Talk:Voiceless bilabial plosive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I am trying something here by adding language examples to the articles on various phonemes. Not having much background in linguistics, the existing descriptions are not very informative to me. Please add other language examples if you can, as it may be helpful to other readers. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 11:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] disputed

see Talk:Aspiration (phonetics) lysdexia 12:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Separate aspirated/unaspirated examples

As the article says, in some languages such as Hindi /p/ and /pʰ/ are distinctive sounds that can change the meaning of a word. I added separate Hindi examples [pɑl] and [pʰɑl] (taken from the IPA handbook) to illustrate this. [pʰɑl] was removed on the grounds that there should be only "one example per language". If this is the rule then it seems that we should have separate articles unaspirated voiceless bilabial plosive and aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive: otherwise how are we to illustrate this distinction? Also, is there a page anywhere where these "rules" are set out? Cheers. Grover cleveland 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't explain it enough. The format guidelines are here. I'm currently the only person converting the pages to fit the guidelines right now (which is why there isn't a table here yet). These pages generally correspond to IPA symbols. Having pages for the aspirated forms would be much too cumbersome. However, once I get around to converting this page to a table, we can certainly put in the notes column that Hindi contrasts plain and aspirated forms. Were we to not do that, however, the distinction can be illustrated in the article's prose. In fact, I recommend doing it by prose. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better if one creates a table of "occurrence of varieties"? It would be much clear to the users that way. Separate pages would be too many, but putting them inside prose might in turn make the prose longer than necessary. Keith Galveston (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm against that. Going away from the "one example per language" rule will get things cluttered and/or confusing. If you'd like to, though, you can propose it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics. If it's decided that that's a good thing, then it wouldn't just be for this article but all consonant articles. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)