Talk:Sulcalization

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

Vs. assibilation.[edit]

"Consonant sulcalization" as a process appears to overlap with assibilation. Is this supposed to cover a wider spectrum however, eg. including some cases of rhotacization? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool accent[edit]

I came to this article from a conversation with a friend on Facebook, who was discussing the sibilant ⟨t⟩ of a Scouse (Liverpudlian) accent, which still distinguishes a minimal pair of hit and hiss (presumably /hit̞/ and /his/). Does that contradict the claim in the first paragraph, presumably from Catford (1977), that "no language is known to contrast a grooved and non-grooved sibilant"? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the consonant in hit is a non-sibilant fricative. --Ahls23 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sulcalization as ᵓ[edit]

Is there precedent for this convention outside the small body of work on Tillamook? Célestine-Edelweiß (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]