Kebreni

[Rory - NLI]

How does Kebreni <th> differ from <s>?

[So Haleza Grise]

How does Kebreni <th> differ from <s>?

They're both the same as the English versions.

[Ghost]

How does Kebreni <th> differ from <s>?

They're both the same as the English versions.

That's not exceptionally helpful. Do you mean [th]ink or [th]at? I assume it's the first one though, considering its relationship with <s>.

Qhost

[zompist]

Kebreni /t/ and /d/ are dental (rather than post-alveolar as in English); /th/ is simply the related (unvoiced) fricative. /s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.

[Sander]

[T] and [s_d] perhaps?

[Legros]

/s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.

Does that sound exist in a natlang? /s/ with the tongue slightly farther back sounds like /S/ to me (as in SHop).

[Xephyr]

No, you misunderstood. The /s/ is slightly farther back than the dental <th>, not the English /s/.

[zompist]

Cevlakohn is right; I was comparing Kebreni /th/ and /s/.

Hmm, French has dental /t/ too; what about /s/? Is it any different from English /s/?

[Delthayre]

Whenever I try to pull my tongue back the sound goes apical on me.

[Legros]

Cevlakohn is right; I was comparing Kebreni /th/ and /s/.

I understand now

Hmm, French has dental /t/ too; what about /s/? Is it any different from English /s/?

No. They sound identical to me.

[Glenn]

Cevlakohn is right; I was comparing Kebreni /th/ and /s/.

Hmm, French has dental /t/ too; what about /s/? Is it any different from English /s/?

Russian /t/ and /d/ are dental, and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark) described Russian /s/ and /z/ as being, in effect, dental as well, with the tip of the tongue even touching the back of the lower teeth. (This description was accompanied by diagrams showing the tongue position involved.)

OTOH, I am not sure that I have seen this confirmed elsewhere, and I myself most often use the English values of /s/ and /z/ when speaking Russian, and experienced no problems in doing so. (Some of the other Russian phonemes are another story. )

p@,
Glenn

[Shm Jay]

and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark)

That was my textbook, and I loathed it. I wish I could have had one of Nina Potapova?s books, or some other Soviet textbook. Soviet language textbooks were always better than their Western counterparts because they took the good old-fashioned attitude of ?You?re here to learn a language and learn it properly, not to be amused!? Their dictionaries, on the other hand, were terrible, stuck in an archaic mode of not providing much help with meanings.

[Glenn]

and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark)

That was my textbook, and I loathed it.

My classmates and I got quite a kick out of it, actually; I suppose that we were young and immature enough to be amused by it, and I actually learned the basics of Russian grammar quite well from Clark. Second year was Davis & Oprendek, which was mainly an expanded repetition of the grammar covered the year before--useful in the long run, but less interesting.

I wish I could have had one of Nina Potapova’s books, or some other Soviet textbook. Soviet language textbooks were always better than their Western counterparts because they took the good old-fashioned attitude of “You’re here to learn a language and learn it properly, not to be amused!” Their dictionaries, on the other hand, were terrible, stuck in an archaic mode of not providing much help with meanings.

I do see your point. I also agree about the Soviet dictionaries; my Soviet-era English-Kazakh dictionary is awful (my Kazakh-English dictionary, by Dunwoody Press, is much better--of course, both are quite rare specimens). Unfortunately, Western dictionaries often suffer from the same problem--I got very frustrated with the Langenscheit (sp?) Russian-English dictionary. These days, I use Katzner's and the Oxford dictionaries, as well as a few specialized works.

p@,
Glenn

[Rory]

Kebreni /t/ and /d/ are dental (rather than post-alveolar as in English); /th/ is simply the related (unvoiced) fricative. /s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.

Right, thanks.
I don't want to sound annoying here, but why is it not specified in the Kebreni page? Or is it, and I just missed it?

[So Haleza Grise]

Kebreni /t/ and /d/ are dental (rather than post-alveolar as in English); /th/ is simply the related (unvoiced) fricative. /s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.

Right, thanks.
I don't want to sound annoying here, but why is it not specified in the Kebreni page? Or is it, and I just missed it?

Well, the transcription partially speaks for itself (being the same system as for example used in Cadhinor), and also in the original script, the same characters are used as for Cadhinor /s/ and /T/. To be honest, it never occured to me that anyone would have the problem you encountered.

[Rory - NLI]

I've never looked at Cadhinor. I'm rather selective

However, it was basically the fact that both <s> and <th> are listed in the "dental fricative" (unvoiced) area of the phonology table. Threw me.