Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 2:30 pm
One High German Consonant Shift was enough...
It's also been making its way into Danish.
Australian English also has [tʰ] > [tsʰ], it should be noted.
Continued in Language forum as more appropriate.
For many languages, contrastively aspirated voiceless plosives are in free variation with fricatives. Is there any known patterning as to whether voiceless aspirated plosives should be in free variation with fricatives or instead with affricates?
Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Feb 23, 2026 5:04 pm
It's also been making its way into Danish.
Australian English also has [tʰ] > [tsʰ], it should be noted.
Continued in Language forum as more appropriate.
For many languages, contrastively aspirated voiceless plosives are in free variation with fricatives. Is there any known patterning as to whether voiceless aspirated plosives should be in free variation with fricatives or instead with affricates?
not sure if it's relevant, but a common pathway I take to achieve aspirated plosives in a conlang is [P B] > [Pʰ P], where P and B are voiceless and voiced plosives.
⟨notenderdude⟩
"May all here present witness be!
Alyen of Dúr is bound to me
and from this day all nature hails
the future Keeper of the Scales!"
/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/ wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2026 1:50 pm
not sure if it's relevant, but a common pathway I take to achieve aspirated plosives in a conlang is [P B] > [Pʰ P], where P and B are voiceless and voiced plosives.
A common route to aspirated plosives in a three-way system with ejectives is [T Tʼ D] > [Tʰ Tʼ D] > [Tʰ T D].
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:34 pm
I personally regularly pronounce two with an affricate, as [tsʲʷʰy(ː)].
Really [ts], like German zu? Or a noisy release which isn't really an [s]?
I sometimes have a "slit fricative" realisation of intervocalic /t/ (a bit like the Irish English and Scouse sound, though they use it in word-final position, which I think I usually don't), and I think the noisy releases of initial /t/ I sometimes have in words like two are similar.
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:34 pm
I personally regularly pronounce two with an affricate, as [tsʲʷʰy(ː)].
Really [ts], like German zu? Or a noisy release which isn't really an [s]?
I sometimes have a "slit fricative" realisation of intervocalic /t/ (a bit like the Irish English and Scouse sound, though they use it in word-final position, which I think I usually don't), and I think the noisy releases of initial /t/ I sometimes have in words like two are similar.
It's an aspirated labialized palatalized sibilant alveolar affricate, whereas I normally render German /ts/ as a plain sibilant alveolar or, due to interference from my my native English, dentialveolar affricate. (As I have mentioned here, my native /s/ is dentialveolar when not palatalized.)
Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:34 pm
I personally regularly pronounce two with an affricate, as [tsʲʷʰy(ː)].
Really [ts], like German zu? Or a noisy release which isn't really an [s]?
I sometimes have a "slit fricative" realisation of intervocalic /t/ (a bit like the Irish English and Scouse sound, though they use it in word-final position, which I think I usually don't), and I think the noisy releases of initial /t/ I sometimes have in words like two are similar.
It's an aspirated labialized palatalized sibilant alveolar affricate, whereas I normally render German /ts/ as a plain sibilant alveolar or, due to interference from my my native English, dentialveolar affricate. (As I have mentioned here, my native /s/ is dentialveolar when not palatalized.)
I'd still expect to perceive that as more like the German /ts/ than like English /t/.
Really [ts], like German zu? Or a noisy release which isn't really an [s]?
I sometimes have a "slit fricative" realisation of intervocalic /t/ (a bit like the Irish English and Scouse sound, though they use it in word-final position, which I think I usually don't), and I think the noisy releases of initial /t/ I sometimes have in words like two are similar.
It's an aspirated labialized palatalized sibilant alveolar affricate, whereas I normally render German /ts/ as a plain sibilant alveolar or, due to interference from my my native English, dentialveolar affricate. (As I have mentioned here, my native /s/ is dentialveolar when not palatalized.)
I'd still expect to perceive that as more like the German /ts/ than like English /t/.
I find when I articulate German zu the fricative release is longer than that in two (but mind you I am not a native speaker of German). Note that when I try to enunciate two without an affricate I feel I am having to force a non-affricate pronunciation, and that it is less natural than pronouncing it with an affricate.
