Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Language with ʃ but no tʃ
It's a quick question, but it deals with natural/actual languages, so forgive me if I posted this in the wrong sub-forum. Is there a natural language which has ʃ but does not have tʃ in turn? I've found languages which contain both, neither, or simply tʃ. Is there one which just contains ʃ, however?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
- WeepingElf
- Smeric
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
French, except in some recent loanwords from English.RionTK wrote:It's a quick question, but it deals with natural/actual languages, so forgive me if I posted this in the wrong sub-forum. Is there a natural language which has ʃ but does not have tʃ in turn? I've found languages which contain both, neither, or simply tʃ. Is there one which just contains ʃ, however?
Thanks in advance.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Well, how about French? The "ch-" pretty much became ʃ from tʃ, so you have cheval /ʃə.val/, chaque /ʃak/.RionTK wrote:It's a quick question, but it deals with natural/actual languages, so forgive me if I posted this in the wrong sub-forum. Is there a natural language which has ʃ but does not have tʃ in turn? I've found languages which contain both, neither, or simply tʃ. Is there one which just contains ʃ, however?
Thanks in advance.
"(...) for the Eldar being skilled in craft are not wasteful nor prodigal to small purpose, admiring in a tongue rather the skilled and harmonious use of a few well-balanced sounds than profusion ill-ordered."
-Dangweth Pengolod, PM.
-Dangweth Pengolod, PM.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
...I feel like an idiot. The CH in French has the ʃ, duh. My apologies.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Also Akkadian, though that interpretation is not universal.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Irish, with the same caveat regarding recent borrowings. (The traditional treatment was metathesis, e.g. Norman-French page > páiste /pasʹtʹə/.)
- Particles the Greek
- Lebom
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:48 am
- Location: Between clauses
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Dutch, German, many Scandinavian languages, Portuguese...
Non fidendus est crocodilus quis posteriorem dentem acerbum conquetur.
- KathTheDragon
- Smeric
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
- Location: Brittania
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
I thought German does have tʃ
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
I can't speak to Dutch, but I think it's difficult to argue that German lacks /ʧ/ when you have such well-established borrowings as Tschüs and Tscheche.araceli wrote:Dutch, German, many Scandinavian languages, Portuguese...
- Nesescosac
- Avisaru
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: ʃɪkagoʊ, ɪlənoj, ju ɛs eɪ, ə˞θ
- Contact:
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Many dialects of Bengali keep ʃ but lenite tʃ to s. Cuitlatec, too, had no tʃ but had ʃ (also had no s).
I did have a bizarrely similar (to the original poster's) accident about four years ago, in which I slipped over a cookie and somehow twisted my ankle so far that it broke
Aeetlrcreejl > Kicgan Vekei > me /ne.ses.tso.sats/What kind of cookie?
- Hydroeccentricity
- Avisaru
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Arabic should fall under this category, and probably a few other Semitic languages.
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Certainly pre-modern Hebrew.Hydroeccentricity wrote:Arabic should fall under this category, and probably a few other Semitic languages.
It's also true of Osage, now that I think about it. [ʧ] only occurs as an allophone of /ʦ/.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Analysing Dutch as having S is not entirely uncontroversial though. And if you do analyse it as such, I don't see how you could not also claim it has tS.araceli wrote:Dutch, German, many Scandinavian languages, Portuguese...
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
French has it in some older loans as well, e.g. caoutchouc.WeepingElf wrote:French, except in some recent loanwords from English.RionTK wrote:It's a quick question, but it deals with natural/actual languages, so forgive me if I posted this in the wrong sub-forum. Is there a natural language which has ʃ but does not have tʃ in turn? I've found languages which contain both, neither, or simply tʃ. Is there one which just contains ʃ, however?
Thanks in advance.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
European and Northeast Brazilian Portuguese have ʃ but no tʃ. Standard Brazilian Portuguese has [tʃ] as an allophone of /t/ before /i/. To my knowledge, tʃ isn't actually phonemic in any variety of Portuguese, except transitional dialects along the Spanish border.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
From my dataset: Angaataha, Arabela, Cheyenne, Mandan, Maxakali. Also Seneca, but it has /ʤ/ and voicing doesn't look to be contrastive. Ket has /ç/ and no other consonants between alveolar and velar.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:41 pm
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Natchez. (Inspite of the language's name)
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
I would think it's quite controversial, and honoustly haven't seen a serious attempt to defend it. Dutch has [ʃ], but it is clearly the allophonic representation of /sj/, word initial in borrowings (mostly names like Sjaak from Jacques and /sjon/ from John), and in diminutives like "huisje".Grunnen wrote:Analysing Dutch as having S is not entirely uncontroversial though.
Can you give some examples of non-borrowed [tʃ]? I can think only of "tsjing-tsjing" and "hatsjoe!", but those are onomatopoeic so they don't count, and "tsja", "tsjonge", "tsjemig" etc., but those are interjection (and varieties of the same with sj-) and therefore also don't count, imho.And if you do analyse it as such, I don't see how you could not also claim it has tS.
JAL
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
And /ʧ/ doesn't appear only in loans - non-initiallay, it appears in many native words (Deutsch "German", lutschen "suck", quetschen "squeeze", fletschen "bare (one's teeth)", quatschen "chatter", etc.).linguoboy wrote:I can't speak to Dutch, but I think it's difficult to argue that German lacks /ʧ/ when you have such well-established borrowings as Tschüs and Tscheche.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
I'm just saying that if you really want to see [ʃ] as a phoneme in Dutch, you'll have to set up your definitions in such a way that it will automatically also include [tʃ].jal wrote:I would think it's quite controversial, and honoustly haven't seen a serious attempt to defend it. Dutch has [ʃ], but it is clearly the allophonic representation of /sj/, word initial in borrowings (mostly names like Sjaak from Jacques and /sjon/ from John), and in diminutives like "huisje".Grunnen wrote:Analysing Dutch as having S is not entirely uncontroversial though.
Can you give some examples of non-borrowed [tʃ]? I can think only of "tsjing-tsjing" and "hatsjoe!", but those are onomatopoeic so they don't count, and "tsja", "tsjonge", "tsjemig" etc., but those are interjection (and varieties of the same with sj-) and therefore also don't count, imho.And if you do analyse it as such, I don't see how you could not also claim it has tS.
JAL
As for non borrwowed [tʃ], I think words like <fietsje> may have it. In which case it's a contraction of [tsj].
χʁɵn̩
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
gʁonɛ̃g
gɾɪ̃slɑ̃
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Yeah, but I think it's only its appearance in onsets which allows medial [ʧ] to be analysed as a single segment rather than a sequence of two. After all, /kç/ appears medially in German (e.g. Stückchen, Deckchen, Bröckchen), but there's no reason to consider this anything but a cluster.hwhatting wrote:And /ʧ/ doesn't appear only in loans - non-initiallay, it appears in many native words (Deutsch "German", lutschen "suck", quetschen "squeeze", fletschen "bare (one's teeth)", quatschen "chatter", etc.).linguoboy wrote:I can't speak to Dutch, but I think it's difficult to argue that German lacks /ʧ/ when you have such well-established borrowings as Tschüs and Tscheche.
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
I dunno - at least I don't see how appearing word-initially wouldn't allow [ʧ] to be analyzed as a sequence of /t/ and /ʃ/. Otherwise one could argue that English has the phonemes /sp/ /st/ etc.linguoboy wrote:Yeah, but I think it's only its appearance in onsets which allows medial [ʧ] to be analysed as a single segment rather than a sequence of two. After all, /kç/ appears medially in German (e.g. Stückchen, Deckchen, Bröckchen), but there's no reason to consider this anything but a cluster.hwhatting wrote:And /ʧ/ doesn't appear only in loans - non-initiallay, it appears in many native words (Deutsch "German", lutschen "suck", quetschen "squeeze", fletschen "bare (one's teeth)", quatschen "chatter", etc.).linguoboy wrote:I can't speak to Dutch, but I think it's difficult to argue that German lacks /ʧ/ when you have such well-established borrowings as Tschüs and Tscheche.
I'd say [kç] is different from [ʧ] because for [kç] there always is a morpheme boundary involved between /k/ and /ç/ , while that is not the case for [ʧ].
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
Clusters of /s/ + plosive appear in all positions in English, and other /sC/ clusters are found both initially and medially. What other /Cʃ/ initial clusters occur in German?hwhatting wrote:I dunno - at least I don't see how appearing word-initially wouldn't allow [ʧ] to be analyzed as a sequence of /t/ and /ʃ/. Otherwise one could argue that English has the phonemes /sp/ /st/ etc.linguoboy wrote:Yeah, but I think it's only its appearance in onsets which allows medial [ʧ] to be analysed as a single segment rather than a sequence of two. After all, /kç/ appears medially in German (e.g. Stückchen, Deckchen, Bröckchen), but there's no reason to consider this anything but a cluster.hwhatting wrote:And /ʧ/ doesn't appear only in loans - non-initiallay, it appears in many native words (Deutsch "German", lutschen "suck", quetschen "squeeze", fletschen "bare (one's teeth)", quatschen "chatter", etc.).linguoboy wrote:I can't speak to Dutch, but I think it's difficult to argue that German lacks /ʧ/ when you have such well-established borrowings as Tschüs and Tscheche.
Fair point; not the best example. What about [pʃ] then (as in Glupsch|auge and grapsch|en)?hwhatting wrote:I'd say [kç] is different from [ʧ] because for [kç] there always is a morpheme boundary involved between /k/ and /ç/ , while that is not the case for [ʧ].
Re: Language with ʃ but no tʃ
That's not what my point was about. What I mean is this - is it position that makes the distinction between a phoneme cluster and a complex phoneme (e..g. an affricate) or something else? AFAIK, an affricate is an affricate even if it only shows up with a limited distribution. Or would you say that a phon is only a phoneme if it can occur in any position? Or only if it can occur initially?linguoboy wrote:Clusters of /s/ + plosive appear in all positions in English, and other /sC/ clusters are found both initially and medially. What other /Cʃ/ initial clusters occur in German?
Actually, if someone would tell me that this is a phoneme on a par with /ʧ/, only rarer, I might even believe it. It would be in line with my perception as a native speaker. (And there are a few names like Pschorr that start with [pʃ], but as most of them seem to be Bavarian or of Slavic origin, their status as integral words of German is of course questionable).linguoboy wrote:Fair point; not the best example. What about [pʃ] then (as in Glupsch|auge and grapsch|en)?hwhatting wrote:I'd say [kç] is different from [ʧ] because for [kç] there always is a morpheme boundary involved between /k/ and /ç/ , while that is not the case for [ʧ].
I'm actually a bit tired right now and probably not thinking too clearly, but I think the point I want to make is that I remember the reasons for declaring something a cluster or a single phoneme have something to do with perceptional and articulational issues, not with distribution - distribution is only relevant for distinguishing phonemes from allophones. But I may remember wrongly, and the only reason while I'm not asleep and resting my brains is that a houseguest is going to the airport tonight and I've got to see him off.