Talk:Voiceless palatal plosive

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

disputed

That doesn't sound like a c. lysdexia 13:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sound is a recording made by Peter Ladefoged, one of the foremost experts on phonetics in the entire world. It's a [c]. Nohat 20:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Hungarian is one of the few languages with true palatal plosives" ??? And what about Slavic languages? In Czech and Slovak "ť" is used to represent [c] (and ď to represent [ɟ]) and in Slovak "ti", "te" are also pronounced palatalized ([ci], [ce]). In Russian and Ukrainian (and probably Belarusian) [c] is pronounced to read "ть", "те" ("тэ" in Ukrainian), "тё", "ти" ("тї", "ті" in Ukrainian), "тя", "тю" (and "дь",... is for [ɟ]). It's not used in Polish, I can't say about the the Southern Slavic languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Bulgarian,…), although the article on Serbian language suggests the sound is used there too. — Ján Kľuka, 2005-09-08T12:02+0200

Yes, palatalized, not palatal. I believe all the sounds you've indicated are [tʲ, dʲ], not [c, ɟ]. If the sounds involve the flexible front of the tongue, as t, d, s, z, ch, sh do, then they're coronal. Palatal consonants are pronounced with the body of the tongue, as k, g, x are (though further forward than those).

Quite a few languages are described with the symbols <c, ɟ>, but that doesn't mean that the sounds are actually palatals. The symbols are also commonly used for the sounds of English ch and j. kwami 11:16, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

While the recordings are in fact correct, I doubt that this is the same sound represented by the soft variants of t in some Slavic languages and Hungarian, as I read in many articles here. Isn't that a [t]-sound articulated with the tongue touching the palate? The tongue doesn't make contact with the upper-teeth while pronouncing [c]. I have always thought of this sound as a strong palatalization of [k]. That is, while [kʲ] still remains velar, articulated a bit more forward than [k], [c] is fully palatal. For instance, in Turkish it is the variant of the phoneme /k/ with front wovels following, with both acting mostly as allophones of each other. Ditto for [g], [gʲ] and [ɟ]. I am confused about this matter in other languages mentioned above and hope that someone clears it up, preferably by giving some sound samples. --Pipifax 16:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have sound samples, and I'm not sure I understand the question (or if you're even asking a question), but I'll try to answer.

Correct, this is not the sound heard in Slavic. It is heard in Hungarian, but only in formal or deliberate speech. Ladefoged has some quite convincing illustrations of Hungarian [c] that show that it's its own separate articulation. [kʲ] is not (necessarily) further forward than [k]; a forward [k] would be [k̟] or [c]. Rather, it is pronounced as [k] with a secondary raising of the tongue in the area of [c]. [c] does sound a lot like a strong palatalization of [k], but it doesn't have a glide to it the way [kʲ] does. As for [tʲ], the tongue does not touch the palate; the middle of the tongue is only raised towards the palate while the tip of the tongue touches the teeth/alveolar ridge. kwami 19:42, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

As this is en.Wikipedia, common sense dictates that editors describe the sound as it relates to English which this description doesn't do very well. The main difference between this sound (from listening to the recording) and English 'k' seems to be an absence of aspirated air after the sound and the fact that it is produced at a different place on the palate. If Graham Bell was able to teach his deaf wife how to speak simply by describing what to do with her tongue and mouth, a phonetician with an adequate understanding of this sound should be able to describe it less ambiguously than this article. Franky, I consider the description of this sound an unintelligible mess. Mike Hayes (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sound sample looks wrong

sound says something like "ja, aja" (like y in yes), is it right? --Monkbel 10:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might've downloaded a wrong sample. :) This one in the article is definitely not the English y in yes.

If you are certain that you've downloaded the good sample than the only thing I can imagine is that you might not notice the difference because you're not used to this sound (as it never occurs in your own language). I have the same problem with the English [ð] of "than". I cannot distinguish it from a [d] sound (as in Dan/iel/), because I only hear it when I listen to native English speakers. And that doesn't happen too often. --194.152.154.1 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Monkbel that there is a very audible IPA:/j/, in the recording. It sounds rather like IPA:/akja:/ and, in fact, the section below this one states that this sound is like the 'cu' in 'cute', which confirms this point, as does the section that compares it with 'kj' in Reykjavik. Mike Hayes (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ć or c

Is this sound similar to Serbo-Croatian c or ć? --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, it is ć after all. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. "Ćć" is this.

I just wanted to know is voiceless palatal plosive similar to Serbian ć, or to Serbian c. I know what Serbian ć actually is. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that sound any different from an English ch? MXVN (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If cute and chute sound the same in your dialect, it may be the same. But usually, the C in cute sounds approximately like this phone, and chute has an affricate like the tsh in hotshot. Depending on your dialect, the T in tune may be a better approximation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

Isn't Spanish ch a voiceless postalveolar affricate?

yes.Cameron Nedland 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is Canarian dialect. That's why I wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.119.169 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody's removed it again, but it is correct indeed. If users are adding every single dialectal variety in other languages I don't see a reason to not include the Canarian occurence of this sound, so I'm recovering it.--Il Qathar (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source first. Peter238 (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take down the other unsourced examples then, hum?--Il Qathar (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest example of Icelandic: The capital!

Yup. FWIW, the kj in Reykjavík is pronounced with a true [c]. -andy 91.32.75.66 09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The article is apparently poorly-written, as I was under the impression that [c] was pronounced as a "ty-," and in fact the sound sample sounded like "tyah, ahtyah" until reading this. Now, it does actually sound more like "kyah, ahkyah."

You are quite right. The article is an unintelligible mess. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Romanian?

I do not speak this language, but I do have a vague thought that they have a similar or the same sound in their language. So have they? -andy 91.32.75.66 09:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually present in the language, I will add an example now. » bye ee 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're confusing it with a palatalized velar plosive? That's what Romanian phonology seems to say it is. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Romanian has three phonetic values for the letter C. It's [tʃ] when followed by E or I (like in Italian), a [c] when followed by HE or HI, and a [k] otherwise. » bye ee 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from The phonology of Romanian by Ioana Chițoran (page 10): "On the surface, however, palatalized consonants also occur, derived from underlying sequences of a consonant and the high vowel /i/: C+/i/ → Cʲ..." She then lists a posited phoneme inventory with all palatalized consonants being phonemes, including /kʲ/ and /ɡʲ/. The distinction between /kʲ/ and /c/ is subtle. So subtle that literature on languages like Polish and Jamaican Patois have variance between them in the transcription of particular sounds. Right now, evidence is leaning more towards a palatalized velar but more sources could enlighten us on the matter. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not tell you the difference between [kʲ] and [c], and I am personally not sure that there is one, but all samples of [c] on Wiki and elsewhere, as well as the Romanian wikipedia and the Czech language example point to that sound. Also, that article seems to want to eliminate a lot of sounds. [ʨ] is also present in Romanian (final -CI), but the consonant does not have an article on the ro:wiki. » bye ee 03:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have looked around and you seem to consider Ioana Chitoran an expert on Romanian linguistics - says who? The fact that she has published a book? The name said nothing to me, and still does not. She is not in any way affiliated with the Romanian Academy, so her book is just as good as any book I would publish and would appear on the Internet. » bye ee 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chițoran may not be affiliated with the Romanian Academy (why she would need such an association to be considered an "expert" escapes me) but she has more authority than you or I. It's not just that she's published a book but that she's done credible research on Romanian; she is a reputable linguist and her department considers her an expert in Romance languages. If your standard for reputability is whether a name "says something" to you, then I'm curious what scholars you find to be more authoritative. I also recommend that you read her work before you dismiss her whole cloth and, more importantly find sources that back your position up. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with you, but, still, she has no authority on saying whether Romanian /chi/ is pronounced [kʲ] or [c] because she is not part of the language regulating body to confirm an official position. Yes, I read her work and it seems sketchy and slightly dismissive (in the sense of let's disregard this possible sound because I don't want to crowd up my paper). While I do appreciate her work, I don't find it necessarily relevant. The difference between [kʲ] and [c] is the difference between /kě/ and /tě/ in Czech. And Romanian /che/ is the latter, pronounciation-wise. » bye ee 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that is not how linguistics works. Phonologists are not required to check in with regulating bodies to determine if their research passes their standards. Anyway, I don't feel compelled to defend Chitoran too much. Find some sources that say otherwise. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian phonology article on ro:wiki has one section dedicated to the palatal k and g. They are further described under ro:Consoană_oclusivă_palatală_surdă and ro:Consoană_oclusivă_palatală_sonoră individually. Is that good enough for you? » bye ee 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three are uncited, so no. Got anything else? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, since Romanian is not a very well-known language, phonetic studies tend to remain within the borders of the country (or the Romanian-speaking community). Furthermore, since pronounciation is assumed, so far I have found three dictionaries which give the proper spelling, but only phonemically. I will keep looking. » bye ee 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian not well-known? I find that hard to believe. Where are you doing your searching? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the native speakers and the large diaspora (26 million total), I doubt there are many learning or knowing Romanian as a second language. And, out of the Romance languages, it is the most "ignored" (unless you count Romansh). I was looking online and in my bilingual German-Romanian dictionary, which only gives phonemic spelling. » bye ee 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese

Vietnamese phonology says:

/c, ɲ/ are phonetically palatoalveolar [ṯ, ṉ] (i.e. the blade of the tongue makes contact behind the alveolar ridge).
/c/ is often slightly affricated [ṯʃ], although much less than English [tʃʰ]. (Note that the English affricate is also aspirated and usually apical, unlike Vietnamese). This affrication, however, is not obligatory.

So, I've deleted mention about Vietnamese in the article. --Koryakov Yuri 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples

I think most of them are wrong.

Many of the examples describe the Romance /k/, a fronted velar ("palatovelar"?) plosive. That is [k̟], not [c]. [c] sounds similar to [tʲ], not to [kʲ]. As in all dorsopalatal consonants, the tongue bends into a ⋂ shape, with the tip touching the alveolar ridge of the lower jaw.

Others probably describe [tʲ], though the difference between [c] and [tʲ] is a rather small matter of degree.

AFAIK the Albanian q, gj are [kʲ], [gʲ] in the south and [t͡ɕ], [d͡ʑ] in the north – the same what happens to the letters ќ and ѓ in the neighboring Macedonian language. Sure, one can expect [c ɟ] as historical intermediates between the palatalized velar stops and the alveolopalatal ( = palatalized palatoalveolar) affricates, and maybe these pronunciations actually occur somewhere in central Albania, but I'd like to see some evidence for this.

Most Australian languages have "laminopalatal" (postalveolar?) plosives; the tj in the last example is such a thing. Dorsopalatal plosives, or even nasals, apparently don't occur anywhere in Australia (not even in Yanyuwa which has plosives and nasals at seven contrasting places of articulation). David Marjanović 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All examples I have added are from academic sources. I could actually list every source, but that would be tedious for language examples. Albanian does have palatal stops and the your statement about the north/south distinction is not accurate. In any event, the Albanian example is for standard Albanian. For a more obscure language, the Tadaksahak is from here: http://www.sil.org/silesr/1999/008/nsonghay.pdf and the transcription includes the palatal stop. I cannot vouch for Greek having palatal stops though... Azalea pomp 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiedy? Nigdy! (pol. "When? Never!")

I took the liberty of removing the alleged Polish example from the table. I've never heard "kie-" pronounced with an IPA [c], and I've been using the language for forty years now. The word in question is pronounced with a [kʲ] instead. By the way, the meaning of the word is 'when' rather than 'and', which further makes me think that the example was probably a misunderstanding. Regards -- Bmucha

"Similarity"

Am I the only one who thinks the similarity to [tʃ] is slightly over the top? I can see a much bigger similarity to [k]. » bye ee 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The palatalization of [k] to [tʃ] is common, usually with intermediate steps like this [k > kʲ > c > tɕ > tʃ]. Also, [c] is usually unstable as a phone in a language and more often turns into a postalveolar affricate than to a velar plosive. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but still "similarity" is subjective. Judging upon a language where all three sounds are present, I tend to stand by my earlier opinion.» bye ee 03:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is perhaps most helpful to readers who only have two of the sounds (as in English). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article could be made more clear on just how this sound is made. If it is not [kʲ] then what is it? The sound sample unfortunately does not make this clear, and as I stated in a previous comment, I actually thought the sample was making a [ty-] sound at first. Does the sound of [c] begin with a [k], or a [t], or somewhere between the two in a way I have a difficult time understanding? Does the back *and* the front of the tongue connect? If so, that seems almost unrealistically complicated for a natural language, but what else could it be? ... Either way, this does not seem at all, in my opinion, similar to [tʃ], and I think the comparison is actually rather misleading. And this is coming from a native English-speaker, if that makes a difference (a post below states an opinion that this might be easier for English readers, but I found the Reykjavik example to be far more enlightening). - MXVN (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither, duh. It's its own sound. A stop made at the same place of articulation as the Y in yes. Monolingual English speakers just need to cope with the unfortunate fact that a lot of languages have sounds that they may not be familiar with from their own native dialect or accent, and are thus ill-equipped to pick up even from the speech of a foreigner whose native language possesses the sound in question (or the demonstration of a phonetician). As I said, cute or tune provide useful approximations, but ultimately [c] is not identical with either (except perhaps in some accents), only similar to both. The sound [c] is not precisely identical with ky or ty, because if it were, we could simply write [kj] or [tj] and be done with, and there would be no need for this symbol. For the same reason, you're leading yourself down the garden path if you think that [c] "starts" with a t or k. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well BUT. This is en.Wikipedia and therefore it has to be intelligible to English speakers. This article is an unintelligible mess. One should be able to get a good idea of what the phoneme sounds like without reading through the entire talk-page. Mike Hayes (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting. I don't hear any similarity with [k]. To me, it sounds exactly like [tj] as in British "tune". (I know it's neither, but that's how I hear it, no [kj], just [tj].) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.51.15 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

c = k with a hook?

My German-Greek dictionary uses k with a hook similar to the "more rounded" diacritic in IPA (◌̹) to denote the sound [c]. Is there a diacritic in IPA which looks like the "more rounded" diacritic and shows palatalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meidei (talk • contribs) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be, but it's no longer used since a superscript j came about. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish English

Is it possible that some accents of English in Ireland use [c] for t in tune [cu:n]. Check out how Micheál Ó Muircheartaigh pronounces the word opportunity at 8:21 of the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqkVkt0P74M&feature=related. I'm thinking it's [ɔpərcu:nɪtɪ], but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.33.217 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not palatal, but palato-alveolar [t͡ʃ]. Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 11:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfoot

For Blackfoot it says that [c] is an "allophone of /k/ after front vowels", but the example given is [aˈkicoan]. I suppose this is supposed to be [aˈcikoan]? Does anyone have a source for it? — Lfdder (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're guilty of making the same mistake I make in my head sometimes: switching the meanings of before and after. But I don't know if it's true or not for Blackfoot. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I somehow think I wouldn't have made this mistake if it were [akˈicoan]. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diaphragm?

"The airstream mechanism is pulmonic, which means it is articulated by pushing air solely with the intercostal muscles and diaphragm, as in most sounds."

The human diaphragm does not, and cannot, push air out of the lungs. It be contracted to draw air in, and it can be relaxed to allow exhalation, but the pressure of exhalation comes from contracting the intercostl muscles. The diaphragm cannot "push air." Simple human anatomy. 172.56.193.244 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]