Template talk:Consonants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Damned good idea to use a compact IPA-table as a template. Keep improving it!

Peter Isotalo 12:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Needs a link to palatal ejective, though. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he'd put it in, then took it out at my suggestion. It made the template cluttered, and there are several other rare consonants that aren't linked from the template, so it won't be complete regardless. kwami 00:57, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Alveolo-palatal fricatives

Um, as far as I know, the alveolo-palatal fricatives ɕ, ʑ are not coarticulated. They have just one place of articulation, slightly behind the alveolar ridge, but farther forward than the postalveolar consonants. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not doubly articulated, and according to Ladefoged they're postalveolar. According to him, he difference between alveolo-palatals, palato-alveolars, and retroflex consonants (of the Polish/Mandarin variety) is in their degree of palatalization.
They are sometimes described as further back than the postalveolars, and indeed that used to be their position in the official IPA chart, but I've never seen them described as further front. kwami 20:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Angr's concern has prompted me to consider merging all of the sections of this template into one table, highlighting which manners of articulation are non-pulmonic and which places are co-articulated.  Denelson83  00:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] de-underlining

The vowel chart template has the vowels de-underlined. Seeing as how the typical wikipedia convention is to not link IPA due to the underline, should we also force a de-underline for this consonant chart? AEuSoes1 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't everybody jump up at once. I got it taken care of. AEuSoes1 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix the over-height row

The trills and co-articulated approximant row is too high and inconsistent with the other rows. I tried to fix it, but could not keep the changes done after the change that messed that row. Any can help? Tache 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is on your end. You'll want to either increase your screen resolution or decrease the text size in your browser. --  Denelson83  17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dental stops

I'm assuming there was a reason denelson83 reverted my edits. Is there something wrong with linking to the dental stops or is there something wrong with the dental stop pages being on Wikipedia in the first place? Also, since I did the formatting on the left after I included the dental consonants is it safe to assume that I can reinclude that edit? Otherwise the table looks kind of funny (at least on computers with my resolution). Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Kwami, linking from this template to the dental stop articles is actually redundant. --  Denelson83  22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
huh? The dental stops are different articles. Is it redundant to have separate articles? Because if not then it's not redundant to link to them as well. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dental approximant

I am trying to put a link to dental approximants but having trouble with the coding. Can anyone help? Nlsanand 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it even appropriate to have that page? The dental approximant is noncontrastive with the dental fricative. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The only reason I knew the difference was because of the explanation of the dental approximant being present in Spanish. So I am assuming it is contrastive, but again I am not a linguist. Nlsanand 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's an allophone in Spanish, so it's not contrastive. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand in Spanish it's an allophone of the voiced dental plosive. However, most linguists seem to distinguish it from voiced dental fricative, ie it still contrasts with the fricative even if it is not an independant phoneme in any language. Nlsanand 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and linguists also distinguish an apical /s/ from a laminal one, it doesn't mean it each needs a whole page to itself. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean though they are contrastive, and therefore should be included, as opposed to not? Nlsanand 00:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Contrastiveness is in regards to language inventories, not in regards to linguistic discussions. We should probably move this discussion to Talk:Voiced dental fricative Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Dental approximant. Nlsanand 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Stop" vs "Plosive"

My understanding is that "stop" is a more inclusive term than "plosive", as some languages' stops have very little "plosiveness". Is there a reason "plosive" is preferred for this chart? --Krubo 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "Stop" is too inclusive: It also includes nasal consonants since the airflow in the mouth is completely blocked (or stopped) and instead goes through the nose. As far as /t/, /q/, /p/, etc, both terms apply equally well for all languages and the more "plosiveness" you refer to may be aspiration (as in English). Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Template_talk%7EConsonants_f379.html"