# About the p.of articulation of s,z between AR. and Eng.



## Tal-Su-Ab

about the place of Articulation of  s and z between Ar. And English 
Hallo,
 A  lot of English phonetics references as well as videos I have seen  like  the one herewith (at   5:45 ) says that ,t,d,s,z  are articulated  as  the tip of the tongue touches the upper Alveolar ridge 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e66ByetpDY
I   was  accepting this ( definitely s ,ans z ) all   the time without  trying it myself , till I saw an Ar. video about the correct way of   pronouncing  Ar. consonants when reciting Qur'an ( this ia called Tajweed  ) where they say that -t,and d -are articulated in the same way as English video says , but (s ,and  z ) are articulated with the tip of the tongue on the inner face of the lower teeth  not the upper  Alveolar ridge   as shown here 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mydbvm9gkz3dbbp/s-z-t-d - P.of Articulation.pdf?dl=0
Trying it myself I found it absolutely correct …. I am confused …. what about you  ??


----------



## Ben Jamin

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> about the place of Articulation of  s and z between Ar. And English
> Hallo,
> A  lot of English phonetics references as well as videos I have seen  like  the one herewith (at   5:45 ) says that ,t,d,s,z  are articulated  as  the tip of the tongue touches the upper Alveolar ridge
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e66ByetpDY
> I   was  accepting this ( definitely s ,ans z ) all   the time without  trying it myself , till I saw an Ar. video about the correct way of   pronouncing  Ar. consonants when reciting Qur'an ( this ia called Tajweed  ) where they say that -t,and d -are articulated in the same way as English video says , but (s ,and  z ) are articulated with the tip of the tongue on the inner face of the lower teeth  not the upper  Alveolar ridge   as shown here
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mydbvm9gkz3dbbp/s-z-t-d - P.of Articulation.pdf?dl=0
> Trying it myself I found it absolutely correct …. I am confused …. what about you  ??


Don't you get something rather resembling "th" /θ/ and "dh" /ð/ sounds articulating this way?


----------



## berndf

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> Hallo,
> A  lot of English phonetics references as well as videos I have seen  like  the one herewith (at   5:45 ) says that ,t,d,s,z  are articulated  as  the tip of the tongue touches the upper Alveolar ridge


This is called the "apical s". It typically exists in languages without /s/-/ʃ/ contrast. Prominent examples are Iberian Spanish, Greek and Dutch. In languages with /s/-/ʃ/ contrast, this articulation of /s/ is rare because it can sound quite "sh"-ish and makes the sounds difficult to distinguish.

In English there are some speakers who use the apical s. It is very eye-catching, or rather _ear_-catching, in Sean Connery's pronunciation. But I doubt it should be labeled the _typical _English realization of /s/.

German once, before /ʃ/ existed, had both _s_-es with phonemic contrast (something very rare), e.g., _ûȥ _(laminal) and _hûs_ (apical) did not rhyme. Today both words, spelled _aus_ and _Haus_ now, rhyme perfectly and the /s/ in both words is laminal. As a left-over of this time, some former apical /s/ sounds are today /ʃ/, as in _Schnee, Schlaf_ and _Stein_ (spelled <st> but pronounced as if spelled <scht>; German <sch> is corresponds to English <sh>); compare with the equivalent English words _snow, sleep_ and _stone_.

PS: Look at the animated drawing here (click on the button "fricative" and then on "/s/"). You will see that it is the blade of the tongue and not the tip of the tongue that approaches the upper alveolar ridge. I.e. the /s/ is laminal ("with the blade") and not apical ("with the tip"). -- *N.B.:* The point of production is always the upper alveolar ridge (also in Arabic). The question is not "Where is the tip of the tongue?". The right question is: "Which part of the tongue approaches the upper alveolar ridge?".


----------



## fdb

Tal-Su-Ab said:


> but (s ,and  z ) are articulated with the tip of the tongue on the inner face of the lower teeth  not the upper  Alveolar ridge



I too am surprised by this. Sibawayh says very clearly that /s/, /z/, and /ṣ/ are produced with the blade of the tongue “a little above the middle incisors” (فويق الثنايا ).


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> I too am surprised by this. Sibawayh says very clearly that /s/, /z/, and /ṣ/ are produced with the blade of the tongue “a little above the middle incisors” (فويق الثنايا ).


What surprises you? What Sibawayh says or that it should be any different? For me the Arabic /s/ is clearly laminal.


----------



## hadronic

Rare fact, Basque does distinguish between all three sounds : z (English s), s (Spanish s), x (English sh).

Moreover, I believe that [t] and [d] in British English are typically apical, as opposed to French [t] and [d], which are laminal just like the [s].
In American English, apical [s] may not be the norm, but there's a sizeable number of people that do pronounce it this way, and it's very ear-catching .


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> What surprises you?



The fact that the video quoted says that they "are articulated with the tip of the tongue on the inner face of the lower [sic] teeth  not the upper  Alveolar ridge".


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> The fact that the video quoted says that they "are articulated with the tip of the tongue on the inner face of the lower [sic] teeth  not the upper  Alveolar ridge".


Now *I *am surprised. Do you really hear the Arabic /s/ as apical?
I hear the Arabic /s/ like my own, i.e. laminal, and the description is accurate for my /s/.


----------



## fdb

Not me, the author of the video and the pictures in no. 1.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> Not me, the author of the video and the pictures in no. 1.


This surprises me very much. As for hadronic, the apical /s/ is very "ear-catching" for me and I can't remember ever having consciously heard one from a French speaker.


----------



## Delvo

I know that there was a sound shift resulting in the letter šin having two sounds for a while, both its original /š/ and the more recent addition /s/, which simultaneously was also still represented by its own original letter, samekh... until dots were added to šin to distinguish it from its new derivative "sin", the use of sin for /s/ took over completely, and samekh fell out of use. What I don't know is when this happened. Given that القرآن was written about 1400 years ago, could it have been during this gradual transition?


----------



## berndf

Delvo said:


> ...to distinguish it from its new derivative "sin"


Not "new", but "old". Proto-Semitic had tree sounds where Hebrew and Arabic have only two. In Hebrew and Arabic the three sounds consolidated into two in different ways. When Hebrew was first written with the Phonetician script, it had probably still three different sounds while the Phonetician dialect for which the script was developed had already lost one of them and Hebrew had to use one letter for two sounds. Later then the pronunciations of Sameh and Sin merged.

But I don't think any of this has much to do with the problem of this thread.


----------



## fdb

If you are talking about letters (writing), there never was a samekh in Arabic script.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> If you are talking about letters (writing), there never was a samekh in Arabic script.


No, I wasn't.


----------



## fdb

My remark is addressed to Delvo no. 11.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> My remark is addressed to Delvo no. 11.


Sorry. It didn't occur to me you could have meant this because he explicitly said sound and not letter.


----------



## Tal-Su-Ab

Hi guys
I have already found a text in  "A course in Phonetics by P.Ladefoged and K.Johnson ,p.12 ch. 1 (sixth edition )" :
For example, some people  pronounce [ s ] with the tongue tip tucked behind the lower teeth, producing the constriction at the alveolar ridge with the blade of the tongue;  others have the tongue tip up for [ s ]. Feel how you normally make the  alveolar consonants in each of these words, and then try to make them
in the other way....."""
This text from Ladefoged , i think has a lot to do  in revealing my confusion "with all  respect to  the discussants "
It means that the Ar.lecturer  in the video i talked about ,has not referred /or paid attention/ in his description  to the contribution of the "Blade of the tongue position " together with the "tip of the tongue ".He maybe thought that producing 's' is done only with tip of the tongue ,so his description was insufficient .
Moreover this text shows that there are 2 ways which people "irrespective of their language " might  pronounce a consonant like 's'.


----------

