Ask The Tropers

Examples only need to have the same letter or sound, and the very first line mentions starting with the same letter on the Alliterative Name page. I think those are valid, besides, it's still noticeable if something starts from the same letter.

Edited by Piterpicher Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods Of Incremental)

Is that really the definition of alliteration this wiki uses? That sucks because alliteration is all about the sound, traditionally. But if that's the case... I better put those removed tropes back on the list. But I somehow hope that others will back me up. :-)

I don't see why S and Sh wouldn't be alliterative. If it's all about the sounds they seem alike/similar enough when spoken out loud. It's a big part of why "she sells seashells by the seashore" is a tongue twister.

Edited by sgamer82

Eh, alliteration is not about similar sounds, it's about the exact same sounds. Alliteration and tongue twisters are different concepts, too.

Alliteration is supposed to be interesting and pleasing to our ears, while tongue twisters are supposed to be hard to pronounce. Tongue twisters might be composed of similar consonant sounds that are difficult to articulate, often because the sounds are close enough, but contrasting by one phonetic feature.

"She sells seashells" is a tongue twister because /sh/ and /s/ keep switching in the sentence in quick succession. However, combination of /s/ and /sh/ in the sentence is not the reason it's considered alliterative. It's alliterative because there's repetition of /sh/ sounds, and /s/ sounds also appear several times at the beginning of the words (or base of the words).

She sells sea shells by the sea shore.

She sells sea shells by the sea shore.

Edited by XFllo

Regardless, when I look up the word, while information seems conflicting about how identical the sounds have to be, most sources don't make a distinction between the syllables, with examples including "humble house," or "potential power play." (Wikipedia), "sweet birds sang" (Lexico, which says it's powered by Oxford and was the first thing to come up when I googled 'alliteration'), and Dictionary.com has "each to all" alongside "from stem to stern", while Miriam-Webster does the same with "wild and woolly, threatening throngs"

This leaves me thinking the distinction between S and SH is not a really important one.

Edited by sgamer82

But all your examples have the very same sounds. Humble house — both h. Potential power play — triple p. From stem to stern — two s. Wild and woolly, threatening throngs — two /w/, two /th/. Sweet birds sang — two /s/ (one /b/ inserted between them, which is not a problem).

However, if we modify the 'sweet birds sang' one into for instance "sweet birds shook", then the alliteration disappears.

(Looking it up, "each to all" should be an example of vocalic alliteration, i.e. the use of the same vowel at the beginning of each word or each stressed syllable in a line of verse; however, I must admit I don't see or rather hear the similarity (sameness) at all, because /i:/ and /o:/ are very different vowels. Something like "ancient aid" — there I'd hear it.)

Edited by XFllo

By that logic, those initial examples should qualify as they all start with s sounds, Shooting Superman especially.

Serious question: What makes S and SH so special that they aren't alliterative when used together when wild and wooly or humble house are? They're far closer in sound than either of those and all start with s sounds.

Edited by sgamer82

What? What decides it the beginning. Shooting Superman — it's about its consonants, not about the vowels in the syllable. SHooting Superman. The /u/ vowel is not the defining thing in this.

Same with wild and wooly — it's about /w/, which is the same. It's not about /ai/ and /u:/.

Edited by XFllo

Then I'm missing something here because it seems to me like you're creating a distinction where none seems to exist. This isn't like, say, Spanish, where C and CH are separate letters on the alphabet or they typically create entirely different sounds in English.

They're still S- and S-sound words used in succession

Edited by sgamer82

You seriously don't hear a difference between /s/ and /sh/ in English? They're phonemes, meaning they can distinguish one word from another, for example sop and shop.

BTW /sh/ sound in English is spelled in many ways (shell, chef, action, musician). Shaking Chef would be alliterative. You wouldn't know it from its spelling, but from its pronunciation.

---

ETA about your ETA: I feel like you don't listen and really don't understand what I'm saying. Potential power play is a perfect consonant alliteration. Potential Power Play. The L in play doesn't really matter.

'Sweet birds sing' — some might say it's not completely alliterative because there is a word that starts with a b, which breaks the pattern. The other two words start with an /s/. 'Sweet seals sings' would be a perfect alliteration because this phrase has only three words and they all start with /s/. The pattern is complete.

Sectet Shop in my opinion shouldn't be listed under alliterative tropes because s and sh are not the same sounds. They don't create the pattern. Despite the fact that both words are spelled with the letter s at the beginning.

Edited by XFllo

Its not that I don't hear a difference, it's that I don't see why it makes a difference, in light of so many examples where it doesn't seem to matter.

If that extra consonant makes such a difference, doesn't that rule out "potential power play" as the triple P you yourself called it?

Edited by sgamer82

See above.

Alliteration, as I understand it, is about the very beginning of the words and their pronunciation. Not their spelling.

Its less that I'm not listening and more that I'm not following the logic. It seems like making a big deal out of a Distinction Without a Difference

Edit to add: Looking up "alliteration s sh" took me to a page about Sibilance, "a specific type of alliteration that uses the soft consonants. In sibilance, hissing sounds are created. These soft consonants are s, with sh, ch, and th, including three others such as z, x, f and soft c."

Daily Writing Tips page on alitteration also seems fine with mixing S and SH, going by the examples. ("In the first line, three sh and s sounds are stressed and (loosely) alliterate (Shield/Sheafson/scourge).")

That suggests they can be alliterative.

Edited by sgamer82

I don't follow them being alliterative. The sounds have always sounded radically different to me, and (as part of my stance that /sh/ and directly related sounds should have their own letter), sh does not sound like s followed by h. I'd say that the alliteration pages that accept it are wrong to do so. Since hard c and k are allowed to be considered alliteration (I assume), that would indicate that alliteration is not tied to the letter, but the sound.

For example, imagine if sh was represented by a different symbol, (let's say ※). Would that still be recognizable as alliteration, on hearing or reading it?

Visibly, no. Audibly, yes. At least to me.

The two sounds aren't so different to my ear that I would say they can't be aliterative. Not when I'm seeing what look like examples of the exact same thing and getting told they do count when this one, specific instance does not.

That's what I mean when I say it seems like making a big deal of a Distinction Without a Difference.

What's the difference between Shooting Superman and Striking Superman? A Secret Shop and a Secret Spot?

Edited by sgamer82

My stance is Either / Or.

"Cute Knight Kingdom" is alliterative.

"Sally selling seashells" is too.

The version a creator chooses to use, depends on their medium. More audio for audio, more visual for visual.

If you wanna make a Visual Alliteration TLP or whatever, well, you can... But all that's gonna achieve is something that has very high overlap with all of the other alliteration tropes...

Edited by Malady Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I think it might be a language issue. In our laguage 's' and 'sh' are different sounds represented by different letters, and that's how I think about them. In English, however, there are various combinations of letters that can be read as 'sh' instead of a single letter/symbol. That likely contributes to it.

^ That's true. As an English Speaker, while I do think "s" and "sh" sound different, they both still start with "s", so I'd file them under "s" words and sounds, not separating them based on the added "h" sound. However, for people who don't see "s" and "sh" as the same letter, it's ridiculous to suggest that they might be alliterative.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

That's where I'm coming from. To me there's no difference between "s" "sh", "sp", "st", etc. They're all words that start with a "ss" sound. If the change caused by the next letter counts for one, there's no reason it shouldn't count for all or, vice versa, if it doesn't count for one it shouldn't count for others.

Edited by sgamer82

But they don't, unless words like Sharp, Shell, and Shoot are pronounced [S + Harp] [S + Hell] and [S + Hoot]

Honestly, that's once again where Distinction Without a Difference comes in for me. That's no different than S+Pot or S+Triking vs sp-ot or st-riking to me, so I legitimately don't see what makes the sh so particular that it warrants different treatment.

To try this from a different angle, is there anything that says, specifically and unequivocally, that in the English language S and SH can't be aliterative? Successfully or not, I've at least tried to back up my end of it for why they can be, but have seen nothing presented for why they can't, and my own google searches, while hardly the most thorough thing ever, at least suggest it's either Not A Thing or shows conflicting information, and that's before going into the Sibilance thing I found earlier.

Edited by sgamer82

Ok, so I think we may take this to Trope Talk or elsewhere. Since we're still talking about this with no clear consensus.

Except it's opposite. Visibly — yes, as they both start with the very same letter S. Audibly — not at all, because /s/ and /sh/ are different sounds and different phonemes. Linguistically, phonetically. That's hard science. For some languages they may be allophones (meaning that their native speakers won't hear them as sharply distinctive sounds).

Cute Knight Kingdom is alliterative, but not completely. It's pronounced /kju:t nait kindom/ — respective sounds at the beginning of the words are /k/ /n/ and /k/, so that double k-sound makes it alliterative. Silent k in knight makes the second word the odd one out.

Sally selling seashells. — yep, complete alliteration. No one would argue against this one.

Edited by XFllo

Which, again, is where I'm coming from. S and SH aren't distinct to my English speaking ear, which is why I'm taking the stance I have. They aren't distinctive enough that I can understand why they aren't allitteration when words/phrases that are seem to follow the same pattern.

OK, once again. Hopefully with clarity. Imagine these are trope names, or some separate items:

• Striking Spot — phonemes: s - t - r - ai - k - i - n - s - p - o - t
• Shrinking Spot — phonemes: sh - r - i - n - k - i - n - s - p - o - t
• Shrinking Shop — phonemes: sh - r - i - n - k - i - n - sh - o - p
• Striking Shop — phonemes: s - t - r - ai - k - i - n - sh - o - p

See which ones are alliterative? And which ones are not?

Or alliterative names:

• Sally Smith (alliterative)
• Shelly Smith (not alliterative)
• Sally Shakespeare (not alliterative)
• Sheila Shakespeare (alliterative)

If you hear the difference between sop and shot, soot and shoot, seep and sheet and others, then you should hear why Secret Shop is not an alliterative trope name while Sexy Secretary or Shoddy Shindig is.

Edited by XFllo

^^ I agree. In English, these sounds are both "s" sounds, just variants. They're not so radically different that they're considered different sounds altogether, they're just the sound that happens when you put "S" and "H" together.

^ Xfllo, the issue is that for English speakers, all of those sounds (S, Sh, St, etc) are just S sounds. We don't consider "Sh" any different from "St" or "S" or "Sc" or anything else, besides that one of them has an "h" next to them. If anything, "Sh" being different would imply to us that "St" and "Sc" and such are also different, rather than more "S-and-a-second-letter" pairings.

Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

They're all just S-words, though.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I really do not see the difference. I get what you're saying, in that sh can be its own syllable, but it's still a word starting with S and starting with an S sound. I sincerely see no difference in a word with SH and a word that starts with an S and any other consonant.

Edited by sgamer82

My native language is also english, and they are very distinct sounds to me anyway. Aside from that, I've made a trope talk thread for this, linked here. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15870641550A13878800&page=1#1

Guys, /s/ and /sh/ are phonemes in English, meaning they don't sound the same to any English native speakers. I promise you. If they sounded the same, you could not distinguish between hearing sit and shit. It would be literally one word.

The problem is they are both spelled with letter s at the beginning.

---

Thanks for making the thread. I was about to do the same. :-)

Edited by XFllo

^ We keep saying that they sound different, but not different enough. We don't consider them different sounds entirely, we consider them both "s" sounds.

Anyway, yeah, let's move to the thread.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness