# Realisation of /s/ in Greek and Spanish



## Riverplatense

Hello!

I wonder about the correct definition (and also transcription) of the Greek and (European) Spanish articulation of the phoneme /s/. It might not actually be the same sound, but, at least superficially, I don't perceive substantial differences. It's also pretty close to /s/ in Basque. I'm not fully sure about the distribution of that sound, though. It might be absent in initial position.

Is it a pre-palatal fricative? Or what else?

Thank you!


----------



## TheCrociato91

Hi.

When it comes to European Spanish, what I've learned is that there are three main types of /s/ allophones (without taking into account the possible aspiration or drop):

_fricativa apicoalveolar retrofleja sorda_ or, in English, _voiceless alveolar retracted sibilant_ [ s̠ ], and the subform apico-alveolar [ s̺ ], which is characteristic of the northern and central parts of Spain.
_fricativa laminal / predorsodental sorda_ or, in English, _laminal alveolar grooved fricative_ [ s ], which is typical of western Andalusia (e.g. Málaga, Seville, and Cádiz).
_fricativa coronal plana sorda_, or, in English, _apical dental grooved fricative_ [ s̄ ], which has a lisping quality and occurs in eastern Andalusia like in Granada, Huelva, Córdoba, Jaén and Almería, only in dialects with _ceceo_.

The Spanish parts were mainly excerpted from: _Principios de fonologia y fonetica españolas_, Antonio Quilis
The English parts were mainly excerpted from: Spanish phonology - Wikipedia


Hopefully native speakers of European Spanish will also chime in.


----------



## soplamocos

Hi, I guess it's not always the same, sometimes is palatal and sometimes dental.
Do you known the Univ. Iowa site? It allows to compare Spanish, English and German. It's free (although now they ask to register, but still free).


----------



## jimquk

It is presumably relevant that neither Greek nor Spanish need to maintain a distinction between /s/ and /sh/ (sorry, I can't produce IPA symbols).


----------



## Riverplatense

Thank you all!



jimquk said:


> It is presumably relevant that neither Greek nor Spanish need to maintain a distinction between /s/ and /sh/ (sorry, I can't produce IPA symbols).



Interesting observation. I think the only area where potentially there could be an additional loss of phonemes would be the one where /s/ is rendered as [-s-]; as far as I know this goes, e. g., for Argentina, am I right, @soplamocos? Otherwise _casa _and _calla _could loose all distinctive traits. Maybe not a very probable case, but still interesting considering the merger of /ʎ/ and /j/ (_pollo _:_ poyo_) and /s|/ and Ø (_la casa _:_ las casas_), for it would lead to a merger of _raso _:_ rayo _:_ rallo_. But well, that's already way too far-fetched ...


----------



## berndf

jimquk said:


> It is presumably relevant that neither Greek nor Spanish need to maintain a distinction between /s/ and /sh/ (sorry, I can't produce IPA symbols).


Yes, this is usually considered the most important reason. Latin also probably had an apical s (and no /ʃ/), as had German before the merger of _s_ and _ß_, which happened as a consequence of the development of /ʃ/.


----------



## soplamocos

I do not made distinction between the liquid "ll" and "y" ( I pronounce both as /sh/) and the sybilants "s" and "z" /θ/ (both as /s/). But  /s/ ans /sh/ are different sounds. I mean, to me _cayó_ (he fell down) sounds equal to _calló_ (He shut up), but they will never be confuse with _casó_ (he married) or _cazó_ (he hunted).

Sometimes, the endings -s (in plural) are omitted, but it's saw as a neglect speaking. We call it "comerse las eses" (to eat the S) 
Also sometimes with the verbs conjugated in simple preterite with second person 'vos' , a -s is added by analogy: _vos comiste, vos comistes_ (that last s is also seen as an error)


----------



## jmx

This discussion might be of interest here.


----------



## ahvalj

jimquk said:


> It is presumably relevant that neither Greek nor Spanish need to maintain a distinction between /s/ and /sh/ (sorry, I can't produce IPA symbols).


Yet, how old is this Spanish intermediate _s_? There was a period a few centuries ago when the modern _x_ (_gente, juego_) was pronounced as a non-palatalized _š, _and it must have interfered with that intermediate sound, which didn’t occur. So, does it mean the modern Iberian Spanish _s_ is rather new, having developed recently from a standard _s_?


----------



## jmx

I mentioned in some other thread that while Spanish in northern Spain doesn't have /s/-/ʃ/ contrast, Catalan, Galician and Asturian do have it. In all of those languages /s/ is realized as "apico-alveolar" too.

EDIT: Portuguese from northern Portugal can be added to the list.


----------



## ahvalj

Do these idioms (other than Catalan, which I imagine) have a French/German (more velarized) or English/Italian (more palatalized) _š_? The latter (as especially in Catalan) is clearly different, whereas the former may in principle cause interference.


----------



## Circunflejo

ahvalj said:


> how old is this Spanish intermediate _s_?



The _s_ as I pronounce it dates back, minimum, to XVth Century. You may find interesting to read Reajuste de las sibilantes del idioma español - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre (if you can't read Spanish, give a try to the English version).


----------



## merquiades

ahvalj said:


> Yet, how old is this Spanish intermediate _s_? There was a period a few centuries ago when the modern _x_ (_gente, juego_) was pronounced as a non-palatalized _š, _and it must have interfered with that intermediate sound, which didn’t occur. So, does it mean the modern Iberian Spanish _s_ is rather new, having developed recently from a standard _s_?


Historically between 1450 and 1650, the back sibilant moved backwards from [ʃ] to [ç] to [χ].  The reason usually given is space was needed between the back sibilant and the middle sibilant, but obviously that space was not needed in all the other languages of the Iberian peninsula... At the same time the front sibilant moved forward to [θ].  It is believed that the change was complete in central Spain by 1700.  There was a time when the two phonemes were quite close and the sounds changed position in a few words out of confusion:  for example, _sabón_ became _jabón_, _disse_ became _dije..._


----------



## Ben Jamin

jimquk said:


> It is presumably relevant that neither Greek nor Spanish need to maintain a distinction between /s/ and /sh/ (sorry, I can't produce IPA symbols).



You can use this Type IPA phonetic symbols - online keyboard (all languages)  for IPA characters.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Yet, how old is this Spanish intermediate _s_? There was a period a few centuries ago when the modern _x_ (_gente, juego_) was pronounced as a non-palatalized _š, _and it must have interfered with that intermediate sound, which didn’t occur. So, does it mean the modern Iberian Spanish _s_ is rather new, having developed recently from a standard _s_?


I don't think that's the issue. An apical s tends to become less precise in its place of articulation when there is no other close by sibilant and that's why it tends to sound like something in between s and ʃ to others. Especially for Greeks it is very difficult to hear any difference whatsoever between s and ʃ.


----------



## jmx

ahvalj said:


> Do these idioms (other than Catalan, which I imagine) have a French/German (more velarized) or English/Italian (more palatalized) _š_?


I wasn't aware of this difference. Catalan [ʃ] sounds to me closer to the English sound, and I guess that's also true for Galician and Asturian.


----------



## Penyafort

ahvalj said:


> There was a period a few centuries ago when the modern _x_ (_gente, juego_) was pronounced as a non-palatalized _š, _



How so? What is a non-palatalized _š_?



jmx said:


> I mentioned in some other thread that while Spanish in northern Spain doesn't have /s/-/ʃ/ contrast, Catalan, Galician and Asturian do have it. In all of those languages /s/ is realized as "apico-alveolar" too.
> 
> EDIT: Portuguese from northern Portugal can be added to the list.



And Aragonese too.

In short, all Romance languages in Iberia. Spanish at its early stage included.



ahvalj said:


> Do these idioms (other than Catalan, which I imagine) have a French/German (more velarized) or English/Italian (more palatalized) _š_? The latter (as especially in Catalan) is clearly different, whereas the former may in principle cause interference.





jmx said:


> I wasn't aware of this difference. Catalan [ʃ] sounds to me closer to the English sound, and I guess that's also true for Galician and Asturian.



Contemporary Catalan "sh" is often more alveolo-palatal than postalveolar. In other words, Catalans these days don't tend to move their tongue tips and blades so backwards to make /ʃ/ as English speakers  do. That is why the sound often is closer to /ɕ/.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> Do these idioms (other than Catalan, which I imagine) have a French/German (more velarized) or English/Italian (more palatalized) _š_?


I am not sure what a "velarized" _š _should be. _š_ is between alveolar and palatal and one may ask if the sound is more alveolar or more palatal; but velar? The French _š_ is more alveolar (i.e. fronted) than the German _š._


----------

