Omaha fricative set

[Bryan Gordon]

/s^/ is usually called alveo-palatal or something similar like that.
Phonologists who work in featural theory can't agree on whether it's a
pure coronal or part-coronal and part-palatal. In any case, we
shouldn't assume anything about the features of OP /s^/ simply because
of what it's usually called for other languages. We know that it's
different from the standard European esh-sound, so we shouldn't assume
anything about it!

The Parisian /r/ is uvular, and yes, uvular usually connotes the
uvula, but it is possible to produce uvular sounds even if you don't
have a uvula (imagine a Parisian or a Hebrew speaker who has had it
removed for sleep apnea therapy). I would guess the tonsils or
something near the rear of the velum would be operative in this case.

As far as I know, there are no areal tendencies to have a laminal /s/
in Northern Europe. But one thing that Finnish and Dutch have in
common is the lack of a historical development of /s^/. Finnish has no
/s^/ at all in native lexemes, and Dutch's /s^/ phoneme arises from
contact between /s/ and /j/. This being the case, the "space" for the
/s/ phonemes in both languages is much larger than it is in languages
which have historically distinguished between /s/ and /s^/, so there's
no reason for speakers to avoid "darker" sounding pronunciations for
fear of confusion.

This is, of course, not true for OP, which does have a historical
distinction between /s/ and /s^/. One thing I recall reading in a
typology text (and the reason for the use of the language
"distributed" as opposed to "apical") is that languages which
distinguish /s/ from /s^/ always tend to distinguish an apical
pronunciation (in which the articulator-site contact area is small)
from a distributed pronunciation (in which the same area is large). If
this is not true for OP, then OP would be a typological rarity, on the
same level as certain Indo-Aryan languages with a three-way
distinction among alveolar fricatives!

On 9/25/06, Rory M Larson <rlarson at unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Bryan.  I appreciate your comments, and your good advice on the
> proper linguistic terms to use!
>
>  Of course you are quite right to point out that the laminal /s/ is
> dependent upon the part of the tongue that approaches the alveolar ridge,
> not on what the tip is doing.  You mention Dutch and Finnish as having
> laminal /s/.  Is it just these two languages, or is this an areal phenomenon
> in northern Europe-- do you know?  Also, you say that their laminal /s/ is
> "dark", like cross between /s/ and /s^/.  I think in Omaha it's actually
> pretty sharp, and audibly very similar to English /s/.  But that depends on
> exactly where against the roof of the mouth you put the top of the tongue.
> If what I seemed to work out with one speaker yesterday afternoon is
> correct, both /s/ and /s^/ are laminal in Omaha.  I find a laminal /s^/ a
> little more awkward to produce than a laminal /s/, but it seems to work.  If
> I am doing it right, it seems to be something like German ch in ich, but
> more forward, against the back of the alveolar ridge.
>
>  The term "uvular" occurred to me after I sent the posting yesterday.  It
> seems to me like the /g^/ is made in about the same location as the Parisian
> /r/, but mostly without the trill.
>
>  So to make sure I've got the "gutterals" straight:
>
>    laryngeal    - Produced in the larynx, involving the vocal cords.  Also
> "glottal"?
>
>    pharyngeal   - Produced by pressure between the root of the tongue and
> the top of the throat.
>
>    uvular       - Produced between the back of the tongue and tonsils?
> Uvula?
>
>    velar        - Produced a little further forward, between back of tongue
> and velum.
>
>    palatal      - Produced between the tongue and the hard palate.
>
>  Is there a term for the /s^/ series?  It's sort of front of palate, back of
> alveolar ridge.  Alveolo-palatal?
>
>  Thanks again,
>  Rory
>