What are the differences between palatal consonant and palatalized . . . There is a fairly clear theoretical distinction between the IPA phones [ɲ, ʎ], which are canonically defined as "pure" palatal sounds, and [nʲ, lʲ], which indicate alveolar or dental primary articulation with secondary palatal articulation (the most common variant is the "alveolo-palatal" articulation [n̠ʲ, l̠ʲ], which Wikipedia says
phonology - Is there a distinctive feature that separates alveolo . . . palatal vs alveolo-palatal is not a contrast in any language Retroflex palatal (and retroflex non-palatal) are [supposedly] present in Polish in addition contrast with alveolo-palatal Typical examples would be: szisza [ʂʲiʂa] - both palatal and non-palatal retroflex in the same word siny [ɕinɨ] - alveolo-palatal
phonetics - How are the palatal approximant and palatalization . . . Russians seem to feel (e g the answers and comments to this question or this question or this one) that there is a large difference between sounds produced via palatalization (via interaction with soft vowels or the soft sign ь) and sounds produced via iotation (via interaction with the letter й, the palatal approximant)
How many ways are there to produce alveolo-palatal fricatives? Addressing the point that "online all recordings I can find over alveolo-palatal fricatives sound relatively the same", there are two problems in auditorily distinguishing such sounds One is a common problem that what you find online is unregulated, and in particular, Wikipedia entries, which anyone can write, can be just plain wrong
Proto-Indo-European transcription: lt;u̯, i̯ gt; vs. lt;w, j gt; lt;k̑ gt; vs. lt;ḱ . . . The sequence palatal velar + u̯ w is not common, but it does pop up here and there, most notably in *h₁ék̑u̯os ‘horse’ and *k̑u̯ō(n) ‘dog’ In the branches where palatovelars remained distinct (satem languages), the reflex of *k̑u̯ generally corresponds to the regular outcome of both elements, one after the other; e g
Is there a difference between tʲ (palatalized t) and kʲ . . . Instead, since coronal, palatal and velar sounds are all articulated with somewhat similar areas of the tongue, "palatalization" of [t] or [k] tends to result in the sound being realized as a fully palatal stop, as a stop with some kind of intermediate place of articulation, or as some kind of affricate
Do the qualities of a vowel determine its semivowel’s place of . . . This is true by definition, although there is a terminological shift in some usages The official IPA term for [i] is "close front unrounded vowel" Semivowels are non-syllabic "close" (high) vowels, and you can translate between "round" and "labial", "front" and "palatal" in shifting between vowel terminology and consonant terminology
phonetics - Why is the palatal ‘ch’ sound in Peninsular Spanish . . . In Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio, Ana Ma Fernández-Planas Josefina Carrera-Sabaté, 2003, "Castilian Spanish", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33(2), the ‘ch’ sound in Peninsular Spanish is described as palatal, yet is represented by the symbol [t͡ʃ] My knowledge of IPA is limited, so I’m confused about this usage
Are alveolo-palatal consonants more likely to be followed by high . . . It seems to me that high voles like i would more naturally follow alveolo-palatal consonants because the need to "spread the lips" (in the popular description of the latter) seem to more easily entice one to produce a high vowel thereafter And the opposite seems to be the case for retroflex non-palatalized consonants: the need to move the tip