![]()
Why is it so hard to accept that two English Speakers are telling you that, To English Speaking Ears, they don't sound distinct enough?
This isn't about literal phonetics. It's about the sound.
New York born and raised, baby... well, upstate NY, but still. 'Merica speaker.
Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 16th 2020 at 5:37:51 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI think a big problem we're having is that we speaking in different dialects without being clear to one another as to which we mean.
RE: "Starting with S sounds": This is a matter of whether you consider "sh" to be an S sound or merely an S spelling. Personally, I would not consider "Potato" and "Photo" to both have P sounds, as one clearly has an F sound. The first sounds in "Sam" and "Sham" are as different as the first sounds in "Potato" and "Photo." Which is why I would not consider it alliterative.
RE: "Scam" and "Strand": Both start with the same first sound. The "sc" and "st" words have different second sounds. Meanwhile, "Sham" and "Sam" have different first sound but the same second sounds. Whether Sham and Sam are different "enough" is a different matter, and I guess we can finally start talking on the same page.
We could write the "Sc" and "St" sounds as /sk/ and /st/ respectively and that would be an accurate way to write the phonemes, while the "sh" sound is /ʃ/. The "sh" sound is not /sh/. The sound /sh/ would be like the S in "set" followed by the H in "how." I'm pretty sure there isn't an (American) English dialect that has those two sounds next to each other in the same word. Think of the difference between "Share" and "Mass hole."
Also, /z/ is an S sound. See the word "is" for an example, or the plural S, which sometimes is /s/ and other times is /z/.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyYeah, all we've really discovered today is that we all hear and think of these words in such a radically different way, and so trying to find an exact standard we can all agree with is basically impossible, whether you want to debate the science of it or just the subjective "this is what it sounds like to me" thing.
![]()
Because we're not arguing the phonetics are entirely wrong. We're just saying that the difference isn't as noteworthy to our ears, and arguing about the science doesn't change how we actually hear the words when they're spoken or read. Just because the phonetics says one thing is true doesn't mean it makes any sense to us.
Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 16th 2020 at 5:46:14 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThis is impossible. Some people (on both sides) are giving fair arguments, some are giving outlandishly unfair arguments, and others clearly should just bow out of the conversation because they have no idea what they're talking about (whether in regards to one side or the other).
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty![]()
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm asking if Poto and Photo alliterate, not Poto and Potato.
I concur, to some extent. This isn't going to resolve any time soon, I suspect. Again, I re-iterate, maybe just making AAA YMMV could solve this. Then again, that may be, to invert a turn of phrase, applying chemotherapy to a cut.
Edited by Florien on Apr 16th 2020 at 2:51:06 AM
Nope. "Photo" would alliterate with "F" sounds, not "P" sounds.
Look, I'm sorry if the native speaker argument was unfair, but it seemed weird to me that people kept insisting my own understanding of my own language is fundamentally wrong just because the phonetics say so, even if it doesn't line up with my own reality. We've spent this entire time trying to explain why we don't think "Sh" is different than "Sc" and "St" and we just keep being told that "Well, the science says" without actually listening to what we're trying to say about the subject, when it's our own language's silly quirks we're trying to debate about.
The phonetics are important. Don't get me wrong.
But the sound is also important, and that's subjective, and varies based on language, accent, region, etc.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI can concede that the "p" and "ph" pairing isn't as similar as "s" and "sh." "P" (/p/) is a stop produced at the lips and "ph" (/f/) is a fricative produced at the teeth. But /s/ is alveolar and /ʃ/ is post-alveolar. They are not produced in the same area of the mouth. How is /s/ and /z/ more different sounding than /s/ and /ʃ/? /s/ and /z/ literally only have one difference, and it's whether your vocal chords are vibrating. Meanwhile /s/ and /ʃ/ are from totally different positions in the mouth...
These words start with different sounds and the first sound is the only difference:
- shoe
- zoo
- sue
"Sue's shoes at the zoo" is not alliterative.
Edited by WaterBlap on Apr 16th 2020 at 4:57:49 AM
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyAnd that vibration creates a distinctly different sound? Not sure where you're going here?
I wouldn't automatically call S and Z sounds aliterative, but I could see making a case for it, if that's what you're saying?
![]()
I'm on the same page as warjay here.
Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 16th 2020 at 4:06:31 AM
I see you're staring with the crash course. :-) ![]()
/s/ and /ʃ/ are also both fricatives and both are voiceless. These two features are the same. They differ in the place where you articulate them — where you create them in the mouth: /s/ is alveolar (with teeth) and /ʃ/ is post-alveolar (behind the teeth).
Edited by XFllo on Apr 16th 2020 at 12:05:02 PM
I'll be honest, I consider "s" and "z" different at the beginning of the word, but otherwise they're the same. But worlds like "Zap" don't sound anything like "Sap", despite that, say, "Fizz" and "Is" rhyme.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallYour ability to perceive the world around you, including senses such as sight and hearing, are a subjective experience. Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Crown Description:
How do we define the pre-existing term "alliteration" for the purpose of cleaning and collecting examples of Added Alliterative Appeal? The following four options have been debated at length and it's time to settle the discussion on this pre-existing term.

x3
Edit: accidently clicked post early.
Right, as I was going to say before I accidently clicked post:
The hiss is different. There is a hiss in both, but the theoretical Sh hiss is a whistled hiss. The Sk/St hiss is not. The tongue is in a different place.
Edited by Florien on Apr 16th 2020 at 2:35:51 AM