Talk:Voiceless retroflex affricate

	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.

Russian[edit]

In Russian there is no voiceless retroflex affricate because the voiceless affricate is always palatalized. -Iopq 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks for catching that. kwami 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally it's not some speakers, all Russian speakers pronounce ch as palatal, it's actually only in loanwords where the retroflex affricate is used, like in Chinese names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logan Sherwin (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian[edit]

In Ukrainain it rather t͡ʃ - a palato-alveolar affricate --176.38.165.113 (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical ligatures[edit]

Ligatures for dʐ (U+AB66) and tʂ (U+AB67) were recently added to Unicode 12.0. I’m not sure if they can be described as “obsolete”, since they were never used in any official IPA publication, but there was enough evidence of their use in Chinese dialectology for there to have been a strong case for their inclusion in Unicode. Should footnote 1 be updated to reflect this, or are they not notable enough? 189.197.235.85 (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subapical, seriously?![edit]

I wonder if anyone can provide a source that any natural language has a subapical affricate. Wikipedia should include articles for sounds that at least used by some languages, not something like "bite your tongue hard" sound. I tried to produce a subapical affricate - although it is articulatable but in order to make it not resulting into a stop I have to blow a verybstrong airflow, which almost immediately hurt my tongue.

An apical retroflex stop is already unstable enough to be very easily evolved into an affricate, while a laminal stop is hard enough to articulate so that it almost immediately result into an affricate. A subapical affricate is something totally in different world. --146.96.25.46 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No subapical plosive symbol should be universally used[edit]

See Talk:Voiceless retroflex affricate#Subapical, seriously?!. Symbols like [ʈ͡ʂ] shouldn't be used unless there are diacritics explicitly telling the articulation. If unspecified, the strict IPA should be [t̠͡ʂ] not [ʈ͡ʂ]. Subapical [ʈ͡ʂ] is definitely a possible phone but articulates more like a knuckle cracking with one's tongue (I found it a harmful act) and is unlikely to present in human languages (not reported anyway). 146.96.36.74 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]