alevolar ridge (alveolar)
> 3 behind the alveolar ridge (post-alveolar)
> 4 the hard palate (palatal)
> the shape of the tongue (blade/back):
> 1 grooved \ dental,
> 2 flat / alveolar
> 3 domed \ post-alveolar,
> 4 palatalized / (palatal)
> the position of the tip of the tongue (laminal only)
> 1 against the lower teeth (closed)
> 2 leaving a sublingual cavity (open)
> <end quote>
> Instead of "palato-alveolar" (English <sh>), it's better to use
> [rounded] [apical or laminal] domed post-alveolar.
> Instead of "alveolo-palatal" (Mandarin <x>, Polish <s'>),
> [apical or laminal] palatalized post-alveolar.
> Instead of "retroflex" (Mandarin <sh>, Polish <sz>)
> [apical or laminal] flat post-alveolar.
Wouldn't retroflex be sub-apical? If so, why are the last called
"retroflex"? Have both Mandarin and Polish changed pronunciation?
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal