Hi Jim & Dave

Hey, you're right. I never realized that English 'ch' is not a
palatal, but there it is just as you said, a 't' with a 'sh'. I
still don't think the palatal 'c' sounds like a 'k' though.

Bhante Sujato

> The problem with the English 'ch' sound as in 'church' is that it

is

> an affricate in alveolar position. This is represented by the

symbols

> of the International Phonetic Alphabet as a digraph: t + an

elongated

> s for sh, the t and sh being pronounced simultaneously. On the

other

> hand, the Pali 'c' is to be pronounced further back in the mouth

as a

> palatal (taaluja) according to classical Indian phonetics and

nothing

> is said about it being an affricate.
>
> One could compromise by pronouncing something like an English 'ch'

in

> palatal position which is what I do but it can easily be mistaken

for

> a 'k' when heard by others. According to Sweet's Anglo-Saxon

Primer,

> it seems that English once had a sound corresponding to Pali 'c'

in

> palatal position (marked in the primer as a 'c' with a dot above

it).

>
> Similar considerations can also be given to the English

affricate 'j'.

>
> Best wishes,
> Jim