26

As jlawer says, English "fire" doesn't actually come from Greek pŷr. "Pyre" does, but that's a borrowing (via Latin), and it's pretty clear how it happened. Instead, English and Greek share a common ancestor (Proto-Indo-European), which split into Pre-Proto-Germanic and Proto-Hellenic (and many other branches) several thousand years ago. One of the ...


25

English fire is not derived from Greek πυρ. Both fire and πυρ come originally from the Proto-Indo-European root *paəwr̥. Greek simplified the *aəw vowel sequence to /ū/, but kept the consonants. Proto-Germanic was *fūr, similar to Greek, but all Germanic voiceless stops like *p became homorganic fricatives like *f as part of the group of consonant changes ...


8

Neither [h] nor [k] is "accurate" as a replacement for [x]: but there are some linguistic issues related to how [x] in a source language word appears in English, when the word is borrowed. The velar fricative is not a robust phoneme of English, but it does robustly exist for some speakers who pronounce the name Bach as [bax] (etc.). Phonetically it also ...


7

If you look at an IPA consonant chart, the places of articulation are listed from front to back. /x/ is a velar sound, pronounced with the most relevant constriction at the velum; /h/ is (generally treated as) a glottal sound, pronounced with the most relevant constriction at the glottis. In between velar and glottal are two categories on the IPA chart, ...


6

Aspiration is usually defined as a distinctive increase in voice onset time between the release of a consonant and the initiation of voicing on the segment after the release of the consonant. This is easy to determine in the case of stops, where there is a period of near-silence and then a burst of air due to the release of pressure behind the complete ...


6

/f/ as [ϕ] in Andean, Palenquero, Caribbean, Puerto Rican Spanish The Linguistics of Spanish - Andean Spanish - 2. Pronunciation 2.4 Pronunciation of /f/ /f/ is commonly articulated as a voiceless bilabial fricative (symbol: [ɸ]): [ˈɸɾuta] fruta ‘fruit’ An epenthetic [w] is often inserted between [ɸ] and a following vowel: ...


5

I will assume that by "translate" you mean which syllables in words loaned by Japanese correspond to [x] in their source language. The answer is that words containing [x] which come directly from languages with that phoneme are sometimes rendered ッハ hha. The most common examples would be Bach バッハ Bahha and Mach マッハ Mahha. Other times, it is simply rendered ...


5

Regarding Australian languages, have a look at R.M.W. Dixon (2002) 'Australian Languages, their nature and development' (in the Cambridge Language Surveys series). Pp 602ff deal with stop contrasts and fricatives. It's well-known that Australian languages mostly lack phonemic fricatives, but an explanation for this has been proposed by Andy Butcher of ...


4

This phoneme /ṽ/ appears to be common to both Common Brittonic and Old Irish, and shows the difficulties that the contemporary scribes for Old Irish had with notating nasalisation. As of January 2021, Wiktionary transcribes it for Common Brittonic as /β̃/ but Old Irish with /ṽ/. The difference between the two being merely a notation difference is mentioned ...


4

Such contrasts are not attested in any known language. In the case of the two kinds of labiodentals, the distinction would be auditorily unlearnable since the acoustic consequences are negligible. However, dental versus interdental non-sibilant fricatives have been observed, but never found to contrast. Ladefoged & Maddieson The sounds of the world's ...


4

In /s,z/ the sides of the tongue are slightly raised, creating an u-shaped channel or groove, known as sulcus. You probably already do that unconsciously when you say a Korean /s/ (unless you have a lisp). Sulcalization (grooving) concentrates the airflow, making it sound more strident as it hits the top front teeth. In /θ,ð/ the tongue is comparatively ...


3

As a native speaker of Ukrainian which has [ɦ], I should say it is really very much like schwa except for the fact that [ə] is a real vowel and [ɦ] is a real consonant, the glottis muscles are noticeably more strained when pronouncing [ɦ] as compared to pronouncing [ə] with which the muscles are not strained at all. There is also a noticeable amount of noise ...


3

I would be surprised if your native language has these phonemes, which suggests that they are the result of you attempting to produce sounds based on instructions in a phonetics class. If not, you need to identify your native language. Indeed, they do not sound like human language sounds, rather they resemble synthesized fricatives. The relevance of this is ...


3

I'm Polish and I can assure you that nowadays "ch" and "h" are pronounced exactly the same. Only elderly people (really few), especially in Eastern Poland, still keep the sound [h]. By the way, this is one of the reasons why so many Poles struggle with spelling: they confuse "ch" with "h", the same happens with "u" and "ó" (both pronounced as [u]) or "ż" and ...


3

In Polish, most (if not all) words containing letter ⟨h⟩ are actually loanwords as there was no [h]/[ɦ] sound in Polish (as opposed to Czech, Slovak and Ukrainian, where [ɦ] evolved from Slavic [g]). As the voiced [ɦ] is a pretty rare sound, most languages including Latin used unvoiced [h], which was quite naturally adopted into Polish as [x], with which it ...


3

Yes, there is at least one to my knowledge. I have read (and heard) about this realisation of the phoneme. The variety that is commonly mentioned is Andean Spanish, and for this allophone, the main locations where it has been registered are some regions of Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador.


3

⟨ch⟩ is pronounced [x] in Polish and as many other Polish sounds, it can undergo so called "voice assimilation". Assimilation is a process during which a speech sound gets a feature from an adjacent or otherwise close speech sound. Typical example of the is the voice assimilation, causing that the voicedness of a consonant depends typically on the consonant ...


3

Your sample is squarely in the range of IPA [ʃ], and not [ʂ], [ɕ] or [ç]. It sounds perfectly normal to me. This is the best place to get standard reference values for IPA letters. If you have samples that are distinct in some way, e.g. one speaker has pronunciation 1 and another has pronunciation 2, you can use IPA diacritics to "nudge" the ...


2

People might notice that you sound different, but everybody sounds different from everybody else. Given the phonetic diversity of English, this is unlikely to make people "He talks really differently", or "He has an accent". Assuming that you otherwise talk exactly the same as everybody in the neighborhood, it probably would not stick out above the level of "...


2

[I don't have sufficient reputation to comment; however, since this question is subjective, I'll dare to "answer" it instead.] I prefer to use x (since it looks exactly like the Russian equivalent), but this is one of those instances where there simply isn't an English equivalent, and you go with what probably works best (which is kh or ch). h is without a ...


2

There is some confusion of phonetic transcription with Polish spelling here. To clear things up: The digraph "ch" and the letter "h" (when not preceded by "c") are pronounced in exactly the same way in modern standard Polish: as the voiceless velar fricative /x/. The sounds /h/ and /ɦ/ are absent in Polish. In fact, many Polish speakers can't pronounce /h/ ...


2

For one, I would pronounce most instances of /x/ as /k/, unless I'm really thinking about how to pronounce it, in which case I might say /x/. Most people I have heard do this, though some pronounce german ch like it is in English. This is based on American English.


1

In your examples, the production labeled "voiced glottal fricative" is 2/3 voiceless glottal fricative with the right 1/3 being voiced, followed by a very long schwa. The percept of schwa can be explained because most of what you hear is schwa. There is a similarity between schwa and h, that they are often characterized as "neutral state" segments, because ...


1

As a phonetic term, approximants refer to a class of consonants which covers liquids and glides (which includes laryngeal glides), so a vowel is not an approximant. In the SPE feature tradition, vowels and glides have in common the property of being [–consonantal]. The most likely reason why it sounds to you like a schwa is that many consonants cannot be "...


1

A small cap H has been used by some structuralist phonemicists to stand for the centralizing glide which is very prominent in some American dialects. Perhaps someone who knows that literature better than I can tell us just where this got started, though I cannot, but my guess is that the basis for it is not any phonetic similarity between offset [H] and ...


1

[h], customarily referred to as a voiceless glottal fricative, in reality denotes any voiceless articulation with no interruption of the airflow in the oral cavity, with no defined configuration of the tongue or the lips. [ɦ] is the same except the vocal folds oscillate to some extent. So some argue they are best regarded as placeless consonants. So if you ...


1

On the theory that speakers ordinarily hear and aim to pronounce phonemes, if they can interpret the [x] as a /k/ phoneme of English which has been lenited to [x], then they will say /k/. Using @user6726's example of English "baker", where some of us customarily lenite a /k/ to [x], then an English speaker will aim to pronounce /bejkr/, and if he lenites ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible