Re: IPA diacritics and stuff

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:56:07 +0000, ikpeylough <ikpeylough@...>
wrote:

>> 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?

The acoustic effect of a flat post-alevolar shibilant is very close to that
of a sub-apical palatal (= "retroflex") shibilant. I can't say for sure
for all Indo-Aryan and Dravidian "retroflex" shibilants, but the Tamil
"retroflex" [s.] discussed in Ladefoged & Maddieson is not sub-apical
palatal, but laminal post-alveolar, like the Polish <sz> and Mandarin <sh>
[just a little bit more back]. The Dravidian language Toda has a genuine
retroflex [s.].


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