Talk:Voiceless retroflex fricative

"Puʂʂy. Puʂʂy galore." -"Sean Connery" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien lysdexia 13:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would rather be [ˈpʊs̠i], with the voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant. --Ahls23 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Castillian Spanish Example

Is "s" really a voiceless retroflex fricative? I've always thought it was a voiceless apico-alveolar sibilant, but I may be misinformed. Also, the example [dɔʐ], has ʐ, doesn't that mean it should be in the ʐ article instead? I didn't want to edit anything without being sure of anything. --Sergio Á.(nodoubt9203) ^{|talk to me|} 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're right. The tongue doesn't usually go back that far, but it can serve as an allophone in some regions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC) .

That's what I thought! :D Thanks --Sergiusz Szczebrzeszyński ^{|talk to me||what i've done||e|} 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage in German

For some reason everyone recognizes that there are two "hard ch" sounds in German ([χ] and [x]) but there is no acknowledgment that the "soft ch" [ç] is often reduced to [ʂ] or even [ʃ] in many dialects in NRW and in almost every German's fast-speech. The reason being is that [ç] is not always comfortable to pronounce quickly and effectively with an every-day tempo. It's much the same idea with American English reducing the [t] sound in words like "butter" to a flap or tap. Sorry I didn't put this in the notes when I changed it today. ·:RedAugust 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the "sch" sound in general? From my own observations it seems like some pronunciations of "sch" (such as in the oft-heard word "Scheiße) border more on a voiceless retroflex fricative, rather than a voiceless postalveolar fricative. Can anyone confirm or debunk this observation of mine?--Witan 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, first sound in English SHELL sounds light (postalveolar), first sound in German STIMMT sounds dark (somewhat retroflex). In no way they are the same sound, using German SCH in English will be heard as '-German accent-' --Linda Martens (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"and in almost every German's fast-speech." Are you sure about that? "first sound in German STIMMT sounds dark (somewhat retroflex)." I agree, if the so-called "laminal retroflexes" (Polish and Russian post-alveolars) are here then German /ʃ (ʒ) t͡ʃ (d͡ʒ)/ should definitely be in retroflex articles as well. There's nothing palatal about them for many or most speakers. --Ahls23 (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

German "sch" is certainly not this. If you're saying "somewhat retroflex", of course it's difficult to rule that out, but actually I don't think it's retroflex at all. German "sch" is usually labialised though: [ʃʷ]. Maybe your observation has something to do with that? 2.207.102.134 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

diacritics

Several of the examples had a retraction sign. Not sure what that's supposed to mean - retracted [s] would make more sense. I suppose it was supposed to be an apical or laminal sign. Whoever did it might want to check I didn't screw things up. kwami (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Old versions of this article (up to here) distinguish'd explicitly between the subapical, apical and laminal retroflexes. The "retracted" diacritics seem to stem from the list of laminals.

Too bad there isn't a "subapical" diacritic, because with newer additions we can't really tell if they're to be taken as explicitly subapical (the canonical definition of 'retroflex'), or as "generic" retroflexes. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[ʂ] = [ʃˠ]?

Is it possible to view this sound as a velarized [ʃ], i.e. [ʃˠ] or [ʃ̴], just like the way [ɕ] is equal to [ʃʲ]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.56.129 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's quite distinct from that. [ʃˠ] would have a secondary narrowing (articulation) in the velar area, while [ʂ] is made using the tip of the tongue curled up and without any secondary articulations (and it could, technically, be velarized: [ʂˠ]). --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Spectrograms

I have some spectrograms of voiceless retroflex sibilants. Is this page a good place to upload them? TheNyleve (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems the place to discuss them. You'd preferably upload them to Wikimedia Commons. --JorisvS (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Any info on retroflex non-sibilant fricatives?

at all? Edralis (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Edralis: Certain speakers of South African English use the voiced one - see voiced retroflex fricative. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the voiceless equivalent? Could that also exist too? Fdom5997 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Some English dialects?

I think this sound is in some English dialects for [s], for instance some speakers from Texas. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4d1ati0n (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative?

Is it possible that there can be a voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative [ɻ̊˔], as well as a voiced one [ɻ˔]? If so where? Any information? Fdom5997 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 Yes - I've found evidence that it's used in Ormuri, and have added it to the page. The reference is someone's PhD thesis, but it uses the expected symbol and this exact name for it (page 59, footnote 99). Theknightwho (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)