Talk:Voiced uvular fricative

Fricative vs. approximate

an uvular approximant between vowels, as in Ehre [eʁ̞ə]

The introduction to the article seems to imply that /ʁ/ is the approximant while /ʁ̞/ is the fricative, so since German uses the approximant between vowels, "Ehre" should be [eʁə]. AxelBoldt 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, [ʁ̞] is the approximant; [ʁ̝] is the fricative (downtack vs. uptack). The fricatives/approximants from uvular back need to be expanded. kwami 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And that's supposed to be German?!?

In reality a one-contact uvular trill is used there. I haven't toured Germany, but I've never heard anyone speak German with a fricative or approximant between two vowels. Or initially, for that matter.

(I'm a native speaker from Austria where neither the fricative nor the approximant occur.)

Could it be that whoever wrote this is a native speaker of English and has confused the approximant with the one-contact trill?

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:48 CEST | 2006/4/6

The handbook to the IPA asserts its existence in German: compare [fɐˡʕaɪzən] (vereisen) to [fɐˡʁaɪzən] (verreisen). Not sure if it is fricative or approximant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.115.253 (talk • contribs)

Whoa, why is there a pharyngeal approximant in that transcription? No way German has pharyngeals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.158.206 (talk • contribs)

Text vs image

Why is text character the mirror imag of the image (how redundant :)

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know who, but it's fixed. I post this for avoiding people asking themselves "where? where?" :)

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew

Perhaps Hebrew should be listed with Arabic (as in Semitic languages together) instead of European languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.107.127.229 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Usefulness of this page

The page is full of technical jargon that may mean something to someone, somewhere. But, to someone like me, who came to this page to get an idea of what a uvular approximant might actually sound like, it's absolutely useless, and worse, completely opaque. It provides absolutely no information to someone who is not versed in linguistics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.2.72 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

There is already a sound sample. Is that not helpful? Could it be that you wanted a description that tells a layperson how to pronounce it? — Sebastian 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but if you want the IPA to be any help to you, it helps to read a bit about the basics. I had to read a couple pages about linguistics terms before I was able to understand what anything meant. Why write lengthy, inexact (and perhaps unclear) explanations when you can use technical vocabulary and be precise and clear without taking up too much space? JodianWarrior (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ordering by number of fricatives

I liked the addition by the IP editor from the University of Queensland and regret that it has been reverted. I brought the matter up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics#Revert war about formatting. — Sebastian 21:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Castilian Spanish

Spanish spoken in Spain, specially in Madrid, uses almost always the allophone /χ/ instead of /x/, and the allophone of /g/, /ɣ/, begins to be pronounced as an approximate /ʁ/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.183.210 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, Castilian Spanish has [χ] as an allophone of /x/ before /u/. I've never heard that /g/ is lenited to a uvular approximant. Do you have a source? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Those who know Spanish (and know how to pronounce it correctly) might also note that this variety of French /r/ is not dissimilar to the Spanish voiced fricative [γ] of pagar [paγar], diga [diγa] (which is the voiced equivalent of /x/), except that, again the point of articulation of the /r/ is further back.

The castilian spanish g between vowels like in paGar is post velar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.214.42.197 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

An Introduction to French Pronunciation; Glanville Price; revised edition published 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, in /VgV/ and especially /lgV/ (algo, pulgar, etc.) in Castilian Spanish, /g/ sounds quite different from all other dialects, and it tends to be realised as /ʁ/. Just listen to these pronunciations of pulgar here —El Mexicano (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Guttural R in Brazilian Portuguese

Well, many of you probably already know my issues here in the articles about IPA, I am boring. Though I am not a specialist at anything, I can realize something: that for many speakers in Centre-Southern Brazil, people use various allophones for the phoneme /ʁ/, just like in Portugal, where a lisboeta can use [ʀ] and [χ] as possible allophones (and use of [ʁ] can be not dominant but it is definitely not rare). This is my case – my dialect/sociolect is closer to standard BP than of people from any other capital –, and if I understand something of phonology (I wish it better than my English writing skills -giggles-), I do have a preference for the voiced ones.

Yes, that was what I said: here in Brazil, at least in the coastal Southeast, the Federal District (the dialect of most people is closer to ours) and the Southern states, it is common for one single person to use various of these sounds for the same phoneme, at different word positions or depending on their habit. Then mine turn to be [ʁ] (the most common one), [ɣ], [ɦ] and [χ]. Though it is obvious that in the Northern and Northeast regions glottals are by far dominant, it varies more individually than regionally outside there (nevertheless, we cariocas have a stereotype of using 'why' or 'because' as [puˑʀˈkeˑ]/[puʁˈke], which is a pattern certainly unusual in all the regions where [ʁ] is common because it would be [poɾˈke], [pʊɹˈke] or the like; just noting that the uvular trill [ʀ] is rare in Brazil, and associated with French accent, but certainly not the fricative).

So my question is: how is it different from free variation if it depends on easily perceivable dialectal features? Has to do with the fact that there is a variation inside dialects, or I misunderstood everything about free variation? Lguipontes (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Free variation has to do with the different phones varying even for the same individual. For example, a speaker of Hawaiian may vary between [w] or [v] but the difference doesn't have to do with context (otherwise, they would be allophones) and it doesn't have much (or any) social or stylistic meaning.

If what you say is true, then it would be more accurate to say that there is dialectal or ideolectal variation. It would only be free variation if individual speakers switched between the forms and if there was little to know stylistic or social meaning behind the choices. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is stylistic/social meaning when it is in the syllable coda (people unused to our dialects ask us from the 6 southernmost states to say 'porta', 'verde' and 'carne' when we make a trip to the Northeast, though it is less usual for fluminenses except if they have a weird-sounding accent like me), but outside this environment people do not even note that the 'rr' sound for Northeasterners (or East Asian immigrants, or English-speaking tourists) is always fully aspirated while we fluminenses, some urban and most non-urban sulistas usually "grate our throats" as Western Europeans (not the case of the more stereotypical alveolar trill of Italian, Spanish and Slavic immigrants, and people living in the frontier, but this is a case apart of most dialects).

I don't see it changing with social class, age group or subculture as with other characteristics of pt-BR, except to the fact that me and other fluminenses perceive younger, poorer and "globalization-excluded" paulistanos sound more distant of us and more closer to their rural counterparts, or maybe our ears are a little bit bairristas, parochialistical, because as far I know few middle class paulistanos note that so clear as us – to the extent that some claim "their dialect", that doesn't sound any close to uniform for me, is the pt-BR standard, which I don't refrain because it is a very rare demonstration of pride on linguistic difference one can see among just a few of them.

Our dialect also sound more uniform with respect to social class, age group and subculture to us than to other Brazilians, though it is not the issue here, BTW. Finalizing, the way they pronounce r in the syllable coda as seldom 'rr', usual 'r simples' and not rare 'r caipira' play some part in recognizing those differences by our side, though I think that the person is usually not aware of it – given the lower social status of things deemed rural, laddie or poor here. Lguipontes (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it short. There's free variation inside the dialects for both rhotic phonemes, with some variations allowed by some dialects; some overlap, some don't. This is further complicated in certain positions where the two phonemes neutralize, as word beginning and syllable coda (word beginning and syllable coda, but never in intervocalic position for most accents). Using coda R as an example, you'll find Campinas using consistently [ɻ], free variation between [ɹ] and [ɻ] in Maringá, [ɹ], [ɻ] and [ɾ] in Curitiba and São Paulo city, [ɹ] and [ɾ] in Blumenau and just [ɾ] in Porto Alegre. The same situation happens for the "strong R" used in word beginning (where [ʁ], [h], [ɦ] and even [r] happen) and in non-Southern dialects (some Northeasterners use a bunch of velar rhotics for coda, some similar to the ones we allow in word beginning). TL;DR: rhotics in Portuguese are a mess. 177.132.1.47 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sample audio file for uvular approximant

Both sample audio files are for the voiced uvular fricative! A sample audio file for the uvular approximant will be of great help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.105.128 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same sound file. Why are they kidding us?--2.245.126.182 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Addition to Occurrence List

Haitians use the uvular fricative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.108.72 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong audio?

I tried many times, pronouncing as said on the wiki and read it many times all to verify. But the audio sounds more like a [v]. Is it just me or is it really wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suttiwit (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Suttiwit: Sounds like that to me, too, although it could also be [β]. It seems highly unlikely that it's the correct sound file; if it is, then why doesn't [χ] sound like [f] or [ɸ]? All the information on the file's Wikimedia page seems to indicate that it's the right file, though, so I don't know. Zgialor (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're hearing, but it sounds clearly uvular and clearly a fricative to me. --JorisvS (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Image is incorrect (upside down but not inverted) in Mobile Wiktionary only

I am new here and do not yet know how to edit, but have noticed a major error. The symbol is an upside down capital R when it should be an inverted capital R. I checked the NON mobile wiktionary site and that site has the proper symbol. The mobile site has it wrong, both on the page specific to the symbol and on the IPA consonant chart. TZilla28 (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Zhuang "r"

OK! the phoneme is “/ɣ/”, but allphone is “[ʁ̞]”. You forget to fill “◌̞” for “[ʁ]”. Juidzi (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)