![]() | Irish phonology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chart has /sˠ/ and /ʃ/. One of the diagrams has /sˠ/ and /ɕ/. Since /ɕ/ = /ʃʲ/ (the IPA symbol is palatalized postalveolar), should the chart read /sˠ/ vs. /ʃʲ/ instead? kwami ( talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article should make clear in the 1st sentence that it's talking about Irish Gaelic, not Irish English, rather than leaving it to a picture & the 4th paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 ( talk) 10:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ok wtf these guyz are wierd seriously who has paragraph long discussions in articles like wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.46.252 ( talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentences are rather jarring. Variation of pronunciation according to recognized dialects is a given for all the languages I know. But saying there is no standard needs clarified because the article seems to be talking mostly about three standards or at least 'prestige' dialects of Irish Gaelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.220 ( talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why [ɲ] instead of [ŋʲ]? I'd say that [ɲ] is the symbol for Spanish "ñ" or Italian "gn", a palatal nasal. But slender Irish "ng" is a different sound, a palatalized velar nasal. -- 85.199.89.152 ( talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Impressive work! Krym66 ( talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the article needs considerable improvement. For example, looking at the chart of consonants, it's obvious that many come in pairs based on some sort of hard palate vs. soft palate/velum distinction, but it could benefit from an explanation about secondary articulation vs. primary (since quite a few consonant sounds are primarily in these parts of the mouth). Also, how about an explanation of this distinction as it is reflected in the grammar?
It also seems like a language that could benefit from a syllable-based account, since the vowels are affected too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.220 ( talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Phonology is part of a language's grammar--see Chomsky. The relationship of phonology with language structure at other levels is IRRELEVANT or out of the scope of the article? I don't think so. I don't think mentioning how it affects the pronunciation beyond a single segment requires original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.98.58 ( talk) 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is a good case in point about what is wrong with Wikipedia. It has far too much information--much of it debatable (for example, why structarlist phonemics is such an important part of the phonological analysis -- to be understood by the non-specialist). And yet it has jarring idiosyncracies to it, showing a lack of actual editorial unity across related topics work (inconsistencies or ommissions or lack of links to related treatment in topics like Irish language, Gaelic, Celtic, Goidelic branch of Celtic languages, Irish as a Second language, etc) to work. I really doubt that in areas like linguistics if Wikipedia will ever get its act together.
Rather than gloating on what a good article this is (in terms of linguistics, it is so-so, in terms of knowledge of Irish/Irish Gaelic it is good because there are very few phonologists with a speaker's knowledge of the language), it ought to be cut down and incorporated as a section into Irish language and could also be used to enlighten entries on such topics as Celtic languages, Goidelic branch, etc.).
Wiki project has lost its way. This article is a good example. If Wikipedia would put together a more consistently edited and limited encyclopedia, then articles like this might have a place in a more comprehensive data base of human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.98.37 ( talk) 04:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the diphthongs rising or falling? That is, should the < ̯> be placed under the first or second component? kwami ( talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"Many of the phonological processes found in Irish are found also in its nearest relatives, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. For example, both languages contrast "broad" and "slender" consonants, but only at the coronal and dorsal places of articulation; both Scottish Gaelic and Manx have lost the distinction in labial consonants." This is contradicted in the Scottish Gaelic article, which lists slender versions of b, bh, p, and ph. I assume one of the articles is wrong, though I am not knowledgeable enough to tell which one. Lesgles ( talk) 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Palatalized consonants normally are not considered part of the phonetic inventory of the Bulgarian language. — Klimenok ( talk) 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I had changed all references of [i̯] to [j] because the International Phonetic Alphabet defines them as absolutely canonical. But they were reverted because this article uses [j] for slender dh/gh, which has more friction. That's what we call a fricative consonant, and I recommend the latter be changed to [ʝ] which is the dedicated canonical symbol for the voiced palatal fricative. [i̯] should be changed to [j], as it actually is. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I see... - Gilgamesh ( talk) 04:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not speak Irish and the distinction broad-slender is not very clear for me. What do you think about adding some audio samples? Xpicto ( talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Can someone explain what is meant by ”constant” in this picture to the right (and its brother)? What’s the difference here between ”constant” and ”consonant”? To me ”two-consonant cluster” would make as much sense, but I haven’t encountered ”constant” in this context. Thanks for explaining! -- Lundgren8 ( t · c) 12:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the word "normalized" be used in place of "standardized". Speling12345 ( talk) 7:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says they are realised universally as taps, but I’ve heard (I think predominantly) approximants. Siúnrá ( talk) 13:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
For me, IPA [c] is rather a t-like sound, e.g. Hungarian orthography ty (the same for [ɟ] which is rather a d-like sound though written gy in Hungarian). There are only a few cases of mixing between slender /k´/ and /t´/ in Irish (e.g. té/cé as a wh-word in Connacht). But probably never ceist and teist would be confused. For me, /k´/ is clearly recognizable as a k-sound and /g´/ is clearly a g-sound and both are clearly differentiable from broad /k/ and /g/. Perhaps they aren’t really palatal plosives but rather palatovelar ones. So, I’d describe them in IPA rather as [kʲ] and [gʲ]. -- 212.37.172.221 ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish phonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In many places in different wikipedia language versions, the Irish "broad" [s] is marked with the velarization diacritic: [sˠ]. But is it for sure that, phonetically, a voicless alveolar fricative *can* be velarized? I find this very difficult if I try to articulate it. Is there really anything that goes beyond simple coarticulation in [sa] combinations? Given that the "slender" s is [ʃ] anyway, the velarization mark strikes me as unnecessary, even if it were phonetically possible. What do the sources say? -- Alazon ( talk) 13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is "mh" used to represent a "v" sound? It doesn't seem to make any sense. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 02:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Why is slender R being represented by its less common allophone of a palatalized tap, where as the rest of the phonemes are represented with their primary allophones, e.g. broad L for example? 51.37.142.198 ( talk) 07:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean it patterns with broad R? Slender R is far less commonly realised as a tap than as a fricative. Why isn't the same logic applied to broad L? 109.78.131.219 ( talk) 15:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to ask this. Why is broad L shown with its primary allophone but slender R is not? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.76.11.47 (
talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
"The slender tap /ɾʲ/ has a palatalised palato-alveolar fricative [ɹ̝ʲ].[24] as its primary allophone."
Umm, so if it's primarily a fricative, in what sense is it a 'tap' then? And is it ever, you know, actually a tap? If so, when?-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 04:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking at this article as it is one of the oldest unreviewed FAs. Issues I am seeing is that the article partially uses the inline parenthetical referencing, which was deprecated by a 2020 RfC, and not all the article meets the FA requirement for an inline citation at the end of each paragraph. One aspect that is not covered here is the changes in phonology in recent years based on language attrition and bilingualism, [1] as well as phonology of second language speakers. ( t · c) buidhe 04:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There are two conflicting policies regarding which spelling (GB or US) should be used here. The article has used US spelling since 2004 and was promoted to Featured Article in 2007 with no one objecting to that, or even raising the issue at all. So MOS:RETAIN suggests we should retain US spelling. On the other hand, MOS:TIES suggests that the strong national ties to Ireland mean the article should use GB spelling (since Irish English follows GB spelling). I'm the primary author of this article ( 84% of the text was written by me), but of course I don't own it. If someone wants to go through the article and change all the US spellings to GB spellings on the basis of MOS:TIES, I won't revert, but don't make it inconsistent by changing two instances of the word behavior while leaving all the other US spellings in place. — Mahāgaja · talk 10:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Irish phonology is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 13, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The chart has /sˠ/ and /ʃ/. One of the diagrams has /sˠ/ and /ɕ/. Since /ɕ/ = /ʃʲ/ (the IPA symbol is palatalized postalveolar), should the chart read /sˠ/ vs. /ʃʲ/ instead? kwami ( talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The article should make clear in the 1st sentence that it's talking about Irish Gaelic, not Irish English, rather than leaving it to a picture & the 4th paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 ( talk) 10:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
ok wtf these guyz are wierd seriously who has paragraph long discussions in articles like wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.46.252 ( talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The opening sentences are rather jarring. Variation of pronunciation according to recognized dialects is a given for all the languages I know. But saying there is no standard needs clarified because the article seems to be talking mostly about three standards or at least 'prestige' dialects of Irish Gaelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.220 ( talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why [ɲ] instead of [ŋʲ]? I'd say that [ɲ] is the symbol for Spanish "ñ" or Italian "gn", a palatal nasal. But slender Irish "ng" is a different sound, a palatalized velar nasal. -- 85.199.89.152 ( talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Impressive work! Krym66 ( talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the article needs considerable improvement. For example, looking at the chart of consonants, it's obvious that many come in pairs based on some sort of hard palate vs. soft palate/velum distinction, but it could benefit from an explanation about secondary articulation vs. primary (since quite a few consonant sounds are primarily in these parts of the mouth). Also, how about an explanation of this distinction as it is reflected in the grammar?
It also seems like a language that could benefit from a syllable-based account, since the vowels are affected too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.101.220 ( talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Phonology is part of a language's grammar--see Chomsky. The relationship of phonology with language structure at other levels is IRRELEVANT or out of the scope of the article? I don't think so. I don't think mentioning how it affects the pronunciation beyond a single segment requires original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.98.58 ( talk) 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is a good case in point about what is wrong with Wikipedia. It has far too much information--much of it debatable (for example, why structarlist phonemics is such an important part of the phonological analysis -- to be understood by the non-specialist). And yet it has jarring idiosyncracies to it, showing a lack of actual editorial unity across related topics work (inconsistencies or ommissions or lack of links to related treatment in topics like Irish language, Gaelic, Celtic, Goidelic branch of Celtic languages, Irish as a Second language, etc) to work. I really doubt that in areas like linguistics if Wikipedia will ever get its act together.
Rather than gloating on what a good article this is (in terms of linguistics, it is so-so, in terms of knowledge of Irish/Irish Gaelic it is good because there are very few phonologists with a speaker's knowledge of the language), it ought to be cut down and incorporated as a section into Irish language and could also be used to enlighten entries on such topics as Celtic languages, Goidelic branch, etc.).
Wiki project has lost its way. This article is a good example. If Wikipedia would put together a more consistently edited and limited encyclopedia, then articles like this might have a place in a more comprehensive data base of human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.98.37 ( talk) 04:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the diphthongs rising or falling? That is, should the < ̯> be placed under the first or second component? kwami ( talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"Many of the phonological processes found in Irish are found also in its nearest relatives, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. For example, both languages contrast "broad" and "slender" consonants, but only at the coronal and dorsal places of articulation; both Scottish Gaelic and Manx have lost the distinction in labial consonants." This is contradicted in the Scottish Gaelic article, which lists slender versions of b, bh, p, and ph. I assume one of the articles is wrong, though I am not knowledgeable enough to tell which one. Lesgles ( talk) 01:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Palatalized consonants normally are not considered part of the phonetic inventory of the Bulgarian language. — Klimenok ( talk) 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I had changed all references of [i̯] to [j] because the International Phonetic Alphabet defines them as absolutely canonical. But they were reverted because this article uses [j] for slender dh/gh, which has more friction. That's what we call a fricative consonant, and I recommend the latter be changed to [ʝ] which is the dedicated canonical symbol for the voiced palatal fricative. [i̯] should be changed to [j], as it actually is. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I see... - Gilgamesh ( talk) 04:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not speak Irish and the distinction broad-slender is not very clear for me. What do you think about adding some audio samples? Xpicto ( talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Can someone explain what is meant by ”constant” in this picture to the right (and its brother)? What’s the difference here between ”constant” and ”consonant”? To me ”two-consonant cluster” would make as much sense, but I haven’t encountered ”constant” in this context. Thanks for explaining! -- Lundgren8 ( t · c) 12:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest the word "normalized" be used in place of "standardized". Speling12345 ( talk) 7:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The article says they are realised universally as taps, but I’ve heard (I think predominantly) approximants. Siúnrá ( talk) 13:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
For me, IPA [c] is rather a t-like sound, e.g. Hungarian orthography ty (the same for [ɟ] which is rather a d-like sound though written gy in Hungarian). There are only a few cases of mixing between slender /k´/ and /t´/ in Irish (e.g. té/cé as a wh-word in Connacht). But probably never ceist and teist would be confused. For me, /k´/ is clearly recognizable as a k-sound and /g´/ is clearly a g-sound and both are clearly differentiable from broad /k/ and /g/. Perhaps they aren’t really palatal plosives but rather palatovelar ones. So, I’d describe them in IPA rather as [kʲ] and [gʲ]. -- 212.37.172.221 ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish phonology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
In many places in different wikipedia language versions, the Irish "broad" [s] is marked with the velarization diacritic: [sˠ]. But is it for sure that, phonetically, a voicless alveolar fricative *can* be velarized? I find this very difficult if I try to articulate it. Is there really anything that goes beyond simple coarticulation in [sa] combinations? Given that the "slender" s is [ʃ] anyway, the velarization mark strikes me as unnecessary, even if it were phonetically possible. What do the sources say? -- Alazon ( talk) 13:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is "mh" used to represent a "v" sound? It doesn't seem to make any sense. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 02:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Why is slender R being represented by its less common allophone of a palatalized tap, where as the rest of the phonemes are represented with their primary allophones, e.g. broad L for example? 51.37.142.198 ( talk) 07:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean it patterns with broad R? Slender R is far less commonly realised as a tap than as a fricative. Why isn't the same logic applied to broad L? 109.78.131.219 ( talk) 15:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd also like to ask this. Why is broad L shown with its primary allophone but slender R is not? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.76.11.47 (
talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
"The slender tap /ɾʲ/ has a palatalised palato-alveolar fricative [ɹ̝ʲ].[24] as its primary allophone."
Umm, so if it's primarily a fricative, in what sense is it a 'tap' then? And is it ever, you know, actually a tap? If so, when?-- 82.137.115.143 ( talk) 04:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking at this article as it is one of the oldest unreviewed FAs. Issues I am seeing is that the article partially uses the inline parenthetical referencing, which was deprecated by a 2020 RfC, and not all the article meets the FA requirement for an inline citation at the end of each paragraph. One aspect that is not covered here is the changes in phonology in recent years based on language attrition and bilingualism, [1] as well as phonology of second language speakers. ( t · c) buidhe 04:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There are two conflicting policies regarding which spelling (GB or US) should be used here. The article has used US spelling since 2004 and was promoted to Featured Article in 2007 with no one objecting to that, or even raising the issue at all. So MOS:RETAIN suggests we should retain US spelling. On the other hand, MOS:TIES suggests that the strong national ties to Ireland mean the article should use GB spelling (since Irish English follows GB spelling). I'm the primary author of this article ( 84% of the text was written by me), but of course I don't own it. If someone wants to go through the article and change all the US spellings to GB spellings on the basis of MOS:TIES, I won't revert, but don't make it inconsistent by changing two instances of the word behavior while leaving all the other US spellings in place. — Mahāgaja · talk 10:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)