zompist bboard

As the title says, are there any languages that have both /ts/ and /tɕ/ as distinct phonemes (or anything similar to this)? I'm thinking because both are not phonetically very different most of these would tend to merge relatively quickly. I know Japanese and Korean has both [ts] and [tɕ] but they are allophones which is not what I'm looking for.

Also if you know of any such languages, I would like to know what was the historical phonology behind the development of both phonemes.
Thanks in advance!

Mandarin Chinese has a three way distinction between /ts tʂ tɕ/ so yes, it distinguishes them at least.

_________________

"There was a particular car I soon came to think of as distinctly St. Louis-ish: a gigantic white S.U.V. with a W. bumper sticker on it for George W. Bush."

Mandarin actually has a three-way distinction: [ts] [tʃ] [tɕ/tʲ] (not sure which one it's parsed as) and [dz] [dʒ] [dʑ/dʲ], indicated in pinyin as c, ch, q and z, zh, j, respectively. So, yeah, not necessarily.

*looks at Wikipedia*

Oh. Aspiration, not voicing, and those are retroflex. xP Well, in my defence the difference is hard to hear when you're not conscious of it.

Anyway, what I meant is "no, these phonemes are not necessarily candidates for quick mutual absorption".

Polish contrasts /ts tɕ tʂ/. Serbo-Croatian /ts tɕ tʃ/. Russian just /ts tɕ/.

_________________

_________________

OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

And I didn't even bother to check this thread apparently.

_________________

Three of the NW Caucasian languages (Ubykh, Abkhaz and Abaza) contrast them, unsurprisingly.

Tibetan has them.

_________________
- My own ergative "dwarf-lang"

- An expansion of J.R.R. Tolkien's Dwarvish language from The Lord of the Rings

You can add to the list.

_________________

OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

Yes.

_________________

well shit.

_________________

OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.

Most Samic languages have /ts/ as well as a postalveolar affricate, usually broadly transcribed as /tʃ/ in IPA but in UPA analyses I've frequently seen č́ (c with caron and acute) which would equal [tɕ]. (There might be variation in the realization across the different Samic languages.) Both inherited from Proto-Samic, with /ts/ coming from Proto-Uralic *č [tʃ ~ tʂ]? and /tɕ/ from PU *ś [sʲ ~ ɕ]? and *ć [tsʲ ~ tɕ ~ c]?

Tundra Nenets, some dialects of it anyway, also has /ts/ versus /tɕ ~ tsʲ/, resulting from the fortition of /s/ and /ɕ ~ sʲ/ after voiceless consonants and, IIRC, nasals. (In most other Northern Samoyedic languages including Forest Nenets, the only affricate is [tɕ], found as a realization of /tʲ/.)

Standard (Khalkha) Mongolian according to some accounts also contrasts /ts/ and /tɕ/ though I've again more commonly seen this analyzed as /ts/ vs. /tsʲ/ or even /ts/ vs. /tʃ/.

_________________
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]

Polish: /t͡s/ is (1) from the Slavic second regressive palatalization and (2) from the progressive palatalization (of *k in both instances), (3) also from Common Slavic *tj (an instance of iotation), /t͡ɕ/ is (4) from *t before a Common Slavic front vowel, /t͡s̠/ is (5) from the first regressive palatalization of *k, also from (6) *stj ( → ʃt͡ʃ → s̠t͡s̠).

Russian: /t͡s/ -(1), (2), /t͡ɕ/ (3), (5). As illustrated, the similar phonemes in individual Slavic langs don't always map each other etymologically.

_________________
uciekajcie od światów konających

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

What's the difference between tɕ and tʃ?

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

_________________
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.