As we keep arguing, we see the difference, we hear the difference, but we don't hear a significant different like everyone keeps insisting there is.
I'm sorry I don't have hard evidence to back this up, except that this entire thread we've been repeating that "S" and "Sh" don't sound completely different to us, even if phonetically they are.
Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 16th 2020 at 6:10:40 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWar Jay, the thing that you hear that fizz and is end very similarly is great. That is a wonderful ear and great observation. Sincerity Mode. It's called devoicing of consonants. Native speakers of English actually change voiceless consonants to voiced or voiceless to voiced according to context.
Also, why are you continuing to say that "sh" is comparable to other combinations of letters with S. "Sh" makes one sound whereas "sk" and "st" make two sounds. Much like how "Shop" and "Stop" have three sounds and four sounds respectively...
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
"Scientifically" they're different sounds. In practice? They're not all that different.
![]()
Because to our ears, they're not one distinct sound.
![]()
![]()
I mean... thanks, but it's such a basic observation to me that it feels weird to be excited over it. :P
Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 16th 2020 at 6:15:01 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI don't see how 'sk' and 'st' are 's' sounds. To me they are two sounds: 'sk' is an 's' sound followed by a 'k' sound, while 'st' is an 's' sound followed by a 't' sound.
On the other hand 'sh' is its own sound, it is not an 's' sound followed by an 'h' sound. To me 's' and 'sh' are different enough sounds.
To break it down:
- To Sgamer and I, while we do hear the difference, we also clearly hear the "S" part of the word. This "S" part is what we're both talking about and focusing on, and it's why we keep bringing up other "S" words like "Strike" and "Spooky" and "School". To us, and maybe only to us, all the words start with an "S" sound that is only modified based on the second letter. "Sh" is just another case of this, just a more blatant case because to me, it sounds more like the two letters blend together better than other "S-" words, but not enough for me to ignore the "S" altogether.
- To most other people here, it's more about the phonetics, and how while there's an "S" written in front of "Shark", the sound it makes is different enough to not qualify as an "S" sound. It's a literal different letter in some languages, and sounds like one sound. That's why you guys don't think "St" and "Sc" are the same case- to you guys, you hear two sounds, where "Sh" sounds like one sound.
The issue is, we're all so convinced of our own personal POVs because it boils down to a fundamental difference in interpretation, dialect, and understanding. Nobody here is objectively right and objectively wrong; we're all talking in circles because we can't make sense of the other arguments being made. To all of us, the answer is so obvious and the arguments don't make any sense, especially the back and forth of "it sounds like this" "but the science says this". We're not going to convince each other because it's literally impossible to do so.
Can I concede that phonetically the sounds are different? Sure. But do I personally think "S" and "Sh" don't sound very different, at least not different enough to not be alliterative? Yes, I do. I won't change my mind just because of the science behind it, nor will I change anyone's mind just because I personally hear words a specific way.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'm sorry but I do not believe you if you say that "shank" sounds like it starts with one of the two most common S sounds. You would assume it starts with the Sh sound, which is not the same and is distinct.
Let's return to the three definitions of alliteration we got some time ago:
- Alliteration is based on auditory phonemes
- Alliteration is based on auditory allophones
- Alliteration is based on written letters
Warjay's statement on post 127,
implies that the "s alliterates with sh" camp in this thread seem to concede that /ʃ/ is not the same phoneme as /s/, ruling the first definition out.
The third definition is also moot since this camp in first place is arguing that /ʃ/ and /s/ "sound" similar enough to be accepted as alliterating.
So we're left to the second definition. Is [s] an allophone of /ʃ/, or [ʃ] an allophone of /s/?
We could also investigate a fourth option, that
- Alliteration is based off traditional alliteration-accepting categories (e.g. f with f, k with k etc.) that often coincidentally correspond to another definition but with major exceptions.
but that's just begging the question, since people here (myself included) are already engrossed into different traditions of defining the alliterative correspondences: one tradition alliterating /ʃ/ with /s/ (inspired by orthography, but not necessarily defined by it), another tradition not doing so (inspired by phonemic identities).
Edited by Albert3105 on Apr 16th 2020 at 3:31:34 AM
Added Alliterative Appeal is not an Audience Reaction. Please stop trying to force it into YMMV, Florien. Even if War Jay et al really do hear the word "she" as "s-he" that would not make it an Audience Reaction.
Edited by WaterBlap on Apr 16th 2020 at 5:29:53 AM
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty![]()
![]()
Oh. Smartassery retracted then. Though, that said, there's still not an separate "sh" in the alphabet we're all taught.
The original question is "do s words allitterate with sh-words?" Again, for reasons explained multiple times, I say yes because the sounds the two letters/syllables make, while different/distinct, are still close enough that I genuinely can't fathom why they would be excluded from allitteration when much more obviously different sounds aren't.
Edited by sgamer82 on Apr 16th 2020 at 4:35:34 AM
![]()
That's not what I'm saying.
I hear the difference, I just don't consider it anything more than an "S with an h next to it", not a fundamental distinction worth separating. I don't hear "S-he", but I also don't think the "S" part should be ignored entirely.
Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 16th 2020 at 6:31:35 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
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.

Someone mentioned allophones earlier. That is when the same phoneme has different slight variations. For example, the /k/ in "kit" is the same phoneme as "skit" because when we hear these words, the K sounds the same to us. There isn't a big difference between the sounds because they are both voiceless velar stops. However, they are actually slightly different, with "kit" having a puff of air coming out of the mouth whereas "skit" does not. The point is that the phonemes are distinguishable to listeners of that language. But the allophones are not. [k] and [kʰ] are both allophones of /k/ essentially because you literally won't be able to hear a difference in those sounds.
And /s/ and /ʃ/ are different sounds. You can tell the difference between shoe and zoo and sue. And it is a significant difference. Meanwhile, you cannot tell the difference between "cot" and "caught" (unless you're from the Detroit area but you likely are not so my point stands). Because the vowel sounds between the /k/ and /t/ are not significantly different in (American) English.
Edited by WaterBlap on Apr 16th 2020 at 5:08:48 AM
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty