Talk:Voiceless pharyngeal fricative

	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.

Galician

Is a pharyngeal fricative really used in Galician?? JdeJ 11:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I've removed it pending verification, and added a sourced example. —An gr 18:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Though it is considered a dialectal sound, it is widely spread and sometimes is used in literary texts to mark a dialecta differenciation. This phonetic feature is present in the Western Varieties (spoken by 80% of the Galician speaking population). It is usually represented as -gh-. However, the intensity of this phonem is not the same. The north-western speakers have a softer pronunciation that the central-western speakers (specially from the Morrazo area); in this last case, the graphic representation is -j- (to indicate its distinctive feature), even though it is different to the Spanish /x/. --91.143.221.231 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all say I'm galicien. This phenomenon is called gheada explain that only "used" for less than 50% of the population. Furthermore, this sound is represented by the phoneme [h] is the same sound as the word "high". Finally, "cat" may be pronounced ['hato], but can not write "ghato", which is the same as if one Spanish speaker writes "jelou" instead of "hello". Sorry for the spelling and grammar.

Arabic

The sound sample is different from the sound in Arabic.

The sound sample would definitely pass for the Arabic sound, and it's probably used exactly this way by some speakers. Nevertheless I do agree that the commonest realisation is somewhat different. I can't really put my finger on the difference, but it might be a stronger contraction of the larynx. The sample sounds laxer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.177.183 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA's purpose is not to be precise, but to give a general outline of how things are pronounced. While Arabic's "ħ" and Chechen's "ħ" use the same symbol, there are slight differences in how they are articulated, as a spectrogram of the sound being pronounced or a lateral view of the vocal tract as it is being articulated would show. LlwydCy (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does IPA chart belong in article?

Since the IPA chart could change, a link to a reference is more useful.

Occurence in Hebrew

I've decided to add the Hebrew example back in, since according to Hebrew phonology it does occur for some speakers. I think adding a note that it occurs only in Oriental dialects is sufficient. AlexanderKaras (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sound?

I believe the sound in the sample is epiglottal, not pharyngeal. Can anyone confirm this?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing this on? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sound in the sample is fine and very good, although i think it is velarized (ħˠ). --Adamsa123 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian/Fluminense Portuguese

Where's the source for the use of pharyngeals in Fluminense Portuguese? As a native Brazilian Portuguese speaker and professional linguist, I've never met anyone from Rio would would do such a thing, let alone read a description that acknowledges this possibility... claiming that's somehow standard or even possible sounds just preposterous without the proper source.

I'm not going to remove it or anything, but I'm definitely sticking a "citation needed" there until someone comes up with a reliable study that proves this is actually common enough to grant the presence of Brazilian Portuguese here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.7.79 (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realization

Article reads:

This sound is the most commonly cited realization of the Semitic letter hēth,

I have no idea what this means. Who is citing what? What is meant by a "realization"? Is this a statement about scholars? Is it a statement about the history of Semitic phonology? Is it a statement about the pronunciation of hēth in the modern Semitic languages? My guess is that it is intended to mean "In most modern Semitic languages, the letter is pronounced as a voiceless pharyngeal fricative." (I realize that not all modern Semitic languages call the letter hēth...) --Macrakis (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]