Some problems with a few chinese words.....

[lingo-ling]

Cantonese and Mandarin are more closely related to each other than either are to the Min dialects (which includes Taiwanese).

The pronunciation of pinyin R like a Y is very likely interference from Cantonese, as is the pronunciation of 詞 as "tsi" instead of "tsz". In Taiwan, the pinyin R sound is often pronounced like Z (as in "zebra") or even an L by people with a heavy Taiwanese accent.

[Hofmann]

I've suggested this to Hofmann in the past, but it turned out we should all learn IPA,

To talk about this accurately, you either have to learn

• The terminology: For consonants, where and how it is articulated. For vowels, how high (or close), how front, and how much lips are rounded.
  
• The letter in the IPA
  
• The sound in examples. As examples can't always be provided, it's safer to go with the other two.
  

I have provided all three. Problem?

[陳德聰]

It's just awkward when you don't realize that your information is not accessible to the laymen among us, despite the accuracy.

[Takeshi]

@Hofmann

詞 begins with the same initial as in (Standard) Cantonese, an aspirated voiceless alveolar affricate, written as t͡sʰ in IPA. It's articulated at the alveolar ridge.

I would be wary about saying that. What you are saying is technically correct in a way, but you need to remember allophonic variation exists; when I speak Cantonese, the "alveolar" initial I use in stuff before a high vowel sound like "i" in 詞 are somewhat palatalized, to the point that it would sound more like "ch" [tɕʰ] or something than the Standard Mandarin pinyin's "c" [tsʰ] sound, so I wouldn't be so quick to compare them. Now, I'm not a native speaker, but I'm pretty damn sure this is a commonly acceptable and okay thing to do in Cantonese.

[Hofmann]

Yes, it's common for alveolars to become alveolo-palatals before close vowels in Cantonese, i.e. /i/ and /y/.

...unless you differentiate between them such that, for example, 詞 sounds different from 池.

[Takeshi]

I don't think anyone in the past hundred years does that.

[Hofmann]

<-This guy.

[Guest realmayo]

If Hofmann stickied a simple layman's guide or glossary about articulation terminology (which is something, over time, I've come to rely on when looking at a new language) then he could happily continue referring to it, while referring the layman to his link. But look at the wikipedia link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulatory_phonetics -- in the past if I'd have clicked there for a quick intro to the topic I'd have run away immediately

[renzhe]

I don't think that r -> y only applies to Cantonese speakers, I've heard it in Shanghai, for example.