 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
incorrect sound sample
editI wonder, why we have the same sound sample for several sounds. File:Con-00b.wav gives the following list:
--Imz 23:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
incorrect image
editimage is of regular n --Iopq 16:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Spanish?
editI'm Spanish and the word nada would be [ˈnaða], "n" is dental before a dental consonant, for example contra [ˈkon̪ˈt̪ɾa]. However, I think it is pronounced [ˈn̪aða] in some dialects of South America. --Daniel bg 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the example. We should find a source that describes the South American Spanish before we include it here. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Russian sound file
editThe sound file for ханжой doesn't seem to be working. Is it just me or should I remove the link? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Arabic
editI don't think that the dental nasal exists or at least it can't be considered the standard. If only specialized Koran reciters pronounce that way, would that qualify it to be the standard! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a source that explicitly defines it as either alveolar or dental. Do you have anything that says it's alveolar? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 01:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Dental nasal - 116 408
editI believe Dental nasal = n̪, is wrong. HTML2011 (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why? — kwami (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Three tables?
editI'm not a fan of splitting up the information into three separate tables, as Kwami has done here. I'm not sure why denti-alveolar and "true" dental are important distinctions, why we can't call a denti-alveolar sound "dental" or why we can't simply present the relevant information in the "notes" column. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe this is a good time to talk about the best way to present the nasals and laterals. What's the ideal article breakdown? etc. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Most "dental" consonants are technically alveolar. Since we have a separate alveolar nasal article, most of the examples here arguably belong over there. For clarity, I think it's important to distinguish "dental" = dental from "dental" = alveolar. Yes, we *could* do that in the notes section of the table, but in most cases we haven't. Most of these remain ambiguous even in the parent phonology article, though some, such as Russian, would be easy to document if s.o. made the effort. We've also made claims about Hindi etc. having true dentals, which AFAICT are false.
So I think splitting the table has three benefits: It lays things out much more clearly for the reader, and it encourages us editors to (a) do the research we've been slacking off on to clear out that 'unclear' section (which could be moved to the talk page if you find it unsightly in the article), and (b) not add additional examples unless we have good sources for them.
We could reduce further by making a comment about Malayalam being variable, rather than having a special table for it.
And yes, I think we should have a dental lateral article if we have this one, or else merge both back into alveolar. — kwami (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- What is it laying out clearly, though? The distinction between dental, dental-alveolar etc, are minor phonetic differences that the reader is unlikely to appreciate enough to warrant separate tables. The "unclear" table is the worst for readers; it's separated out in an ugly way to prompt editors to do the research to fix remove them. That's not very good for the reader's experience.
- There's a gradient between interdental and palatal articulations laterals and nasals. I think we should be consistent at how we divide them up into articles. Personally, I think having just two articles apiece (dental/alveolar and palatal/postalveolar) would be sufficient. Splitting up the articles as we have spreads the information to multiple articles that could easily be consolidated into one article, even with separate tables or whatever. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your French will sound absolutely horrible if you try to use dental consonants—even the vowels will get screwed up, so it's not a minor difference.
- Dental/alveolar might be a good merge. Postalveolars have separate IPA letters, though. But alveolo-palatal/palatal might be a good merge. In either case, I'd want to keep them differentiated on the page, just with the info consolidated in one article.
- I'll move the 'unclear' table here. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Pronouncing English /t/ with incorrect aspiration is also horrible-sounding, but that's not the measure for whether we should have separate tables/articles.
- I used "postalveolar" as a catchall for alveolo-palatal and palato-alveolar. Are there really separate letters for postalveolar nasals and laterals? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- They're covered by retroflex, which is just apical postalveolar. — kwami (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unclear
| Language | Word | IPA | Meaning | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armenian | Eastern[1] | նուռ | 'pomegranate' | ||
| Dinka[2] | [[[Dinka alphabet|nhiar]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) | [n̪iar] | 'love' | Contrasts with alveolar /n/ | |
| Polish[3] | [[[Polish orthography|noga]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) | 'leg' | See Polish phonology | ||
| Russian[4] | ханжой | 'hypocrite' (instr.) | Contrasts with palatalized alveolar nasal. See Russian phonology | ||
| Swedish[5] | [[[Swedish alphabet|nod]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) | 'node' | See Swedish phonology | ||
| Tsez | лъоIно | [ˈɬo̞ˤn̪o̞] | 'three' | ||
| Ukrainian | небо | [ˈn̪ɛ.bɔ] | 'sky' | See Ukrainian phonology | |
| Vietnamese[6] | [[[Vietnamese alphabet|não]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) | [n̪aːw˧ˀ˥] | 'brain' | See Vietnamese phonology | |
- ^ Dum-Tragut (2009:19)
- ^ Remijsen & Manyong (2009:115, 121)
- ^ Jassem (2003:103)
- ^ Jones & Ward (1969:168)
- ^ Engstrand (1999:141)
- ^ Thompson (1959:458–461)